Nikon 300PF with 1.7 Teleconverter Experiences?

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).

Member's gallery
I use the TC1.7eII a lot with my 300pf. It is very sharp. The trick is I need to use a higher shutter speed than I would with the 1.4. The AF is noticeably slower even on my D5. For me, it's a great combo for insects on flowers and such. I also works well for me with birds.
 
Member's gallery
Rainbow One said:
Thanks Andrew for your feedback, I have the opportunity to try out the 300PF this Sunday, as a colleague at the Photography club has one, so will see how I get on😀
Click to expand...
I suspect you'll love it. It's a very versatile lens and even more versatile with a TC handy. Its close focus distance alone makes it really useful as a macro-ish lens and with a TC it's not half bad as a birding lens for larger birds or closer small birds.

The 300mm PF's ability to focus down to 4.6' is really amazing. even their pro level 300mm f/2.8 VR II only focuses down to 7.5 feet. That's nearly 3 feet closer on the PF lens which opens up a lot of possibilities for subjects you can get close to. Here's a photo I've posted before that I captured this spring with my 300mm PF and TC -14E iii teleconverter. I wasn't carrying a macro lens but I did have my 300mm PF handy when I came across this spider on its web in early morning light.

Z62_9085-2.jpg
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.


And here's another one from the files. An American Dipper I came across while out hiking in the Tetons on an icy late autumn day captured with the 300mm PF + TC-14 II teleconverter.

dBXAD0148_websize.jpg
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.


Prior to picking up my 500mm PF my 300mm PF with a TC handy was my hiking long lens of choice and it's still my go-to if I think I can get close to my subjects or want the lightest telephoto setup when hiking is a bigger priority than photography but still want to be ready if I come across interesting subjects.
 
Member's gallery
Same experience here. I have both PF's with the 300 being the first. Of course, since I have the 500PF there ist no real point of using the 300PF with the converter anymore unless it is to be used as a (kind of) macro. But even there, I made good experience with shooting the 300Pf with extension ring(s). I tried that when shooting dragonflies, that had the favourite place for standing in the air in front of me even too close for the naked 300 to focus and it works great.
My experience with the 500PF +TC-14EII is a mixed bag. If you get the image in focus the quality ist great, despite of the app. 10% of resolution loss you get with a (good copy of) TC-14EII or III. The problem is more the AF speed and accuracy, as you loose most of your AF sensors with that combo, that is de facto an f8 lens for you body. If the object doesn't move too fast and/or erratically, it 's o.k., but I know I need more than the 500mm, I prefer to go use the bigger brother (AF-S 500 f4G ) with the TC14E-II, leaving me with 700mm f5.6 and all AF sensors working.
 
Member's gallery
Nikon 300PF with TC 17eII: Experiences reported here vary. My experience (w/D500) has been sharp images and good IQ at near- to middle-distance (say, <150') in good light. But marginal to poor at further distances, mindful of ISO, aperture and shutter speed. Mediocre IQ and even a bit pixelated; unusable. Can't speak to the TC 1.4. But I now use the 300 PF with no TC (excellent) and a different lense for further reaches. [I know this thread is dated, but my experience was recent; fall 2023]
 
Member's gallery
For a short while I had a 300PF that I bought used and tried it with the 1.4x iii teleconverter that I used with my 70-200 f2.8E with excellent results. This was on a D850. I tried the 1.4x on the 300PF and the results were bad - so soft that it was unuseable. As I said I routinely used the teleconverter on my 70-200 and the results were outstanding, so I know it's not the teleconverter, it's the lens. However, others here (and elsewhere) are reporting good results with that combo, so maybe I just had a bad match? As I said I got the lens used, though it seemed to be sharp when used without teleconverter. I have also been told that the 1.7x (just like the 2x) in F mount is not as sharp as the 1.4x, so you may want to stick with that.

(I have since sold all those items and switched to Nikon Z, where the Z 2x is very good, unlike the F mount version).
 
Member's gallery
I would think that the OP (Rainbow One) must have made a decision by now? The OP at that time was using a D500. If they (or anyone else) is interested, I did use the 1.7TC with the 300mm PF (before there was a 500mm PF) as a very lightweight way to get to 500mm with my DSLRs. I have an album with photos with this combo on my Flickr for those interested. There may be a fair amount of variability in this TC or lens compatibility or maybe I am less discerning than others. I found it to be a super lightweight way to get to 500mm.
My flickr album using that combo for anyone who is interested:
www.flickr.com

Nikon 300mm f/4 PF lens with 1.7X teleconverter

Explore this photo album by ricardo00 on Flickr!
www.flickr.com www.flickr.com
 
Member's gallery
I'm new here; perhaps sad that my first post was two years out of the past. But I was surprised at the variability, in my experience, of results with the D500, 300 prime, 1.7 TC. Too bad because I was enjoying my first trip to South Dakota and kinda missed some nice burrowing owl shots. So I impetuously shattered my retirement budget and got a Z8 with a nice Z lens and Z TC. Wow. 'No ragrets.' (I checked out your flickr shots, R; very nice.) Anyway, the D500 is still a gem, but this Z8 (now with the new firmware) is so good it can take photos two years into the future.
 
Member's gallery
gjonez said:
I'm new here; perhaps sad that my first post was two years out of the past. But I was surprised at the variability, in my experience, of results with the D500, 300 prime, 1.7 TC. Too bad because I was enjoying my first trip to South Dakota and kinda missed some nice burrowing owl shots. So I impetuously shattered my retirement budget and got a Z8 with a nice Z lens and Z TC. Wow. 'No ragrets.' (I checked out your flickr shots, R; very nice.) Anyway, the D500 is still a gem, but this Z8 (now with the new firmware) is so good it can take photos two years into the future.
Click to expand...
Thank you for your kind comments on my flickr shots! I too have emptied my piggybank and switched to the Z8 and Z lenses (400mm f/4.5 plus/minus TCs as well as an 800mm PF). Definitely heavier but so much better.
 
Member's gallery
R - Re Z8: Nice; you went all in. My rig (100-400 & TC) lacks the speed of those impressive primes. Still, I look forward to testing my combination out on the Texas Gulf coast after visiting Ft. Worth friends for the eclipse. As a closing nod to this old thread topic I'll declare that I still use the D500, and the 300mm 1:4 prime is a great lens, sans TC.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top