Nikon 300PF with 1.7 Teleconverter Experiences?

[Craig@MullenbachPhoto]

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.

 

[Rainbow One]

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

 

[DRwyoming]

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

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.

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.

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.

 

[Rainbow One]

Thanks for the images and info, the person who is lending me the 300PF has just sent me some dragonfly images and they are brilliant

 

[Andrew Lamberson]

Check out the Macro and Close-up section in the forum. There are a lot of images done with the 300mm, and even some with the 500 mm

 

[Woodpecker]

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.

 

[gjonez]

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]

 

[MrFotoFool]

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).

 

[ricardo00]

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:

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

Explore this photo album by ricardo00 on Flickr!

www.flickr.com

 

[gjonez]

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.

 

[ricardo00]

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.

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.

 

[gjonez]

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.

 

[Don Linn]

Currently i am using the 300pf with all three converters on a Z6 II. Sold most of my gear and waiting for the Z9 specs and the rumored Z AF firmware. After its release i will decide which system to choose.
The 300PF works well on the mirrorless cameras and the image quality is relay good.
With DSLRS its a different story. The TC 17 II is usable and delivers good quality but the TC20 III is more of a last resort and i seldom used it with the D500 and D850.
You definitely have to fine tune the TC´s with DSLR´s but after fine tuning they will yield good results.
If you have enough light you should be able to do some action work with the D500 too. In this case the Z6 is lacking so fingers crossed for the rumored AF update or Z9.
And now some images with the Z6 II + TC 20 III. Spent 3 hours with a pair of ringed plovers. Those are the moments i enjoy most. They let me move close to them. Crawled slowly within close focus distance. That experience included some blue marks as the stony beach wasn't comfortable but that's a given fact in wildlife photography

View attachment 24871
Nikon Z6II with 300 PF + TC 20III | ISO 250 | 600mm| F9 | 1/320s

View attachment 24872
Nikon Z6II with 300 PF + TC 20III | ISO 250| 600mm | F9 | 1/400sView attachment 24876
Nikon Z6II with 300 PF + TC 20III | ISO 280| 600mm | F8 | 1/800s

View attachment 24870
Nikon Z6II with 300 PF + TC 20III | ISO 250| 600mm | F9 | 1/400s

*edit
I will try to get some images this weekend with the TC17II

Great images.

 

[Don Linn]

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.

View attachment 25173

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.

View attachment 25174

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.

Very nice.

 

[Jbear]

I had 2 PF's...one was unusable with the 1.7 and the other was quite good. I've had similar experiences with other lens/tc combos for which I've owned multiple units. Sometimes the play nice...sometimes not. If I get poor results, I have to try more than one before I write it off.

 

[Woodpecker]

It is some time ago since I used the 300PF with TC's on my DSLR (D850 and D4s). With the TC-17E II I wasn't happy at all. IQ degradation with TC's is normal, but with the 1,7x you end up at f/6.7 (it adds 1,5 stops, not 1,3). Considering the fact that with f8 you lose most of your AF sensors on a DSLR and f/6.7 is pretty close to that, so the result is no surprise.

As mentioned in earlier post the TC-17E II generally didn't have a great image at the time anyway and I wouldn't recommend using this combo in a DSLR with a lens slower than f/2.8.

That said, after switching to Z the only F-mount lens I kept was my 500 f4 G and when testing it on a Z8 with a TC-17E II just for fun it was a different story. You still have a considerable loss in IQ compared to bare lense or even compared to usinf the TC-14E II or III, but with this f4 F-mount lens on a Z body the AF seems to work pretty well with a slight drop in speed. I would expect to see the same with the 300PF. The only drawback might be, that the base resolution of the 300PF is already considerably lower than of the 500 f4 G. Thus the question is, whether or not there's enough left when using the TC to keep you happy with the result.

 

[Calson]

Back when I shot film and had the 1.4x, 1.7x, and 2x teleconverters the softest by far was the 1.7x one. Nikon produced later versions of the TC-14 and TC-20 that were sharper but not with the TC-17. With digital sensors the 1/2 stop difference was not significant and no reason to carry around three teleconverters.

 

[fulltimewanderer]

I'd recommend the 1.4 teleconverter over the 1.7. It's easier to get good results.

I have had excellent result with the 300mm and the 1.7 TC, but it requires excellent light and technique. Depending on the camera, you may need to use the center or adjoining AF points to have reliable AF. On a DSLR, most of the AF sensors don't work well at f/6.3 or beyond wide open. The 1.4 teleconverter means you are at f/5.6 wide open, and AF tends to work with most sensors depending on the camera. Move to the 1.7 or 2.0 and you are quite limited.

I feel that Eric summed it up perfectly, but I’d add my 2 cents. With the prices of used f mount lenses dropping you may wish to consider getting a 500pf. Not a heavy lens and easy to hand hold and lets not forget a sharp lens.

 

[Don Linn]

I feel that Eric summed it up perfectly, but I’d add my 2 cents. With the prices of used f mount lenses dropping you may wish to consider getting a 500pf. Not a heavy lens and easy to hand hold and lets not forget a sharp lens.

Thank you for your sharing your knowledge, much appreciated.

 

[Don Linn]

It is some time ago since I used the 300PF with TC's on my DSLR (D850 and D4s). With the TC-17E II I wasn't happy at all. IQ degradation with TC's is normal, but with the 1,7x you end up at f/6.7 (it adds 1,5 stops, not 1,3). Considering the fact that with f8 you lose most of your AF sensors on a DSLR and f/6.7 is pretty close to that, so the result is no surprise.

As mentioned in earlier post the TC-17E II generally didn't have a great image at the time anyway and I wouldn't recommend using this combo in a DSLR with a lens slower than f/2.8.

That said, after switching to Z the only F-mount lens I kept was my 500 f4 G and when testing it on a Z8 with a TC-17E II just for fun it was a different story. You still have a considerable loss in IQ compared to bare lense or even compared to usinf the TC-14E II or III, but with this f4 F-mount lens on a Z body the AF seems to work pretty well with a slight drop in speed. I would expect to see the same with the 300PF. The only drawback might be, that the base resolution of the 300PF is already considerably lower than of the 500 f4 G. Thus the question is, whether or not there's enough left when using the TC to keep you happy with the result.

Thank you for your comments.

 

[Don Linn]

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.

View attachment 25173

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.

View attachment 25174

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.

Great image, thank you for your sharing and your comments.

 

[CoyoteCreationsNW]

I'm not surprised that the 300 PF is still being duscussed. I sold all of my f mount gear and now use a Z8 and Z9 body. The one hole is the Z lens system is a f/4 or f/2.8 at 300 mm. The available zooms are pretty good, but they all have a more narrow aperture. Where I live, low light is a given. I have found the 300 PF bare and with a 1.4x E iii TC give me good images on my Z cameras with a very light . The bare 300 PF images look better than my Z 70-200 plus TC14.