Teleconverters, are they worth it?
- Thread starter sh1209
- 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).
fulltimewanderer
Active member
I’ve read different posts that recommend on the older lenses that the version ll is better than the version lll, also I believe that I actually saw something that is also Nikon’s recommendation. With Nikon’s repair with the 300 2.8, the 1.4 TC and the wife’s D4 that combination is real sharp.
Marco74
Well-known member
I had the 1,4x II that I replace with the III series. I confirm that the old one works better with the older lens.
The main difference between both is that the new one resolves a little more detail on the longer distance, but I feel that it vignettes more than the previous one.
I had the 2x III. I sold it because my copy did not work so well. It was acceptable at a very short distance but worst at long.
I also have the 1,7x that is in the middle of quality between the 1,4x and the 2x, but I don't use it often. For me, it is better to crop an image shot with a higher resolution camera like the D850 than take the same photo with the D5+1,7x.
On the 500 PF, the 1,4x III works quite well, the quality remains acceptable, but the autofocus slows down. When I go out with the PF, the multiplier remains at home.
I use them only when I am in a hide with the 600FL and the tripod.
The main difference between both is that the new one resolves a little more detail on the longer distance, but I feel that it vignettes more than the previous one.
I had the 2x III. I sold it because my copy did not work so well. It was acceptable at a very short distance but worst at long.
I also have the 1,7x that is in the middle of quality between the 1,4x and the 2x, but I don't use it often. For me, it is better to crop an image shot with a higher resolution camera like the D850 than take the same photo with the D5+1,7x.
On the 500 PF, the 1,4x III works quite well, the quality remains acceptable, but the autofocus slows down. When I go out with the PF, the multiplier remains at home.
I use them only when I am in a hide with the 600FL and the tripod.
Here's a towhee from about 20 feet away using the 300 f/2.8 GII plus TC-17EII on a D300s, taken in 2014 and processed in PS. 1/1000 sec, f/8, ISO 400. The TC-17 works with the 300, but you really need to stop down at least 2/3 of a stop from the maximum effective aperture of f/4.8. I also have the TC-20EIII and it is a bit sharper than the 17 when used on the 300. I recently got a 500PF and haven't tried either TC with it.
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
Marco74
Well-known member
The old teleconverter's main problem is that their sharpen decrease with the increase of the distance from the subject.
With my 2x III, that probably was a bad copy. To obtain a decent image in Lake Nakuru, I need to stop using 300 VR2 until F.16.
Meanwhile, a closer distance works decently.
This is the 2x on a 600 F.4 at a close distance. It is in B&W because was a terrible light.
With my 2x III, that probably was a bad copy. To obtain a decent image in Lake Nakuru, I need to stop using 300 VR2 until F.16.
Meanwhile, a closer distance works decently.
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
This is the 2x on a 600 F.4 at a close distance. It is in B&W because was a terrible light.
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
fulltimewanderer
Active member
That’s the secret when using a teleconverter be close. Don’t try to use it to get closer.
I have the TC14II and III, plus the 17X. Seldom (never) use the 17. The D6 and 500PF work very well with the 14's, prompt focus and good sharpness. Not so much on my D500, so I don't mount a TC on the D500. I used the combo on the D5, it may have been a squeak better then the D500, but not acceptable to me.
I did not notice that you mentioned the FX body you use. Honestly, unless you want to annoyance of your camera hunting for focus, pass on any of the TC's. Or borrow one and try it a few days.
I did not notice that you mentioned the FX body you use. Honestly, unless you want to annoyance of your camera hunting for focus, pass on any of the TC's. Or borrow one and try it a few days.
Marco74
Well-known member
Yes, it true, but for my type of photos, mainly to ungulates or very shy subjects, If I can get close enough to the subject, I don't need the multiplier.
Because my fastest glass is f4 and the TC-17E II is known for not harmonizing well with many lenses, the TC-14E's are the only ones I use anyway. Because I have an "old" 500/4 G VR and two E lenses (300PF and 500PF) I was a bit worried about which generation version to use, after having read the different statements . I took the chance to check for the III version while visiting a friend who uses it for his 500/4 FL and the 800/5.6. The result more or lesss confirmed what was said above. To be on the safe side we first ran an AF fine adjustment for the combinations I wanted to test with the TC-14E III.
.
The advantages of the III version seem to be limited to the big E series lenses with 400mm and above.
That said, because at this stage I didn't have the D850 yet and the tests were done with my D750. Maybe I have to repeat once I have a chance to go there again and do it with the high res body. If there is an IQ difference between II and III on a DSLR it is not visible to me with my lenses for FX resolution of 24 MPixels (D750) and below (D4s).
. I took the chance to check for the III version while visiting a friend who uses it for his 500/4 FL and the 800/5.6. The result more or lesss confirmed what was said above. To be on the safe side we first ran an AF fine adjustment for the combinations I wanted to test with the TC-14E III.- My 500/4G VR didn't like the III. While there was nothing wrong with IQ, but it also didn't seem to improve visibly. On the other hand AF got a hit. It occassionally went wrong when getting close to minimum focus distance. With the II the AF works fine all the way through. We couldn't spot the reason for this behaviour.
- My 300PF just didn't care at all, no visible difference in IQ nor behaviour in terms of AF speed/accuracy etc between II and III.
- The 500PF is not used with TC anyway because it becomes an f8 and thus leaving most of the AF sensors redundant. However, testing showed similar results as for the 300PF
.The advantages of the III version seem to be limited to the big E series lenses with 400mm and above.
That said, because at this stage I didn't have the D850 yet and the tests were done with my D750. Maybe I have to repeat once I have a chance to go there again and do it with the high res body. If there is an IQ difference between II and III on a DSLR it is not visible to me with my lenses for FX resolution of 24 MPixels (D750) and below (D4s).