Which Teleconverter. Nikon.

Jack Flash

Jack Flash

Suspended / Banned
Messages
680
Name
Jeff
Edit My Images
Yes
I am thinking of buying a Nikon T.C to use on my 70-200 2.8 VR11. I have ruled out the x2. I priced up the x1.4 and the x1.7. The 1.7 was actually £20 cheaper than the 1.4. This has confused me and got me wondering if the picture quality of the 1.7 is inferior to the 1.4.
I would welcome the views of T.P.members,especially if you have any experience with these teleconverters.
 
I've had both TC's as well as both 70-200's. 1.7TC on the VRII is excellent, 1.4TC is slightly better. Mostly, the VRII is just a very sharp lens. 1.7TC is not so excellent on the VRI. I could only use the 1.4TC on it as it was that noticeable. Just depends on what you want to use the pics for. In this case with the VRII it will come down to whether you want/need the reach more than the larger aperture. The sample pics I've seen from various users on Nikon forums with the 2TCIII is really good too....much, much improved from the 2TCII.
 
As above 1.4 and 1.7 fine with the 70-200 2.8 VRII but I wasn't especially impressed with the 2x (III) that I hired to test.
 
Thanks for your input. Yes I was told that the new x2 was better than the previous model,which my informant said was only good as a paperweight.
At the moment I am leaning towards the x1.4.
 
Hi Jeff, would you consider those 3rd party TCs from Sigma,Kenco etc?

texfoto & gramps, have you used these cheaper TCs by any chance?

I was maybe thinking about getting one, for a proposed wildlife safari early next year

:)
 
Last edited:
I've owned the Nikon 1.4 and the Kenko 1.4, neither impressed me enough to keep them. The new 2.0 III on the other hand is in a different league and I won't be parting with it any time soon....
 
Flash In The Pan said:
I've owned the Nikon 1.4 and the Kenko 1.4, neither impressed me enough to keep them. The new 2.0 III on the other hand is in a different league and I won't be parting with it any time soon....
Click to expand...

Now that sounds good. The reason I discounted the x2 was because I was told it was a waste of money. I know that the new version is an improvement but wasn,t sure how much of an improvement. From what you say it is a big one. Any pics to show taken with it?
Bletch I wouldn,t consider any third party T.Cs. I think to do that would be a mistake.
 
This was a hurried shot sooc (with only LR3 default sharpening) taken over a distance of approx. 400ft in poor light

DSC_1939-4.jpg


and here's a 100% crop of the car....

DSC_1939-3.jpg
 
Impressive Graham,I assume these are with the 2.0111. Which camera wre you using and are you still able to autofocus?
 
The 2 x III converter is great. I posted some shots on here when it first came out. Focus is fast and images are spot on.
Not cheap, but to me, better than rushing out and buying a 600mm.

Kev.
 
kevshore said:
The 2 x III converter is great. I posted some shots on here when it first came out. Focus is fast and images are spot on.
Not cheap, but to me, better than rushing out and buying a 600mm.

Kev.
Click to expand...

Exactly what i found. Got great results with it on 70-200 vr2 and d700.
 
Thanks for all the info from everyone. Has anyone used one on a slower lens. Like the Nikkor 18-200vr or even the Sigma 120-400 4 to 5.6.
I would think it would be too good to be true to get 800mm on a FX camera and if you did it would be a very small aperture.
 
Jack Flash said:
Thanks for all the info from everyone. Has anyone used one on a slower lens. Like the Nikkor 18-200vr or even the Sigma 120-400 4 to 5.6.
I would think it would be too good to be true to get 800mm on a FX camera and if you did it would be a very small aperture.
Click to expand...




Bear in mind that you double your 'f ' stop. So my 300mm 2.8 became 600mm 5.6.
I think you would find the above lenses unacceptable. Focussing would be hunting and very slow.


Kev.
 
kevshore said:
Bear in mind that you double your 'f ' stop. So my 300mm 2.8 became 600mm 5.6.
I think you would find the above lenses unacceptable. Focussing would be hunting and very slow.


Kev.
Click to expand...

The 300mm F2.8 should be ok,F5.6 is within the the focussing range of most Nikon Body :)
 
Jack Flash said:
Thanks for all the info from everyone. Has anyone used one on a slower lens. Like the Nikkor 18-200vr or even the Sigma 120-400 4 to 5.6.
I would think it would be too good to be true to get 800mm on a FX camera and if you did it would be a very small aperture.
Click to expand...

I am pretty sure it's not compatible with the 18-200 it's not compatible with lenses like he 24-70 f2.8....as Kevshore says it wouldn't af anyway with those apertures.

Someone pointed out on here that it's compatible with the 105mm f2.8 macro
 
Do the Nikon teleconverters still allow the autofocus provided by the body to function? or only with AF-S?
 
scottthehat said:
wow graham that looks very impressive, did you have any af problems.
Click to expand...

Not really, no. The light is so poor at the venue though that you're up at high iso to get any sort of shot, so despite the extra weight, I think I'll stick to using the 300 there.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top