Teleconverters, are they worth it?

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).

sh1209

Well-known member
Supporting Member
Marketplace
I’ve been shooting for a long time and while doing wildlife I’ve always use my 200-500mm Nikon as well as a 70-300mm. I’ve shot full frame for the last 8-9 years and whenever I’ve needed extra reach I’ve just switched to DX crop within the camera. I realize pixels are lost but for the most part the images I’ve taken this way have turned out really well. I just purchased a 500mm PF and was considering a tc-iii Nikon teleconverter purchase. My question is, is there a substantial gain in image quality with a teleconverter? A lot of the Teleconverter’s I’ve read reviews on don’t get that great of ratings but it seems like the series 3 1.4 teleconverter gets better reviews. I also don’t like the thought of having a max aperture of f/8 but in good light I suppose it isn’t paramount. Any thoughts appreciated.
 
This one was pretty recent. I shoot canon and use the ef100-400 with a Canon 1.4x and find it to be quite sharp. The Canon software DPP4 has a digital lens optimizer that loads the camera and lens combo and also uses the shooting distant for the adjustments. I imagine Nikon must have something similar. Doesnt work in lightroom though, you have to use Canon software as the raw converter.

 
Last edited:
I'm no expert and haven't tried all possibilities, but on top notch primes they sometimes work great. I've got a manual focus Nikon 300 f/2.8 that I shoot with a TC-14b and you can hardly see a difference. For a couple of months I've been using an older Nikon 600 f/4D with a TC-14eII (the III version doesn't carry aperture data) and the image quality is great. Generalizing, fast prime lenses work great and slow zooms don't, I think.
 
The tc 1.4 EIII is the best of the batch for sure, especially on the E lenses. I will use it on a 500 EFL, 600 EFL and 270-200 f2.8 EFL and a few selected f2.8 and f4 lenses. I tried it and don't like it on f5.6 lenses.
 
The tc 1.4 EIII is the best of the batch for sure, especially on the E lenses. I will use it on a 500 EFL, 600 EFL and 270-200 f2.8 EFL and a few selected f2.8 and f4 lenses. I tried it and don't like it on f5.6 lenses.
That seems to be what I have found reading various articles as well regarding the faster lenses.
 
When needed I add a 1.4x teleconverter to my 600mm f/4G. I think a lot more about filling the frame, composition, exposure including ISO and technique than I worry about a tiny loss in sharpness due to the teleconverter.
 
It depends...on a number of things. IQ will depend on what lens and TC you are pairing up, and how well they mate up. The 1.4 III is supposed to be the best of the bunch, and the 1.4's generally have a better reputation than the 1.7' and 2.0 TCs. I would recommend renting one if possible, but at a minimum buying one with return privilege. If the TC works well with the lens, then you should keep it. If not, try one more and then take a pass if you are not seeing results that you like.

Good luck,

--Ken
 
It depends...on a number of things. IQ will depend on what lens and TC you are pairing up, and how well they mate up. The 1.4 III is supposed to be the best of the bunch, and the 1.4's generally have a better reputation than the 1.7' and 2.0 TCs. I would recommend renting one if possible, but at a minimum buying one with return privilege. If the TC works well with the lens, then you should keep it. If not, try one more and then take a pass if you are not seeing results that you like.

Good luck,

--Ken
I wish I knew someone locally that had one I could use for an afternoon but like you said rental might be a good option.
 
I wonder also if there’s any discernible difference between the series 2 or series 3 of the 1.4 Tele converter? There’s several good deals on the series 2 on eBay but it seems like the reviews aren’t quite as good.
 
I wonder also if there’s any discernible difference between the series 2 or series 3 of the 1.4 Tele converter? There’s several good deals on the series 2 on eBay but it seems like the reviews aren’t quite as good.
I have zero experience with the Nikon teleconverters. But from people I know and the experiences on this forum, the Series 3 is the way to go. I haven’t heard one bad thing about the tc1.4x series 3 and every image I’ve seen on this forum using that teleconverter have been outstanding. I’ve have heard negative things about the series 2. I’m also trying to decide whether to get a tc for my 500 PF and if I do it would most definitely be the 1.4x Series 3.
 
No one size fits all answer here. Some lenses are remarkable with tc's.. ene the 2x (and 1.7). Primes are always better, but even then some are better than others. Zoom lenses slower than 2.8 are almost always a waste of time with tc's. I do occasionally try the 1.4 on a 200-500mm, but it is f11 to get anything useful, and good light is a requirement.
Depending upon what one does with images...might not matter. You can get some pretty spectacular prints from images with great composition that might not win the local 100% crop contest. A used high-quality 1.4xTC would be a good investment and easy to sell if you don't like it.
Here's something else to consider...you have to spend a ton of time with a long lens to get to know it well enough for anything close to consistent results. Add a tc...it's a whole new situation. Borrowing or renting may not be as educational as you might hope. It really does take time.
Give it a try.
Note.. I have a 14ell and lll...I can't see any difference at all.
 
First up, as a point of clarification, you are never going to gain an increase in image quality with any teleconverter. If you add anything between the lens and sensor there will be degradation to some extent. As is typically said “there are no free lunches”.
What you’re looking for is something that has minimal impact on IQ for the benefit gained. Some lenses play better with t/c’s than others, particularly when it comes to zooms. Generally the slower the lens, the greater the impact.
I have both the TC-14E II & III and find the latter version to be just a bit better than the TC II. I acquired a TC-20E II at a price I couldn’t pass on but, even on the 70-200 FL, I’m not impressed by the results. I’ll be moving it on to someone who may be less demanding.
 
The 20elll is worlds better than the ll. It's great on 300VRll, 105VR, and very good on the 70-200VRll. It was not great on the 500 f5 G VR. Interestingly...the older Sigma 2x tc is great on the 500 f4 OS Sport at f11 and decent from 9-10. Goes to show...it's really a situation wherein you have try for yourself. Everyone (well...that's hyperbolic) hates the 1.7e. It's great on the 300 2.8 VRll, and pretty dang good on the 105VR, 70-200ll and 300 f4 AFS...it stunk on my 300PF and 500 f4 GVR.
It's 100% possible that on someone else's rig...different results.
 
The 20elll is worlds better than the ll. It's great on 300VRll, 105VR, and very good on the 70-200VRll. It was not great on the 500 f5 G VR. Interestingly...the older Sigma 2x tc is great on the 500 f4 OS Sport at f11 and decent from 9-10. Goes to show...it's really a situation wherein you have try for yourself. Everyone (well...that's hyperbolic) hates the 1.7e. It's great on the 300 2.8 VRll, and pretty dang good on the 105VR, 70-200ll and 300 f4 AFS...it stunk on my 300PF and 500 f4 GVR.
It's 100% possible that on someone else's rig...different results.
I have read where the TC-20E III is worlds better but I’ve been reluctant to spend it to put it to the test. The other version has made me a bit gun shy
 
I’ve always use my 200-500mm Nikon as well as a 70-300mm.
If you're shooting with a DSLR you'll run into AF issues with even a TC-14 iii on the 200-500mm and I'm pretty sure the 70-300mm won't even accept a teleconverter due to mechanical mounting issues. Basically the 200-500mm wide open is a f/5.6 lens and that becomes a wide open f/8 lens with a 1.4x TC attached. That pushes Nikon DSLR AF systems to their limit where only the center most AF points still operate and then only work well in good light with contrasty subjects.

If you're shooting a mirrorless camera like a Z6 II or Z7 II then the AF should work pretty well but don't expect much in terms of AF performance with the 200-500mm f/5.6 lens plus TC on a DSLR though in my experience the image quality is pretty good if you can get the lens to focus.
 
If you're shooting with a DSLR you'll run into AF issues with even a TC-14 iii on the 200-500mm and I'm pretty sure the 70-300mm won't even accept a teleconverter due to mechanical mounting issues. Basically the 200-500mm wide open is a f/5.6 lens and that becomes a wide open f/8 lens with a 1.4x TC attached. That pushes Nikon DSLR AF systems to their limit where only the center most AF points still operate and then only work well in good light with contrasty subjects.

If you're shooting a mirrorless camera like a Z6 II or Z7 II then the AF should work pretty well but don't expect much in terms of AF performance with the 200-500mm f/5.6 lens plus TC on a DSLR though in my experience the image quality is pretty good if you can get the lens to focus.
I just purchased a 500mm pf lens which is what I was contemplating trying it on. As I said in my initial post, in the past if I needed to fill the frame more on certain shots, I’d just switch over to dx crop within the body. This has provided good results honestly. I currently have the z6ii and an original z7
 
If you're shooting with a DSLR you'll run into AF issues with even a TC-14 iii on the 200-500mm and I'm pretty sure the 70-300mm won't even accept a teleconverter due to mechanical mounting issues. Basically the 200-500mm wide open is a f/5.6 lens and that becomes a wide open f/8 lens with a 1.4x TC attached. That pushes Nikon DSLR AF systems to their limit where only the center most AF points still operate and then only work well in good light with contrasty subjects.

If you're shooting a mirrorless camera like a Z6 II or Z7 II then the AF should work pretty well but don't expect much in terms of AF performance with the 200-500mm f/5.6 lens plus TC on a DSLR though in my experience the image quality is pretty good if you can get the lens to focus.
Correct, the 70-300 isn’t compatible with the Nikon tc’s without modification. It will work with units like the Kenko but the results are extremely disappointing.
 
Is having TC worth it? That depends on the lens. Best results I've seen with a Nikon TC was on the AF-S 300mm F2.8G VRII with a TC14E II. I couldn't even see the difference between having not having the TC on. On entry level zooms, not worth it at all.
 
I just purchased a 500mm pf lens which is what I was contemplating trying it on. As I said in my initial post, in the past if I needed to fill the frame more on certain shots, I’d just switch over to dx crop within the body. This has provided good results honestly. I currently have the z6ii and an original z7
I think the 1.4x TCIII works quite well with the 500 mm PF on a Z body. I have used that combination extensively on a Z7 with an FTZ. Of course, there is some loss of image quality, but I think it is less than doing a DX crop, and the resulting image is still quite good optically. (I think that was also Steve’s general conclusion in a video or post he did a while back on TCs.) I have tended to use that combination on my Z7 and not on my Z6 (now replaced by a Z6II).

You do lose a stop of light, as the combination is f8. Not ideal, but I have not found that to be a big problem practically most of the time, as the Z7 is pretty good even at ISO 6400. (I spent much of the summer shooting waterbirds and wading birds with this combination from a kayak, with light levels varying a lot. I also shoot warblers, where the extra reach is very useful.) And Topaz DeNoise AI or DxO Photo Labs Prime and Deep Prime noise reduction is very helpful when needed. Of course, f8 also means less ability to isolate a subject.

All the focus points continue to work at f8 on a Z7 or Z6 (and I assume also the ZII models, although I have not tested that yet). That is a significant advantage over the D500 or D850, where only a small number of central focus points work with an f8 lens. In addition, there is likely to be little need to focus tune the combination on a Z body, something that might more often be needed for optimal results on a DSLR.

Focus speed probably slows down a bit, but again I have not found that to be a big problem in most cases. I have even shot BIF with the Z7 + 500 mm PF + 1.4x TCIII — both larger, slower birds (eagles, swans, egrets and the like) and smaller faster birds (osprey, gulls and swallows).

I have enjoyed using the 500 mm PF on a D500, D850 and Z7, and tested each of those bodies with the 500 mm PF and the 1.4x TCIII. Based on that experience, when I want to use the 1.4x TCIII with the 500 mm PF, I choose the Z7. Other than pixel density, I would expect the Z6II would work as well, with probably a bit better autofocus and better low light performance.
 
I think the 1.4x TCIII works quite well with the 500 mm PF on a Z body. I have used that combination extensively on a Z7 with an FTZ. Of course, there is some loss of image quality, but I think it is less than doing a DX crop, and the resulting image is still quite good optically. (I think that was also Steve’s general conclusion in a video or post he did a while back on TCs.) I have tended to use that combination on my Z7 and not on my Z6 (now replaced by a Z6II).

You do lose a stop of light, as the combination is f8. Not ideal, but I have not found that to be a big problem practically most of the time, as the Z7 is pretty good even at ISO 6400. (I spent much of the summer shooting waterbirds and wading birds with this combination from a kayak, with light levels varying a lot. I also shoot warblers, where the extra reach is very useful.) And Topaz DeNoise AI or DxO Photo Labs Prime and Deep Prime noise reduction is very helpful when needed. Of course, f8 also means less ability to isolate a subject.

All the focus points continue to work at f8 on a Z7 or Z6 (and I assume also the ZII models, although I have not tested that yet). That is a significant advantage over the D500 or D850, where only a small number of central focus points work with an f8 lens. In addition, there is likely to be little need to focus tune the combination on a Z body, something that might more often be needed for optimal results on a DSLR.

Focus speed probably slows down a bit, but again I have not found that to be a big problem in most cases. I have even shot BIF with the Z7 + 500 mm PF + 1.4x TCIII — both larger, slower birds (eagles, swans, egrets and the like) and smaller faster birds (osprey, gulls and swallows).

I have enjoyed using the 500 mm PF on a D500, D850 and Z7, and tested each of those bodies with the 500 mm PF and the 1.4x TCIII. Based on that experience, when I want to use the 1.4x TCIII with the 500 mm PF, I choose the Z7. Other than pixel density, I would expect the Z6II would work as well, with probably a bit better autofocus and better low light performance.
Thanks for the detailed reply. Sounds like you’ve definitely did your homework. I’ve shot with the 200-500 for the last several years but due to an injury, I can’t support the weight anymore. I’ll keep an eye out for a good deal on the tciii and possibly get one soon.
 
I echo everything BillW said in his post about the 500 PF with the TC 1.4 and FTZ. Adding to that, I occasionally use the S series 70-200 F2.8 with the S TC 2.x on both the Z6ii and Z7ii. I find that range (140-400 @ F5.6) to be a good replacement for the 80-400. The 80-400 focal length was very handy, although that lens did hunt a lot on AF-C. So far, I think the S70-200 2.8 with 2x TC locks on a little better than the 80-400 did.

My opinion about using the Z7ii (or Z7) in DX mode is that the EVF still seeing a full edge-edge display to be a plus. In certain situations, I think it is easier to track the subject in DX mode (edge to edge EVF viewing), no loss of light, and still get a 20MP image.
 
I wonder also if there’s any discernible difference between the series 2 or series 3 of the 1.4 Tele converter? There’s several good deals on the series 2 on eBay but it seems like the reviews aren’t quite as good.
I had the 1.4 ii and sold it to get a iii. I've not seen any improvement in quality or af performance. I've read some lenses prefer the ii version (105 f2. 8) but don't know if it's true. I'm using on f2. 8 glass only, but on slower glass you'll get a lag in af and probably need to use focus points closer to the middle.
I borrowed a 2iii and tried on the 400 f2.8 and was surprised. Light was an issue, very little drop in iq but a definite need to be more diligent on technique.
 
My question is, is there a substantial gain in image quality with a teleconverter? A lot of the Teleconverter’s I’ve read reviews on don’t get that great of ratings but it seems like the series 3 1.4 teleconverter gets better reviews. I also don’t like the thought of having a max aperture of f/8 but in good light I suppose it isn’t paramount. Any thoughts appreciated.

Presume you mean in comparison the using the crop mode in camera. Generally speaking a TC will degrade the image when added to any lens, but whether that is better than cropped mode in camera, I could not say as I've never used crop mode.

I saw a recent review/comparison between the Nikkor TCii and TCiii and it concluded that the TCiii was indeed better than the TCii, but only on the latest lenses. With older lenses the differences were minimal. I've got Nikkor 1.4x and 1.7x TCs and my old AF-S 300mm f4 D+ the 1.4x TC is a killer combo. No loss of quality and sharpness that I can see although I bet that a chart will expose some IQ loss. I've not used the 1.7x nearly as much and with different subjects but I've just got a Nikon F to Fuji X conveter so have tried the 300mm +1.7x TC so effectively a 510mm f6.3 on the Fuji with what I'd call good results, but as I've really only been messing around and testing the AF etc, I've nothing to compare like with like, and that's not going to change anytime soon with our lockdown either. Also the Fuji has 425 phase detection AF points spread across the frame (just sayin...) so the AF works the same anywhere in the frame at f5.6.

You could always rent one to see if it suits you.
 
Presume you mean in comparison the using the crop mode in camera. Generally speaking a TC will degrade the image when added to any lens, but whether that is better than cropped mode in camera, I could not say as I've never used crop mode.

I saw a recent review/comparison between the Nikkor TCii and TCiii and it concluded that the TCiii was indeed better than the TCii, but only on the latest lenses. With older lenses the differences were minimal. I've got Nikkor 1.4x and 1.7x TCs and my old AF-S 300mm f4 D+ the 1.4x TC is a killer combo. No loss of quality and sharpness that I can see although I bet that a chart will expose some IQ loss. I've not used the 1.7x nearly as much and with different subjects but I've just got a Nikon F to Fuji X conveter so have tried the 300mm +1.7x TC so effectively a 510mm f6.3 on the Fuji with what I'd call good results, but as I've really only been messing around and testing the AF etc, I've nothing to compare like with like, and that's not going to change anytime soon with our lockdown either. Also the Fuji has 425 phase detection AF points spread across the frame (just sayin...) so the AF works the same anywhere in the frame at f5.6.

You could always rent one to see if it suits you.
That’s what I am leaning toward. It looks like I can rent one for $38 for 7 days. Regarding the in camera crop mode, the few images I’ve taken that way are really hard to differentiate from the full frame shots and this is on a z7. I haven’t used crop mode on my z6 to compare. I suppose it’s really no different than cropping in Lightroom.
 
Back
Top