Nikon 300 PF with TC 14 ii or iii?

[jhallettbc]

Based on my question from an earlier post, I got the 300 PF and am very impressed with it. I also bought a TC17ii but have not been pleased with the results. There is a noticeable loss of contrast and generally it's not as sharp as an image taken without the TC17 and then cropped. So now I'm considering a TC14 based on my readings here and elsewhere. My question is whether there is much of a difference between the ii and iii models on the 300 PF. There is quite a difference in the used price between the two teleconverters.

 

[Mdf123]

I use the 1.4ii on the 300PF and feel it works very well. Minimal to any loss in image quality and minimal loss of focus acquisition. Can't speak to the quality of the iii as I have not used it.

 

[BillW]

I have the 1.4x TCIII and have used it with my 300 mm PF. It works quite well in my experience. I have used that combination mostly on a D500, but have also tried it on a D850 and Z7. I have used the combination less since getting a 500 mm PF. Yet even after getting the 500 mm PF, the 300 mm PF plus the 1.4x TCIII is still attractive as it is quite a bit lighter than the light 500 mm PF. I also find the 300 mm PF combination good for butterflies and dragonflies, as the use of a TC does not change the minimum focus of the 300 mm PF.

I also have the 1.7x TCII and agree that it generally is not as good optically as the 1.4x TCIII.

Did you focus tune the combination? I have read that focus tuning is sometimes required, even where there is no need for focus tuning with the bare lens.

 

[fcotterill]

1. there is copy variation between these TCs, as there is also with some lenses (eg 80-400 G). The 300 PF seems to be consistent. It is essential to AFFT each TC+lens on a DSLR.
https://photographylife.com/reviews/nikon-tc-20e-iii

2. For what it's worth I get excellent results on a D850 (also Z7) with my combo of TC17 II and the 300 PF, but IQ is better with TC14 III (as widely reported and confirmed empirically). The very same TC 17 works really well on my 400 f2.8E but it utterly crap on my 70-200 f2.8E FL !

2. TC17 II is the oldest of Nikon's 3 models and it's long overdue for upgrade. Besides an aspherical element (as in TC2 III), all of Nikon's TCs would surely benefit from an ED element,, even better SR and ARNEO coating

 

[BorderBirder]

I also use 1.4 iii with 300 Pf and D500. Excellent results. So good in fact that I tried but sent back a 500Pf because I love the ultra light 300/ 1.4 so much for my daily river walk. I bought a 1.7 teleconverter but sent it back because of poor image quality and slow autofocus with the 300Pf.

 

[Steve]

I've tired the TC17 with the 300PF and didn't like it either - the 1.4TCiii works really well for me. I don't think I ever tried that lens with the version ii so I can't say one way or another. All I know is that it works well with the 1.4TCiii

 

[jhallettbc]

Thanks for all the imput so far. Still hoping to hear from someone who has used both the ii and iii versions.
As for what you say, fcotterill, about copy variation my experience would substantiate that. I have found that the TC17ii on my 70-800 f2.8 FL shot at 300mm is only slightly less sharp compared to the 300 PF without a TC. Interesting that on yours it was crap! However my plan is still to sell my TC17 and get one of the TC14's.

 

[jhallettbc]

I got a great price on a used TC14iii and had one afternoon to try it out and compare it to the TC17ii. Definitely better when cropped to the same area.

 

[Steve W]

In my experience 1.7 TC is a paperweight. The TC14 II is good, the TC14 III is just that bit better.

 

[Warren D]

I have used the 1.4 TC EII and EIII on a 70-200 EFL as well as 500 F4 G and 500 f4 EFL. I don't have a 300 pf. That said, the EIII is noticably better to my eye than the EII on those lenses, especially the 70-200 EFL. I think that would be true for any of the E lenses. My older 70-200 VR2 didn't show much difference between the EII and EIII so I had concluded at the time the new 70-200 EFL played better with the 1.4 EIII than the EII. I sold my EII some years ago as I didn't have a need for both and as is often the case, had a need for 2 1.4 tc's so bought a second EIII. Both of my 1.4tcEIII's are almost identical, the af fine tunes are the same within 1 unit (which I usually consider within the margin of testing error).
I also have a 1.7 EII which does play well on the 70-200 EFL's, 500 EFL and 600 EFL. There is a slight loss of IQ compared to the 1.4's but it's good in a pinch and the resultant images are better with the 1.7 than cropped without. YMMV.