That has to be the way forward. Don't forget to tell us what you find.
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).
That has to be the way forward. Don't forget to tell us what you find.
Calson
Well-known member
The only time I have used a teleconverter with the 500mm PF was when photographing jaguars from a boat where I used the TC-14 III and a monopod. I also used manual focus the entire time. Check your camera's manual and see how few AF sensors are enabled at f/8 and you will see why manual focusing often becomes necessary. This is also why so many people spend the money to buy heavy f/4 telephoto lenses and tripods and gimbal heads and haul them around. A 500mm f/4 is still a very usable 700mm f/5.6 in terms of the autofocus performance of most cameras.
You may be able to get adequate autofocus performance at f/8 with you Z7 camera in ideal conditions and with high contrast subjects of moderate size but then it comes down to how often you encounter these situations. For a motionless subject manual focus is an option and a TC and lens combination is less of a handicap.
Your comment about cropping being useful is in line with my own thinking and why I prefer the D850 most of the time. The D5 for example with a DX crop becomes a 8.9MP camera and the D2x provided much more resolution. To get the usable image size of a 500mm lens on the D850 I need a 600mm lens on the D5 camera. The Z7 provides similar advantages.
In terms of teleconverters the TC-17 is a waste of money and made sense in the days of ASA 160 film with the 1/2 stop gain over the TC-20, but not with digital cameras that provide ISO 6400. The III generation of Nikon teleconverters are noticeably sharper than the II versions. I saw this first hand with images taken with the TC-20 III being quite a bit sharper than ones taken with the TC-14 II using the same camera and the same lens.
You may be able to get adequate autofocus performance at f/8 with you Z7 camera in ideal conditions and with high contrast subjects of moderate size but then it comes down to how often you encounter these situations. For a motionless subject manual focus is an option and a TC and lens combination is less of a handicap.
Your comment about cropping being useful is in line with my own thinking and why I prefer the D850 most of the time. The D5 for example with a DX crop becomes a 8.9MP camera and the D2x provided much more resolution. To get the usable image size of a 500mm lens on the D850 I need a 600mm lens on the D5 camera. The Z7 provides similar advantages.
In terms of teleconverters the TC-17 is a waste of money and made sense in the days of ASA 160 film with the 1/2 stop gain over the TC-20, but not with digital cameras that provide ISO 6400. The III generation of Nikon teleconverters are noticeably sharper than the II versions. I saw this first hand with images taken with the TC-20 III being quite a bit sharper than ones taken with the TC-14 II using the same camera and the same lens.
There is one absolute truth when using teleconverters, and that is that putting a teleconverter on a bad lens never turns it into a good lens. In other words, if the lens you use a teleconverter with has flaws, the teleconverter will magnify those flaws.
I've got two Nikon TCs, the 1.4 and the 2.0, and their performance is good when I've worked and been to dial them in with a particular camera and lens combination, and use them with a tripod. (The TC will also magnify any motion of the camera and lens when the shot is taken.)
If you're not pixel peeping, though, the standards of acceptance for their use relax somewhat.
Wayne
I've got two Nikon TCs, the 1.4 and the 2.0, and their performance is good when I've worked and been to dial them in with a particular camera and lens combination, and use them with a tripod. (The TC will also magnify any motion of the camera and lens when the shot is taken.)
If you're not pixel peeping, though, the standards of acceptance for their use relax somewhat.
Wayne
You might want to take a look here. That tells a lot.
I personally wouldn't use any TC apart from the TC 14Ex and only on lenses with f4 or faster, because otherwise you have drastic AF limitations. Something I can't tell from my perspective is which one to prefer. As mentioned before that very much depends on the lenses you use. only have TC-14E II and use it with my 500 f4 and the 300 f4 PF. I don't use it on the 500 f5.6 PF for the reason mentioned before. The only reasonf for me to get another one would be if I had the money to go for a 500 or 600 f4 of the E series.
Oh, I forgot to mention that is is crucial to do AF fine adjustment for your long lenses separately with and without TC mounted. The camera considers the combo as a separate lens which makes sensebecause the tolerances of lens and lens and TC and compensate each other or add up and you can't predict which way it goes with the particular items you own.
I personally wouldn't use any TC apart from the TC 14Ex and only on lenses with f4 or faster, because otherwise you have drastic AF limitations. Something I can't tell from my perspective is which one to prefer. As mentioned before that very much depends on the lenses you use. only have TC-14E II and use it with my 500 f4 and the 300 f4 PF. I don't use it on the 500 f5.6 PF for the reason mentioned before. The only reasonf for me to get another one would be if I had the money to go for a 500 or 600 f4 of the E series.
Oh, I forgot to mention that is is crucial to do AF fine adjustment for your long lenses separately with and without TC mounted. The camera considers the combo as a separate lens which makes sensebecause the tolerances of lens and lens and TC and compensate each other or add up and you can't predict which way it goes with the particular items you own.
ChrisM
Well-known member
Just adding my two cents, as I have been trying to increase reach ever since trading in my Pentax DA560mm f5.6 lens. The Nikon 1.4TC does work best on the Z7 with the 500PF, but what you gain in extra pixels, you lose in clarity, pop, contrast, fine detail and simply the beautiful look that the 500PF can produce.
I have been debating selling the 1.4TC for the last 6 months, but have kept it with getting the 500E FL lens sooner or later in the back of my mind. I am sure that that lens takes a 1.4TC much better.
But having used the 560mm Pentax lens for years, I keep wishing for a 600mm lens. My first choice would be a 600mm f5.6PF, but Nikon does not make such a lens, nor does any other brand. Right now, I am approaching the reach case with a possible one time heart attack investment in Sony's 600GM, because the Nikon 600mm is too heavy for handholding.
It's tough, the 500PF is really made to be shot bare, it produces by far the best results that way. But it is often short on reach for birding.
I have been debating selling the 1.4TC for the last 6 months, but have kept it with getting the 500E FL lens sooner or later in the back of my mind. I am sure that that lens takes a 1.4TC much better.
But having used the 560mm Pentax lens for years, I keep wishing for a 600mm lens. My first choice would be a 600mm f5.6PF, but Nikon does not make such a lens, nor does any other brand. Right now, I am approaching the reach case with a possible one time heart attack investment in Sony's 600GM, because the Nikon 600mm is too heavy for handholding.
It's tough, the 500PF is really made to be shot bare, it produces by far the best results that way. But it is often short on reach for birding.
While I have the 1.4TC III, I have always shed away from the 2x TC. However I acquired a used one last week and was quite impressed with the results, at least on close, static birds. I have it on the 300mm f2.8 V2 at the moment, giving me 600mm EFL. As expected, for BIF it was rather less successful, particularly for swallows 
This was one of the first shots with the combination. Nikon D5/300 f2.8 + 2x TC III
This was one of the first shots with the combination. Nikon D5/300 f2.8 + 2x TC III
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
fcotterill
Well-known member
There are comparatively few Nikkor telephotos that work well with a TC. The good performers are well known, notably all the fast Exotic primes: 200 f2 up to 800 f5.6E, also the 300 f4E PF. A few 'Rules' or rather Guidelines:
> The 300 f2.8G VRII was developed with the TCE2 III ( Dec 2009 ). Contingent on its optical spouse, TC2 III gives vastly better IQ than the earlier paperweights
> The 400 f2.8E FL was developed with the TCE14 III (May 2014), but several reports find little real differences between vII and VIII eg on 300 f4E PF. I've read somewhere TC14 vIII is designed for use with the newer E telephotos.
> TC17 II has not been updated since its release in June 2004, but it does work well with selected primes - notably the 400 f2.8E FL
> Beware of copy variation among TCs, so after checking AFFT etc bad results could be this factor. This factor may also be complicated by variations between lenses, but far less likely with with an Exotic unless it needs repair. See links below to articles for more on differences between Nikon's TCs
> IQ drops off significantly at longer subject distances eg > ~35m with 400 f2.8E FL + TC2 III. Cropping images taken with a TC is usually disappointing. It's worth testing your combo(s) on tripod and standard target to get to know the limitations.
> TC + Tele-zoom = loss of IQ. One exception are the latest 2 copies of the 70-200 f2.8 for F mount work well with TC14. 80-400 G is erratic, and is obviously @f8 when used at 400mm. The latest Exotic Tele-zoom - 120-300 f2.8E SR Nikkor - performs very well with the current pair of TCs, according to Brad Hill.
> The 300 f2.8G VRII was developed with the TCE2 III ( Dec 2009 ). Contingent on its optical spouse, TC2 III gives vastly better IQ than the earlier paperweights
> The 400 f2.8E FL was developed with the TCE14 III (May 2014), but several reports find little real differences between vII and VIII eg on 300 f4E PF. I've read somewhere TC14 vIII is designed for use with the newer E telephotos.
> TC17 II has not been updated since its release in June 2004, but it does work well with selected primes - notably the 400 f2.8E FL
> Beware of copy variation among TCs, so after checking AFFT etc bad results could be this factor. This factor may also be complicated by variations between lenses, but far less likely with with an Exotic unless it needs repair. See links below to articles for more on differences between Nikon's TCs
> IQ drops off significantly at longer subject distances eg > ~35m with 400 f2.8E FL + TC2 III. Cropping images taken with a TC is usually disappointing. It's worth testing your combo(s) on tripod and standard target to get to know the limitations.
> TC + Tele-zoom = loss of IQ. One exception are the latest 2 copies of the 70-200 f2.8 for F mount work well with TC14. 80-400 G is erratic, and is obviously @f8 when used at 400mm. The latest Exotic Tele-zoom - 120-300 f2.8E SR Nikkor - performs very well with the current pair of TCs, according to Brad Hill.
Last edited:
fcotterill
Well-known member
TC 1.4 II OR III, DOES IT MATTER?
I’ve just finished reading an interesting thread discussing the relative merits of purchasing the Nikkor 600 or 800mm lens. In the thread, there was discussion of the 1.4 TC and one comment suggested that the IQ of the III version was better than the II version. I seem to remember reading...
bcgforums.com
Review: Nikon TC-14E vs. TC-14EIII - Jason P. Odell Photography
I've been using the Nikon TC-14E teleconverter now for years. Even though it was "updated" to the MkII model a while ago, the only differences between the TC-14E and TC-14EII were the exterior cosmetics (finish). The optical formula remained the same (5 elements in 5 groups) between them...
luminescentphoto.com
Nikon TC's and VR1-VR2 questions
Hey everyone. I have a couple of super general questions about the Nikon TC's and the VR1 vs VR2. 1. Is there a noticeable real world difference between the TC1.4E I and the TC1.4E II when used on say a 300 2.8? I own a TC2 but found a TC3 for a decent price and am curious if there is any...
bcgforums.com
Last edited:
Hatch1921
Well-known member
Worth taking a look at IMO.
I have the 1.7x and the 2x
The 1.7x somewhat works on the 500PF (as in maybe a couple of shots in focus) and the 2x doesn't work at all. Now, manually, they work but tracking anything that is moving lol.
I'm thinking of picking up the 1.4x as well. I've read mixed reviews, some people have great success with no image degradation, others do not like the results. I like my 1.7x on the 300PF, a little loss in sharpness but still very usable. I need to try the 2x on the 300PF, I haven't made time to dial it in.
If you pick up the 1.4x ... let us know your thoughts
Hatch
For me anything bigger than 1.4 is not an option.
The 1.4 causes the smallest amount of image degradation of the three types.
The 1.7 is out, because it is knowm for not collaborating properly with many lenses.
The 2.0 is out because my fastest glass is f4 and loosing two stops means loosing most of you AF capability.
I had them all but in the end the only one I kept was a TC-14E II. After looking at the results of PhotographyLife in terms of TC's I even decided not to to move up to the III version, because the achievable difference in IQ is negligible and an advantage is claimed tro be ssen primarily for the most recent E series glass, but not primarily because of IQ, but for AF functionality when shooting bursts.
Because I got another camera I had to do some AF fine adjustment. During this course I tested (again) the 500PF with the TC-14 and decided (again) not to use it and rather change to the 500f4 when needing additional reach and thus the TC comes into play. After the camera was a D850 with its really good AF system you can imagine that with the older cameras it was even worse.
That said, I would certainly consider using the other two TC types if I had a lens like the 70-200 f28 FL which is an exceptionally sharp lens with enough headroom for image degradation by TC's - especially on lower res cameras - and enough AF speed to copy with being slowed down gradually by a TC. I think it would be a great combo for travelling light and there have been a couple of beautiful images on display here in some other thread that were shot with this lens combined even with the TC-20E III.
The 1.4 causes the smallest amount of image degradation of the three types.
The 1.7 is out, because it is knowm for not collaborating properly with many lenses.
The 2.0 is out because my fastest glass is f4 and loosing two stops means loosing most of you AF capability.
I had them all but in the end the only one I kept was a TC-14E II. After looking at the results of PhotographyLife in terms of TC's I even decided not to to move up to the III version, because the achievable difference in IQ is negligible and an advantage is claimed tro be ssen primarily for the most recent E series glass, but not primarily because of IQ, but for AF functionality when shooting bursts.
Because I got another camera I had to do some AF fine adjustment. During this course I tested (again) the 500PF with the TC-14 and decided (again) not to use it and rather change to the 500f4 when needing additional reach and thus the TC comes into play. After the camera was a D850 with its really good AF system you can imagine that with the older cameras it was even worse.
That said, I would certainly consider using the other two TC types if I had a lens like the 70-200 f28 FL which is an exceptionally sharp lens with enough headroom for image degradation by TC's - especially on lower res cameras - and enough AF speed to copy with being slowed down gradually by a TC. I think it would be a great combo for travelling light and there have been a couple of beautiful images on display here in some other thread that were shot with this lens combined even with the TC-20E III.
ChrisM
Well-known member
This is true and a hard lesson learned for me personally. I shot a "budget" long reach option for years: the Pentax 24mp aps-c crop camera with the DA560mm f5.6 lens. The lens had some obvious drawbacks, like slow AF and poor correction of longitudinal CA and purple fringing, but I only realized how difficult it was to replicate the long distance performance of that combo, after I traded in the lens and began my attempt to replace 560mm f5.6 with Canon and Nikon.
I shoot a lot of wading birds at a large tidal area, and the first time I attempted the Canon 400DOII with the 1.4TC to replicate my familiar 560mm f5.6 lens, I was totally shocked at having spent so much only to find myself confronted with drastically worse performance over distance, although very dependant on the type of light. I cannot really communicate the shock of these first images at a familiar aperture/focal length combination in familiar light over familiar distances. I have since sold the Canon 400DOII, a superb lens at close to medium distances with the 1.4TC (in non-stressfull light) btw, and have multiple times been at the verge of re-purchasing the Pentax DA560, but that brand is fading so I did not.
Anyway, just some caution meant for those falling for the popular TC solution and finding it does not provide all the answers when it comes to increasing reach. I now shoot the Nikon 500PF on the D500, without TC use, rely on heavy cropping, and have made peace with the personal neccessity of investing in a 600mm prime. Fortunately, this only has to be done once....
D500 & 300mm PF & 1.4 II - very good IQ
D500 & 200-500mm & 1.4 II handheld - OK with good light and a steady hand
I have the 500mm PF now and will test the combo but atmospheric conditions over that focal length will be the limiting factor.
F8 is fine for BIF in my uses but for static birds often doesn't deliver the goods.
My understanding is that optically the 1.4 II is the same as the III.
And subject matter is still more important than than technical qualities in making an image with impact.
D500 & 200-500mm & 1.4 II handheld - OK with good light and a steady hand
I have the 500mm PF now and will test the combo but atmospheric conditions over that focal length will be the limiting factor.
F8 is fine for BIF in my uses but for static birds often doesn't deliver the goods.
My understanding is that optically the 1.4 II is the same as the III.
And subject matter is still more important than than technical qualities in making an image with impact.
Last edited:
Demodave
Active member
Not by a computer, but here are some links, D850, 500PF, and TC14 IIII. From this weekend....
www.davebuickphotography.com
www.davebuickphotography.com
www.davebuickphotography.com
Hawks, Falcons, Kestrels, Eagles - Dave Buick
I love Wildlife. I love enjoying God's creation. I'm just a simple guy who enjoys capturing moments of nature. Typically I spend hours or days with an animal, learning it's individual behavior and personality. Capturing that personality is the goal. Feel free to contact me for any questions...
www.davebuickphotography.com
Hawks, Falcons, Kestrels, Eagles - Dave Buick
I love Wildlife. I love enjoying God's creation. I'm just a simple guy who enjoys capturing moments of nature. Typically I spend hours or days with an animal, learning it's individual behavior and personality. Capturing that personality is the goal. Feel free to contact me for any questions...
www.davebuickphotography.com
Hawks, Falcons, Kestrels, Eagles - Dave Buick
I love Wildlife. I love enjoying God's creation. I'm just a simple guy who enjoys capturing moments of nature. Typically I spend hours or days with an animal, learning it's individual behavior and personality. Capturing that personality is the goal. Feel free to contact me for any questions...
www.davebuickphotography.com
fcotterill
Well-known member
Sadly, key factors being equal, the stark reality is achieving top quality out of a telephoto is very expensive :oops:
There are big obstacles intrinsic to increasing the optical power of a TC that increases the existing magnification of the telephoto. These well known - indeed notorious - penalties are widely documented (eg PL test data) and this reality is confirmed by us in the field. Thus the loss of IQ of a telephoto combo as magnification is increased with TC14 > TC17 > TC2, is underscored by a TC2 increasing axial chromatic aberration 4 times!
The image quality of Nikon's telephotos owes a great deal to the breakthroughs by legendary optical engineer, Susumu Sato, who redesigned the 300 f2.8 and other exotic primes in the 1990s. His colleague, Haruo Sato, confirms S Sato has continued to redesign the more recent upgrades eg 400 f2.8E FL.
Since the major redesign by S Sato of the 300 f2.8 in 1996, there are indicators Nikon has again improved the IQ of its TCs when paired with some of its telephotos. This is judging by the vIII upgrades of TC14 and TC2, and most recently the two fast super-zooms released in 2018 and 2020. Presumably, it is important to design the TC and telephoto as a pair, as closely as is feasible. The pay of this strategy is exemplified in the TC800-1.25E. Each copy of this optic is bespoke to its prime lens!
Most recently, the first owners of the Z TCs report they deliver excellent IQ with the 70-200 f2.8S. However, comparisons of IQ with IQ with ZTC14 vs ZTC2 confirms there is no escape from the higher magnification. We can be thankful one of positive attributes of the Nikkor PF primes is how pleasantly well they marry with a TC ( within the respective constraint of their fastest aperture). Hopefully, Nikon follow up soon with a 600 f5.6 PF and 400 f4 PF!
oops:There are big obstacles intrinsic to increasing the optical power of a TC that increases the existing magnification of the telephoto. These well known - indeed notorious - penalties are widely documented (eg PL test data) and this reality is confirmed by us in the field. Thus the loss of IQ of a telephoto combo as magnification is increased with TC14 > TC17 > TC2, is underscored by a TC2 increasing axial chromatic aberration 4 times!
The image quality of Nikon's telephotos owes a great deal to the breakthroughs by legendary optical engineer, Susumu Sato, who redesigned the 300 f2.8 and other exotic primes in the 1990s. His colleague, Haruo Sato, confirms S Sato has continued to redesign the more recent upgrades eg 400 f2.8E FL.
Since the major redesign by S Sato of the 300 f2.8 in 1996, there are indicators Nikon has again improved the IQ of its TCs when paired with some of its telephotos. This is judging by the vIII upgrades of TC14 and TC2, and most recently the two fast super-zooms released in 2018 and 2020. Presumably, it is important to design the TC and telephoto as a pair, as closely as is feasible. The pay of this strategy is exemplified in the TC800-1.25E. Each copy of this optic is bespoke to its prime lens!
Most recently, the first owners of the Z TCs report they deliver excellent IQ with the 70-200 f2.8S. However, comparisons of IQ with IQ with ZTC14 vs ZTC2 confirms there is no escape from the higher magnification. We can be thankful one of positive attributes of the Nikkor PF primes is how pleasantly well they marry with a TC ( within the respective constraint of their fastest aperture). Hopefully, Nikon follow up soon with a 600 f5.6 PF and 400 f4 PF!
This is true and a hard lesson learned for me personally. I shot a "budget" long reach option for years: the Pentax 24mp aps-c crop camera with the DA560mm f5.6 lens. The lens had some obvious drawbacks, like slow AF and poor correction of longitudinal CA and purple fringing, but I only realized how difficult it was to replicate the long distance performance of that combo, after I traded in the lens and began my attempt to replace 560mm f5.6 with Canon and Nikon.
I shoot a lot of wading birds at a large tidal area, and the first time I attempted the Canon 400DOII with the 1.4TC to replicate my familiar 560mm f5.6 lens, I was totally shocked at having spent so much only to find myself confronted with drastically worse performance over distance, although very dependant on the type of light. I cannot really communicate the shock of these first images at a familiar aperture/focal length combination in familiar light over familiar distances. I have since sold the Canon 400DOII, a superb lens at close to medium distances with the 1.4TC (in non-stressfull light) btw, and have multiple times been at the verge of re-purchasing the Pentax DA560, but that brand is fading so I did not.
Anyway, just some caution meant for those falling for the popular TC solution and finding it does not provide all the answers when it comes to increasing reach. I now shoot the Nikon 500PF on the D500, without TC use, rely on heavy cropping, and have made peace with the personal neccessity of investing in a 600mm prime. Fortunately, this only has to be done once....
Ib Misfeldt
New member
Better late than never, I would like to add a comment on the use of teleconverters. I have used the Z7 for allmost one year, until january with the 200 - 500 mm Nikon which I owned for 5 yaers and used on my D500. I did not have must succes with the TC14 on that combo, but the TC14 worked fine when used on Z7 and the 200 - 500 mm.
I bought the 500 mm PF in january and I am very satisfied with the lens. I used it with the TC14 and also resently tried TC17.
A week ago I discovered a black woodpecker, working on a nest-hole at relatively far distance from a forrest track. The woodpecker stayed at work and I used the opportunity to test the 3 combinations, 500 PF, 500 PF + TC14 and 500 PF + TC17. I found i worth to add the TC17, it increased the picture quality, despite the increase in ISO.
I include 4 pictures, one taken with the 500 PF without cropping. Three havely cropped, all handheld, at approximately the same distance.
The pictures with TC14 vere a little below TC17 in quality, in my oppinion, not included.
500 PF full picture at the given obtainable distance (uncropped 8256 x 5504), 1/350, f8, ISO 500, Z7
Same as above, cropped to 746 x 497 pixels
500 PF + TC17, cropped to 1857 x 1052, 1/350, f9,5, ISO 1250
500 PF + TC17, cropped to 1576 x 1051, 1/1500, f9,5, ISO 4000
I bought the 500 mm PF in january and I am very satisfied with the lens. I used it with the TC14 and also resently tried TC17.
A week ago I discovered a black woodpecker, working on a nest-hole at relatively far distance from a forrest track. The woodpecker stayed at work and I used the opportunity to test the 3 combinations, 500 PF, 500 PF + TC14 and 500 PF + TC17. I found i worth to add the TC17, it increased the picture quality, despite the increase in ISO.
I include 4 pictures, one taken with the 500 PF without cropping. Three havely cropped, all handheld, at approximately the same distance.
The pictures with TC14 vere a little below TC17 in quality, in my oppinion, not included.
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
500 PF full picture at the given obtainable distance (uncropped 8256 x 5504), 1/350, f8, ISO 500, Z7
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
Same as above, cropped to 746 x 497 pixels
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
500 PF + TC17, cropped to 1857 x 1052, 1/350, f9,5, ISO 1250
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
500 PF + TC17, cropped to 1576 x 1051, 1/1500, f9,5, ISO 4000
Teles work best for primes, preferably f2.8 or f4. Most zooms (with the exception of the 70-200/2.8) lose too much IQ and light for very good results. YMMV.
I only use the 1.4 tele. I found the 1.7 and 2x teles couldn't deliver adequate IQ for me. In my experience the 70-200/2.8, 300 f2.8, 300 PF, 500 f4 and 600 f4 give excellent results with a 1.4 tele.
For me, the jury is still out on IQ when using the 1.4 tele with the 500 PF............I just haven't shot it enough to form an opinion.
I only use the 1.4 tele. I found the 1.7 and 2x teles couldn't deliver adequate IQ for me. In my experience the 70-200/2.8, 300 f2.8, 300 PF, 500 f4 and 600 f4 give excellent results with a 1.4 tele.
For me, the jury is still out on IQ when using the 1.4 tele with the 500 PF............I just haven't shot it enough to form an opinion.
Calson
Well-known member
The TC III teleconverters are quite a bit sharper than the earlier II versions. Important to realize that with increases in lens magnification along with higher resolution sensors, any shortcomings in technique on the part of the photographer become a lot more apparent in the images produced.
I use the TC14 III with my 300mm PF and it works great. AF still locks on fast, very little if any loss of IQ. I also have the TC17 II and can't say the same about it. I rarely use it, the loss of IQ is noticeable, and AF doesn't work most of the time.
D500, 300mm f:2.8 + 1.4 TC III straight out of camera. Not too shabby methinks??? Just waiting for my TC 2.0 III to return from Nikon Service to try that on this lens.
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
Teleconverters can be very good, but as others have mentioned, it depends on the lens, the camera, your technique, and even your settings.
I've got the TC14E II and III, the TC17E II, and the TC20E III. I've used them with a range of lenses and camera bodies - both DSLR and mirrorless.
Generally speaking, a teleconverter has a small drop off in image quality. The stronger the teleconverter, the greater the drop, but newer generations are usually slightly better than older generations. So a 1.4 teleconverter is going to have less adverse image quality impact than a 2x.
The 1.4 II and III teleconverters have very little difference. I noticed a small difference in midtone contrast testing with my 600mm f/4 VR on my D850. It took a 300% view to really see the difference. The TC14E II version is available used around $200 - and it's a real bargain.
I find the image quality of the 2.0 III teleconverter is about the same as the 1.7 II TC, but the half stop is still meaningful.
Fine tuning may be needed with a TC. I did find my TC14E III on my D850 made my 200-400 more accurate at longer distances. Who would have guessed?
If you lack contrast or have marginal light, a teleconverter is even more challenging.
Many people don't realize the AF sensors that provide AF - and the performance of those sensors - varies with the wide open aperture of your lens and TC combination. With many DSLR cameras only the center AF point will reliably focus with a teleconverter.
The Z cameras are much better with a teleconverter - both in terms of AF accuracy and the sensors that work. You can also get away with a TC combination beyond f/8 if you have adequate contrast. That does not mean you can shoot birds in flight reliably. I can use the 200-500 and 1.4 TC reliably on my Z cameras but not on my D850.
My favorite combination for birding is the TC14E II with the older 300 f/4 AFS on my Z6 or Z7II. AF is outstanding even handheld. It does not work with the TC14E III version.
If you use a TC, it's better to minimally crop.
Michelle Valberg - Nikon Ambassador from Canada - using a 1.7 and 2.0 teleconverter with her Z6ii and 600mm and 800mm lenses. I moderated a webinar with her on Nikonians. I was amazed at the quality of images - many of which were from a kayak. Her hit rate was not great, but the hits were stunning.
Tony Zaiden
New member
I 2nd your comment, completely in agreement with your statement. I'll only add the same happens when I use TC 1.4 III in my 500mm PF 5.6 clear pics, focusing time a bit slower than my 300 mm f 2.8 VR II
I ordered the Z 1.4 one to go with my 70-200/2.8 since all of the reviews say if you can stop down a stop it's essentially as good as without and wide open. Might consider the F mount 1.4 as well for my 500PF at some point if I get out of the DX bodies entirely…although if we see the Z90 or whatever the mirrorless D500 is I might keep that one for when I need lots of lens reach.
fulltimewanderer
Active member
I have the 1.4, 1.7, and a 2 all version ll. I haven’t been pleased the with the results when used on my 500G. Eventually traded the 500G for the 600G. Haven’t tried teleconverter on the 600 yet. Normally shoot with a FF, found that if I need that little extra l’ll shoot with the D500. My wife has an older 300 2.8 af-s that she shoots with a 1.4 version ll that is just as sharp as with or without a teleconverter. But she did drop the combo with a D4 attached. All 3 pieces were returned to Nikon for repair with request to “marry” the 3 together, so that may explain why the set is so sharp.
There is a big difference between the TC20E II and the III version. You might like the newer version with a fast lens. Personally I find it too much for a 600mm lens - but some can make it work. It might be fun on the 300 f/2.8 if you have the III version.
Turberticus
Well-known member
Yes! I have the older AF-S 300mm F/4 and the TC14E. Not the TC14E II, but it apparently it has identical optics. The only difference is the crinkle finish on the TC14E II. Anyway, it's a great budget lens + TC combination.