dutchbenke
Member
What are the upsides to a TC 1.4 version III over the version II? Is the version III worth the upgrade?
TC 1.4 II vs 1.4III
- Thread starter dutchbenke
- Start date
If you would like to post, you'll need to register. Note that if you have a BCG store account, you'll need a new, separate account here (we keep the two sites separate for security purposes).
Warren D
Well-known member
The EIII's seem to perform better with the E lenses.
I've used both, but only one example of each. I now only have AF-S autofocus lenses, so no longer needed the II version and was sold that the III was better. And I readily agreed to it, looking for an excuse to what I saw as images suffering from equipment issues. However, going back and looking at images taken with the II version, some had really, really good IQ. Than again, so do some of the images taken with the III version. What now appears to me is that both were quite good, but that either one will magnify any flaws in gear or techniques; i.e, if the focus is a bit off, or if the camera is not on a stable platform, these inherent flaws are going to be magnified in the TC-enhanced images. The bottom line is that the TC, either version, was better than I was.
That being said, the lens construction between the two is different, with the version III having seven glass elements compared to the five of the version II. The III is also advertized as having Fluorine coatings on the exposed glass to help keep it cleaner in "dirty" environments. Others' testing claims that CA is down in the version III of this TC, probably due to the redesign and new coatings on the III version.
As far as the III version being worth the extra cost, if you're about to purchase one or the other, and don't need the version II for equipment compatability, I'd get the version III and give it a really good, controlled IQ test with several of your lenses. If it just doesn't give the IQ you want, then send or take it back for exchange or a refund. (Or better yet, purchase it at a B&M store where you can try it out before you buy it.) I'll say to spend the extra money because when it comes down to it, the extra cost of the version III is not that much compared to all of the other costs you'll incur during your photographic journey, as well as your time, and the frustration that a bad example will cause you.
Good luck with your decision.
That being said, the lens construction between the two is different, with the version III having seven glass elements compared to the five of the version II. The III is also advertized as having Fluorine coatings on the exposed glass to help keep it cleaner in "dirty" environments. Others' testing claims that CA is down in the version III of this TC, probably due to the redesign and new coatings on the III version.
As far as the III version being worth the extra cost, if you're about to purchase one or the other, and don't need the version II for equipment compatability, I'd get the version III and give it a really good, controlled IQ test with several of your lenses. If it just doesn't give the IQ you want, then send or take it back for exchange or a refund. (Or better yet, purchase it at a B&M store where you can try it out before you buy it.) I'll say to spend the extra money because when it comes down to it, the extra cost of the version III is not that much compared to all of the other costs you'll incur during your photographic journey, as well as your time, and the frustration that a bad example will cause you.
Good luck with your decision.
dutchbenke
Member
Thanks ! I have a version II that came with a Nikon 200x400 ED VR I that I purchased used. It seems to work well with that lens but I had questions about it’s performance with newer large primes like 500 PF & 600 f4. I have had issues with the lens & am trying to decide my next step.
JANuser
Active member
The II does not work with some E lenses, while the III does not work with AF-I, and some early AF-S lenses, check Nikon's website for compataiblity. I don't believe that the II works with the PF lenses.
The TC-14 II works fine with both the 300mm PF and 500mm PF. I just pulled out my older TC-14 II and tried it and both worked as expected.
I find the TC-14 III gives a bit better IQ on my 70-200mm f/2.8 E lens but on my other lenses I can't really detect much if any difference.
dutchbenke
Member
Thanks for the info. How do you like your 500 PF?
If you have a TC-14 II it’s not worth swapping it for a TC-14 III. If you’re about to get one, get the III for sure.
If you are only using it on that 200-400, you have what you need. You did not mention your other lenses.
I have both, on my lenses including the 500PF it seems a toss up. I can't see any difference in focus speed, focus lock on or image quality. The 500PF is the only lens I use it on, and it locked to the D5 or D6 camera.
I agree with Steve W, if you are buying get the III, since you own the II you should be good to go.
And you ask, the 500PF is amazing, with or without the 14X. Fantastic lens. For 1/3 the price but 2X the weight, the 200-500 properly tuned in will also kick ass, I often use it for wildlife for the zoom feature. But, NO TC on the big zoom.
I have both, on my lenses including the 500PF it seems a toss up. I can't see any difference in focus speed, focus lock on or image quality. The 500PF is the only lens I use it on, and it locked to the D5 or D6 camera.
I agree with Steve W, if you are buying get the III, since you own the II you should be good to go.
And you ask, the 500PF is amazing, with or without the 14X. Fantastic lens. For 1/3 the price but 2X the weight, the 200-500 properly tuned in will also kick ass, I often use it for wildlife for the zoom feature. But, NO TC on the big zoom.
@DRwyoming when you say the above about the 14 III....do you mean normal viewing "better" or only better when over-analyzing/pixel peeping? I have the 70-200 2.8 E coming. It is supposed to arrive tomorrow and am looking to purchase a 1.4 TC that I will likely not use on anything else with any frequency worth considering. I think I will likely use the 1.4 and my crop frame for baseball and soccer.
That's a close inspection and honestly I'd say the differences in IQ I saw between the TC-14 II and III versions wouldn't impact most of my images unless they were going to be printed quite large.
Thanks> that is the thing I have learned most from this particular forum Steve put together. This group above all others will give solid advice saving folks money. Like Steve said the best and worst gear is actually the thing about 4 inches behind the sensor. I borrowed the E version of the 70-200 and was absolutely blown away by it on both my D500 and D810. I am super excited for this lens to show up.
Yeah, it's a great piece of pro glass. I've owned several generations of Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8 and the 80-200mm f/2.8 that came before it and the E version is noticeably better than its predecessors. Enjoy the lens!
I saw a review comparing the two. Conclusion was that the TCiii is better than the TCii BUT it works best on newer lenses. With older glass it was still better, but by such a small margin it was not enough to recommend it over the TCii.
fcotterill
Well-known member
One of many examples where TC14 III with 70-200 f2.8E FL has worked rather well
D850 f8 ISO 5600, male Orange-breasted Sunbird
D850 f8 ISO 5600, male Orange-breasted Sunbird
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
I own both the 1.4II and the 1.4III TCs. I've used them on a 500mm G, 600G, 600E, and 200-400 VRI. I could find no real-world difference in the image quality between the two. FWIW, the 200-400 performed poorly with both. Just my own experience with them.
dutchbenke
Member
Thanks
Hawkeshead
Well-known member
Dutch,
One other consideration is lens compatibility with your current glass and also what you may acquire in the future. I use the 1,4ii on the 70-200 G VRii but can't on the 300mm 2.8D. Here is the Nikon list
One other consideration is lens compatibility with your current glass and also what you may acquire in the future. I use the 1,4ii on the 70-200 G VRii but can't on the 300mm 2.8D. Here is the Nikon list
dutchbenke
Member
Thanks, that helps!
DR, I’m glad you brought up the 80-200. I’ve had one for years and have toyed with upgrading. I take it the new 70-200 is, in your view, the way to go?and, if so, what version would you recommend - there seems to be a couple out there.
Calson
Well-known member
When I bought the TC-20 III teleconverter and started doing autofocus fine tuning with my 600mm f/4 lens I found that it was noticeably sharper than the TC-14 II with this lens. After seeing the results I sold the TC-14 II and replaced it with the TC-14 III. The difference in image sharpness was readily apparent on my monitor without having to enlarge the images and pixel peep.
I'd say either the 70-200mm f/4 lens (which is surprisingly good and very light) or the 70-200mm f/2.8 E series lens would be good choices. I like the portability and image quality out of the 70-200mm f/4 lens but it's really hard to beat the IQ, light gathering and shallow DoF you get with the f/2.8 lens and the E series version of this lens is stellar.
Thanks DR. Very much appreciate the advice.
I've got an 80-200 too and I love it. Mine was made towards the end of its production and the first 70-200 was optically not quite as good in a review I saw.
O
Well-known member
Loved all the 80-200 excellent, but the 70-200 FL just has a real quantum leap ahead and is much lighter with VR that works so well.
Colour is stunning.
Oz down under
Colour is stunning.
Oz down under