NIKON TELECONVERTER

  • Thread starter Thread starter mervyn
  • Start date Start date
M

mervyn

Guest
I am the proud owner of a Nikon 70-200 f2.8 VR zoom and have been thinking of getting a TC-17E teleconverter. Has anybody any experience of this item with this lens?:help::bonk::bang:
 
The 70-200 is great and I love mine but would only add a 1.7 to it (or any zoom lens) if I really needed the reach in an emergency, and not as a full time long lens solution. If you need over 300mm frequently then get a lens that does it without a TC, the 300/4 for example.

Just my opinion of course :)
 
I am really not convinced about using my 70-200 with the 1.7TC. Never seem happy with the results.
 
I had the two, and was rather happy with the set-up. Not as sharp as without the TC, but still pretty sharp. Going down the 300/f road does seem like a better bet, but not if you want a zoom range to play around with; but I do hear the 300/4 is one cracking lens, too!
 
Wail said:
I do hear the 300/4 is one cracking lens, too!
Click to expand...
I hear that too. Strangely enough though, out of 57 different lenses we have at LensesForHire, the Nikon AF-S 300mm f/4 is the least popular by some margin. I can't understand why. All the many different varieties of Canon telephotos fly off the shelf, but this one just sits there.

But back to the original question: I'd agree with RP. A TC is fine for emergency or occasional use, but if you need 300mm on a regular basis then you'll get better images with a lens that reaches 300mm without a TC.
 
I've got that combo and to be honest I only really have it for two reasons:

1) At the moment I only have a 70-200 and the TC is my "emergency reach"

2) Ultimately it will go onto a 300mm prime (probably f4 but you never know...) to make the really long reach combo I need at certain times of the year.

When you stick a TC onto something it does get worse and there is nothing you can do about that. Its really hardly worth putting it onto a short lens and something I'd consider only for getting that really long stuff that would otherwise be way beyond any amateurs pocket.

As for why people don't like the Nikon 300 f4, I can only assume its a combination of

a) no VR

b) most people imagining that only a zoom is suitable for long subjects

c) anyone who is really serious about primes will want to hire the 2.8 version instead.

I've tried it and to be honest its well worth the purchase price, its equally as good as the Canon 300 F4 I use with my Canon gear (unless someone wants to buy that... hint!) except that it is missing the IS/VR...
 
As for why people don't like the Nikon 300 f4

I don't think because its not widely rented you can infer people don't like it.

Its a fantastic lens, but you either need a 300mm lens or you don't.

Who are "these people" who don't like it?
 
Who said anything about people not liking the Nikon 300 f/4? I didn't. I said it didn't hire out very often. That's not the same thing at all, as PD correctly noted.
 
Richard Peters said:
I'm genuinely surprised about that. I thought your expectations for optical quality was higher given the amount of lenses you have gone through.
Click to expand...

Bit baffled by this - the OP asked about the 1.7x and I said I preferred the 1.4x,

I must have missed something, but I'm really not sure what?!
 
puddleduck said:
Bit baffled by this - the OP asked about the 1.7x and I said I preferred the 1.4x,

I must have missed something, but I'm really not sure what?!
Click to expand...
Oh for...ok...let me rephrase. I know you said you prefer the 1.4, but I'm surprised you don't have something more to say about the 1.7. 'It works fine' sounds like you think it's acceptable - and that I am surprised by as you usually have quite an in depth opinion on optical quality of lenses. I'm not having a go, just saying!!
 
Well if you want an in-depth opinion, the quality of the 1.7x really depends on the lens.

The only lens I've found with excellent performance is the Nikkor 300mm f/2.8 VR with this combo.

I find it "acceptable" on the 70-200 VR and 300mm f/4 AF-S for web sized shots. A lot of people are happy with 800x533 so its probably OK for them.

This is the 70-200 VR with a 1.7x TC:



297510388_447f4a1abb_o.jpg


At 100% I find it "ok"

278460088_06bdc004d9_o.jpg


On the 300mm f/4 AF-S its quite good, but you are losing quality compared to the 1.4x.

278451890_3529672752_o.jpg


On the 300mm f/2.8 VR, the 1.7x its still critically sharp

​




I don't find it that great when viewed at 100% on the 70-200 VR. I think actually the 70-300 VR at 300mm is pretty close to a 70-200 VR with a 1.7x TC.

As I said..."its fine"..but nothing more unless you only post to Flickr.
 
Actually, I'd not be surprised at your comment about it being as good (or not good depending on your view :D) as the 70-300 at the long end.

Sure its half a stop wider, but f stops aren't everything when you are talking TC's... its all about IQ and that falls through the floor relatively speaking.
 
Actually, I'd not be surprised at your comment about it being as good (or not good depending on your view ) as the 70-300 at the long end.

With a 1.4x TC, the 70-200 VR is better than the 70-300 VR when both are @ f/5.6 280mm. Actually the 70-200 VR is always sharper, apart from 280mm f/4 when the 70-300 VR @ f/5.6 @280mm is a *tiny* bit better.

With a 1.7x TC on a 70-200 VR, you are 2/3rd of a stop slower than the 70-300 VR and only 40mm longer with quality loss on top.

Given the TC costs £200 and the 70-300 VR is about £300, I'd think long and hard about buying a 1.7x TC unlesss it was for a 300mm f/2.8 AF-S, which I'd recommend without reservation for a superb 510mm.
 
Surely 70-200 + 1.4x is f4 (at whatever focal length)??

As for 70-300 vs buying a TC.... the 70-300 VR is actually a pretty damned good bit of kit (ok, not "pro" but certainly not trash), but kinda pointless if you have the 70-200 VR. Unless you wanted something lighter for walkabout...

I'd say look at the 300 f4 still instead, its a cracker and primes aren't that tricky to get your head around, certainly not long primes anyway...
 
puddleduck said:
Well if you want an in-depth opinion, the quality of the 1.7x really depends on the lens..
Click to expand...
I don't, but the OP might...'It's fine' makes it sound quite acceptable but...
puddleduck said:
I don't find it that great when viewed at 100% on the 70-200 VR. I think actually the 70-300 VR at 300mm is pretty close to a 70-200 VR with a 1.7x TC.

As I said..."its fine"..but nothing more unless you only post to Flickr.
Click to expand...
and
puddleduck said:
Given the TC costs £200 and the 70-300 VR is about £300, I'd think long and hard about buying a 1.7x TC unlesss it was for a 300mm f/2.8 AF-S, which I'd recommend without reservation for a superb 510mm. .
Click to expand...

...are very different replies, the latter two being way more useful.

I've got a couple of shots that are 'barely' acceptable with the 2x on this lens at web size so your right that it will be fine for the OP.

:)
 
Richard Peters said:
I don't, but the OP might...'It's fine' makes it sound quite acceptable but...
Click to expand...

Well whats acceptable for me, may not be for someone else, and vice versa.

"Acceptable" is pretty subjective.

Personally I'm quite picky, but given the strange popularity of the Nikkor 18-200 VR I've come to the conclusion that a lot of people arn't :lol:
 
Half the time though PD is that people don't know what they are missing... I mean looking at people's photos on here or on flickr doesn't really show you much and written opinions aren't worth much either because unless you know someone well you will never truly trust their view.

Ideally you need to hang out and shoot with people who have the nice kit and maybe try it for yourself to make a decision, or hire it or both! Luckily I've been in the situation where that has been possible...
 
Half the time though PD is that people don't know what they are missing...

Well ideally folks need to strike a balance.. sometimes its actually GOOD to not really experience top glass... because its heavy,and expensive... and a lot of people don't NEED it at all.

My comments need to be seen in context.. the 70-200 VR is great, but its much better a s70-200. When you put a TC on a zoom lens, you compromise it optically. I'd be looking at getting a longer lens, and knocking the TC out of the equation, especially the 1.7x which puts the 70-200 VR into no-mans land optically.

At 300mm the best bang for buck is the 300mm f/4 AF-S. The 1.4x TC works very well on the 70-200 VR, but even so, at 280mm vs 300mm the prime shows the zoom an embarrassingly clean pair of heels.
 
puddleduck said:
At 300mm the best bang for buck is the 300mm f/4 AF-S. The 1.4x TC works very well on the 70-200 VR, but even so, at 280mm vs 300mm the prime shows the zoom an embarrassingly clean pair of heels.
Click to expand...

Do you know how the 300mm F4 prime performs with the 1.4TC?
I've just bought a cheap 400mm lens and it's not good enough, so given my budget the 300mmF4 and a TC would be a stretch, but how good is it. I had a 70-300VR and at the long end it wsn't too bad, but I need more reach.

Guess I'll need to pester Stewart for a hire :(

Kev
 
Do you know how the 300mm F4 prime performs with the 1.4TC?

Yes, its excellent. Its very sharp @ 420mm f/5.6 (wide open), stop down 1/3rd of a stop to f/6.3 with the TC on board, and you'll be grinning for ear to ear.

If I get round to it, I could probably show some crops from 1.4x, 1.7x and 2.0x TC on the 70-200 VR, 300mm f/4 AF-S and the 300mm f/2.8 VR...
 
puddleduck said:
Do you know how the 300mm F4 prime performs with the 1.4TC?

Yes, its excellent. Its very sharp @ 420mm f/5.6 (wide open), stop down 1/3rd of a stop to f/6.3 with the TC on board, and you'll be grinning for ear to ear.

If I get round to it, I could probably show some crops from 1.4x, 1.7x and 2.0x TC on the 70-200 VR, 300mm f/4 AF-S and the 300mm f/2.8 VR...
Click to expand...

The 300 F2.8VR is way out of reach of my pocket, I guess I might stretch to the 300F2.8 AF but then I would need to save for the TC. :thinking:
If you can post a shot taken with the F4 and TC I'd appreciate it.

Kev
 
Kev said:
The 300 F2.8VR is way out of reach of my pocket, I guess I might stretch to the 300F2.8 AF but then I would need to save for the TC. :thinking:
If you can post a shot taken with the F4 and TC I'd appreciate it.

Kev
Click to expand...

Have a look here:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/andydrake/sets/72157594499985394/

I always keep EXIF intact so pretty much anything @ 420mm will be with that combo.

Here is one wide open:


278459794_69db3790df_o.jpg


​

Stopped down 1/3rd of a tick:


278462609_b32750beae_o.jpg

​
 
Thanks a lot PD, that combo is definitely sharp enough :thumbs:

Kev
 
puddleduck said:
Yeah, the 1.4x is excellent.

This is how the 1.7x looks on the 300mm f/4 (handheld)

100%:

http://www.odysseus-software.co.uk/D60/300mm-17tc.jpg

(its from the same series as the wolf shot posted earlier)
Click to expand...

1/125s handheld :eek: blood and sand that's impressive. I'm absolutely confident that I can't handhold a 500mm lens at 1/125s, I doubt I could improve that shot using a monopod!!

FFordes have a 300mm F4, I'll see if they want a px for my 400mm lens.

Thanks PD

Kev
 
About 3rd or 4th. Probably 3rd... but I never had the 120-300 and 300mm f/4 at the same time. I replaced the 120-300 with the 300mm f/4 and never ever regretted it though.
 
Guys I'm glad I posted that thread. Brilliant response with a wee bit of controversy. Mind you I still dont know which to go for - the 1.4 or the 1.7. There is no criticism about the 1.4 but then you lose out on magnification. Go on, tell me which to go for, ah go on, go on, go on!:bang::bonk::help:
 
Get the 1.4x.

Its the best balance between magnification, image quality and loss of light.

I used to have both, but often regretted using the 1.7x, especially on a 70-200 VR.

I still have the 1.4x.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top