Two TCs: The Nikon 180-400 f4 at 400, 560 and 800mm

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).

ssheipel

ssheipel

Well-known member
Supporting Member
Marketplace
Member's gallery
I am so ultimately disinterested in technical testing of gear, but at one point one wildlife photog I was reading when I bought the 180-400 f4 said they shot with BOTH the built in 1.4 tc and the 1.4(III) TC added. So been meaning to try. Wildfire smoke cleared here enough and humidity dropped below 40 percent so thought I'd throw the lens (on the D6) on a tripod on my balcony and take the same shot at those focal lengths. I am in the idiot class with software so these are all cropped at 1:1 aspect (no idea if that = 100% or not :) Straight out of the camera but for the crop. ISO 100 for all; f4, f6.6 and f8, and 1/500, 1/320, 1/160 (no VR) respectively. Based on this I'll do some actual shooting with both TCs in place in the field, just for fun. Shot from 30 meters up (9th floor) and on the horizontal the sign is maybe 150 meters away.

parking at 400.jpg
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
parking at 560.jpg
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
parking at 784.jpg
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
 
Member's gallery
The 180-400 is pure wish-fulfillment unobtanium for me, but I'm glad to see a (presumably) normal human being has one :) How do you find it in general, and is it really up to Nikon prime standards?

It's hard to tell with images online this way, to to my eye it doesn't seem to lose anything with either TC. Seems sharp, and the color contrast and 'punch' seems to hold up.
 
Member's gallery
Thats interesting. When I was out on Sunday I took some shots at 1200mm by adding the TC2.0III (something I usually save only for the 300mm 2.8 ) to a 600mm f4 G. I was pleased with the fact that the AF seemed to work fine. The burrowing owls I was shooting were much closer (but smaller) than your far away target.
 
Member's gallery
NorthernFocus said:
Interesting little demo. I agree with you. I'd plunk the TC on there and shoot with both if need be.
Click to expand...
And I realize I should have taken at shot at 560 with the added TC (the internal 'off') as there's some discussion out there by the pixel gazers that the external TC might produce better results
eaj101 said:
The 180-400 is pure wish-fulfillment unobtanium for me, but I'm glad to see a (presumably) normal human being has one :) How do you find it in general, and is it really up to Nikon prime standards?

It's hard to tell with images online this way, to to my eye it doesn't seem to lose anything with either TC. Seems sharp, and the color contrast and 'punch' seems to hold up.
Click to expand...
I'm not so sure about the 'normal human' bit, but yes really a more money (and I don't have much) than brains purchase for me. I have only shot with a big Nikon prime for a day -- a decade or so ago I rented the 600mm and played with it on my D3. But reviews of the lens are generally glowing (Steve is still out on whether he likes the lens or not, I believe) and I ultimately in my decision making went for it because of the flexibility (zoom and that built in tc) -- which is how I continue to use the lens: zoom it a lot and am constantly flipping on and off that tc. I'm pleased with it, certainly, though I have got to get away from almost exclusively hand holding the lens; it's too much of a pig and too much for my stick arms. It's one of Moose Peterson's favourite lenses and he produces images with it of outstanding quality, so my keeper rate (very low :) ) is my fault not the len's!

And yes, not a very good test subject, a flat painted sign, but definitely very useable shot with the double tc; ridiculously zoomed in in LR it's very savable even at that with noise reduction and sharpening, should I need a parking sign photo ;) Will play with the combo in the field to get a better idea of how AF reacts, as well.
 
Member's gallery
Ductape said:
Thats interesting. When I was out on Sunday I took some shots at 1200mm by adding the TC2.0III (something I usually save only for the 300mm 2.8 ) to a 600mm f4 G. I was pleased with the fact that the AF seemed to work fine. The burrowing owls I was shooting were much closer (but smaller) than your far away target.
Click to expand...
Interesting to hear about your outcomes with the 2x on the 300 2.8. I've got the 300 pf f4 which works nicely with the 1.4 (III). I do have a 2x TC but it's an old one and I simply never used it as I found it sucked on every single lens :) Was thinking I should try the TC 2 (III) on the 300 pf to give me better (lighter) long lens to lug through the bush.
 
Member's gallery
ssheipel said:
Interesting to hear about your outcomes with the 2x on the 300 2.8. I've got the 300 pf f4 which works nicely with the 1.4 (III). I do have a 2x TC but it's an old one and I simply never used it as I found it sucked on every single lens :) Was thinking I should try the TC 2 (III) on the 300 pf to give me better (lighter) long lens to lug through the bush.
Click to expand...
In all fairness the Nikon 300mm f2.8 lenses are famous for taking TCs well. I still have my 300 f2.8 AIS (manual focus) lens and the TC-301 (2x) and I can barely tell the TC is on. That was a fairly common combo before the super-teles came along.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top