Nikon TC with 70-200 2.8VRii

rookies

rookies

Suspended / Banned
Messages
8,064
Name
Andrew
Edit My Images
No
Hi everyone

Which Nikon TC perform good with the Nikon 70-200 2.8 VRii pls.. I was thinking the 1.7 be ideal for me..

Also can someone shed any light how to calculate it correctly for Crop.

Would I do 70 x 1.5 then x 1.7

Or

70 x 3.2

Cheers
 
Yes to first method to give you the FOV over FF.....So d500 is crop and so 200mm x 1.5 x 1.7 = 510mm FOV compared to FF.... I would try one out first as the AF could take a hit and IQ and I would compare to a 1.4 also.

Or 70mm x 1.5 x 1.7 = 178.5mm

..
rookies said:
Hi everyone

Which Nikon TC perform good with the Nikon 70-200 2.8 VRii pls.. I was thinking the 1.7 be ideal for me..

Also can someone shed any light how to calculate it correctly for Crop.

Would I do 70 x 1.5 then x 1.7

Or

70 x 3.2

Cheers
Click to expand...
.
 
Last edited:
Well that the end of that idea then LOL
 
sk66 said:
The 1.7 is more like a 1.6x and I don't find it any better than the 2x (III).

Here is an example of the 70-200 w/ 2x almost wide open at f/6.3... I meant for it to be at f/5.6 but I must have bumped the dial.


Demo Shot by Steven Kersting, on Flickr
Click to expand...

Nowt wrong with that really.. As expected we do expect the quality to drop a bit from the native lens
 
A friend has the VR II version of the lens and has some stunning images with the 2.0x Version III
 
rookies said:
Nowt wrong with that either to be honest.. I was hoping for the 1.7 to get a bit more benefit as 1.4 isn't really much in the extra?
Click to expand...

I use the 1.7 on my 500mm f4 regularly, I see no reason why it shouldn't work for you on the 70-200 f2.8 :)
 
I shot this with VR 1 lens and 2x MK 2 converter and I'm more than pleased with it.
Sea Eagle 2 by Philip Higgins, on Flickr
 
Andy I've just had a quick look through some old shots of mine with the 70-200mm VRII and 2xTC III and they're not as bad as I recall. I'm on the phone at the mo so can't link them but I'll do it tomorrow when on the computer.
 
snerkler said:
Andy I've just had a quick look through some old shots of mine with the 70-200mm VRII and 2xTC III and they're not as bad as I recall. I'm on the phone at the mo so can't link them but I'll do it tomorrow when on the computer.
Click to expand...

Cheers mate
 
Here's my take on TC's...
Yes, they reduce IQ somewhat, but it is mostly recoverable by stopping down. I *think* what most encounter as a major loss of IQ is due to not adjusting technique/settings to account for the fact that the FL just got X times longer... at long FL's even 1/FL SS can be pushing things. The result is you get a larger image (portion) w/ slightly lower IQ. But for any given display size it requires less enlargement (image degradation) or it get's more reduction (sharpening). The net result is very similar images when displayed. Depending on the camera (resolution/ISO/etc) and the display size (enlargement/reduction) one may prove somewhat better than the other. But the main differences are really only apparent when "pixel peeping," which is pretty irrelevant.

They will not resolve more fine detail, and neither will a longer FL w/o TC really... Nothing matters as much as getting closer when it comes to recording fine detail.
 
Ok would I be better getting a len such as a 150-600 rather than using TC? But was hoping a TC be the answer
 
What I mean if I took a image with this 70-200 at 400 and took a image at 400 on the 150-600 would the IQ be about same?
 
I have the 70-200 VRII & all 3 (1.4III, 1.7II, 2.0III) tele's.
The 1.4 - excellent all round - dont need to stop down beyond the obvious (280 @ f4)
The 1.7 - I need to sell it as I dislike it enormously... (340 @ f5)
The 2.0 - its ok in good light - BUT only OK...... Its one of those that I would use if I absoutely had to but in general I'd switch to another lens before bolting this on (you lose 2 stops - 400 @ f5.6)
 
Diving Pete said:
I have the 70-200 VRII & all 3 (1.4III, 1.7II, 2.0III) tele's.
The 1.4 - excellent all round - dont need to stop down beyond the obvious (280 @ f4)
The 1.7 - I need to sell it as I dislike it enormously... (340 @ f5)
The 2.0 - its ok in good light - BUT only OK...... Its one of those that I would use if I absoutely had to but in general I'd switch to another lens before bolting this on (you lose 2 stops - 400 @ f5.6)
Click to expand...
What is it you dislike about the 1.7x so much?
 
So out of all those you really suggest the 1.4.. I would only be using the TC out door at zoo and the like..
 
Like I said, it's not easy...

At 400mm the 70-200 will be at f/5.6 and the 150-600 will probably be at f/6.3 (1/3 stop slower) and neither will be at maximum sharpness. The 70-200 gives you a little more light or the ability to stop down a hair more from wide open. Stopped down to ~ f/8 they will be much closer to each other in both light and sharpness. But I think mid zoom is where the 150-600 will be performing it's best and I think it will have somewhat better IQ (I don't own one to say definitively). However, it's going to be larger/heavier and harder to operate optimally, especially hand held (a significant factor in the end results). And it's going to cost you a good bit of money.

Edit:
Generally, an appropriate zoom will give better results than a shorter zoom w/ a TC (equiv FL and good technique). But comparing an appropriate zoom to a shorter prime w/ TC's is much tougher.
 
Last edited:
snerkler said:
What is it you dislike about the 1.7x so much?
Click to expand...
For me it's just "so-so." It's actually more of a 1.6x (i.e. 320/5), not much gain over the 1.4 and it costs another 1/2 stop of light. IQ wise I find the 2xIII just as good at the same settings (after AFMA).
 
sk66 said:
Like I said, it's not easy...

At 400mm the 70-200 will be at f/5.6 and the 150-600 will probably be at f/6.3 (1/3 stop slower) and neither will be at maximum sharpness. The 70-200 gives you a little more light or the ability to stop down a hair more from wide open. Stopped down to ~ f/8 they will be much closer to each other in both light and sharpness. But I think mid zoom is where the 150-600 will be performing it's best and I think it will have somewhat better IQ (I don't own one to say definitively). However, it's going to be larger/heavier and harder to operate optimally, especially hand held (a significant factor in the end results). And it's going to cost you a good bit of money.

Edit:
Generally, an appropriate zoom will give better results than a shorter zoom w/ a TC (equiv FL and good technique). But comparing an appropriate zoom to a shorter prime w/ TC's is much tougher.
Click to expand...
I think you're right in that the Sigma stops down early and at 400mm is already f6.3, however the Tamron is still only f5.6 at 400mm.
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/...meraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=5&APIComp=0

Also I agree about handling, although there's only 400g or so between my 70-200mm f2.8 and 150-600mm the difference is noticeably when shooting handheld, especially when panning. I also think it's the weight distribution that makes a difference too as the 150-600mm do extend a lot. I do remember that the 70-200mm felt noticeably more front heavy with the 2x TC on though, but still not as bad as the 150-600mm. In fact I've been considering a TC for the F1 this year for this very reason. I need reach at Silverstone but the 150-600mm isn't a lens I can do slow shutter (1/25-1/50) panning very easily with. I'm not sure 280mm will be enough though (70-200mm with 1.4x TC).
 
rookies said:
So out of all those you really suggest the 1.4.. I would only be using the TC out door at zoo and the like..
Click to expand...
What are you going to be doing with the images? If it's just going to be for sharing (web/smaller prints/etc), then I would suggest that you may be best off just cropping the 70-200 images.
 
snerkler said:
I'm not sure 280mm will be enough though (70-200mm with 1.4x TC).
Click to expand...
If I had to pick one lens in these situations (i.e. I didn't already own a 70-200/2.8) then I would probably choose the 150-600 as long as the 70-150 range wasn't important to me (at a zoo and in the paddocks it could be). In your situation, it's tougher. At 280mm one will be an f/4 and the other will be an f/5.6 and neither will be optimally sharp wide open. I can't definitively say which would handle better, and that's somewhat subjective anyway. While 280mm may still require some cropping for composition, it will also make panning easier due to relative speeds being slower. And a sharper image cropped is usually as good as/better than a less sharp image un-cropped.
 
Last edited:
As I said the 1.4 I'd stick on at the drop of a hat. Has minimal impact & is usable with no downsides. No need to stop down at all. Leave it at f4 & its fine...

The reason I dislike the 1.7 is that I find tyou need to stop it down to f8 to work best & at that point I may as well use the x2 - (which I also find to be better quality) but now its too slow to be useful & we just dont get the light to use it ....

but I'm picky.
 
1.7 tc works great for me on my d500 -d7200
mainly use it with 70-200 2.8 or 200-500 5.6 all nikon gear
just adjust technique as said above
 
I only use a 1.4 teleconverter on primes my such as 300mm 2.8 , 400mm 4, , 500mm 4.5 , i was always under the impression that converters were not a very good idea on zooms ?
 
spudhead said:
I only use a 1.4 teleconverter on primes my such as 300mm 2.8 , 400mm 4, , 500mm 4.5 , i was always under the impression that converters were not a very good idea on zooms ?
Click to expand...
That's because most zooms have variable aperture and most(all?) cameras loose some AF functionality/accuracy above f/5.6. That and the fact that TC's do degrade IQ somewhat and not many zooms have that great of IQ to start with.
 
I've got the 2x TCE-III with this lens. Works well, better than any daft lab tests will tell you
 
Can some one explain then if I fitted TC 2x to a Nikon 105mm f2.4 the focal length would be 210mm, but what happens to the f2.4, does that half to 4.8 or there abouts?
 
I am not too sure if you can fit a TC to the macro lens but am sure someone will correct me..
 
I think you can fit a Kenko to 'almost' any nikon lens however I'm fairly sure that the 105mm is f2.8 & 'if' you can fit a x 2 on it you would lose 2 stops so thats f5.6 @ 210.
 
lightshipman said:
Can some one explain then if I fitted TC 2x to a Nikon 105mm f2.4 the focal length would be 210mm, but what happens to the f2.4, does that half to 4.8 or there abouts?
Click to expand...
It's on Nikons teleconverter compatibility chart so it should fit, it says AF with not work which probably isn't a problem with a macro lens. (Note:all lenses on the list a teleconverter should fit without causing damage, if a lens is on the list it's likely the rear element would come into contact with the teleconverter if it's a Nikon one).

https://www.nikonusa.com/Assets/Common-Assets/Images/Teleconverter-Compatibility/EN_Comp_chart.html

Theoretical the f2.8 should become f5.6 but that macro lens should automatically stop down the aperture the closer you focus. It then may not be f5.6 at 1:1 focus.
 
Last edited:
lightshipman said:
Can some one explain then if I fitted TC 2x to a Nikon 105mm f2.4 the focal length would be 210mm, but what happens to the f2.4, does that half to 4.8 or there abouts?
Click to expand...
It will connect (and if you remove the blocking tab it will connect to most anything). But it's a 105/2.8 and it will become a 210/5.6 in every aspect, to include having 1/2 the DOF at any given distance/aperture.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top