Nikon TC's and VR1-VR2 questions

[Chad Huff]

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 noticeable difference.

2. Curious how much real world difference there is between a VR1 and VR2 on a large prime (300 2.8, 400 2.8, 5-600 4). The VR1 on a nikon 70-200 is quite noisy, and in my experience that's common. Does the VR work noticeably better on the VR2, aside from noise?

Thanks to all for your first hand experiences!

 

[Chad Huff]

Guess you mean a TC-20E III and the TC-20E II?

On a F/2.8 prime both TCs ‘work’ and the newer TC will give you the least worse results.
FTR I think the loss in IQ even with the stellar primes to much but that’s for wildlife, people shooting sports will assess this different.

Nikon TC-20E III Review

photographylife.com

Yep less sound and a one stop (4 vs 3) advantage for the newest version
Does it work noticeable better? Hmmm I would say hardly, it became noticeable better when VR Sports got introduced, (strange enough Nikon didn’t name it VRIII but went back to the old VR naming)

Thank you for your response. I apologize, its late and I mis-typed the TC I'm thinking of... Im meant the TC1.4E I and II. Yeah, the "least bad is a good way to put it. I have the TC1.4E I and it serves its purpose, not just the best. Im really wondering if it is much if any worse than the II and worth the upgrade?

Thats very helpful on the VR 1 vs VR 2... Thanks.

 

[Chad Huff]

Okay no problem it’s just you get some correct answers for another question LOL

If you’re talking about the TC-1.4E vs the TC-14E II there’s no difference, same optics only AFI vs AFS and the looks are different.
If you however look at the last sibling the TC-14E III there is a difference.
Chromatic abberation with the new TC is better corrected which makes the TC better for more distant shooting.
At first I thought I had a real good copy but then I heard others to experience the same.

Thats what I wanted to know! Thank you. With the TC-14E III ut also doesn't work on older AFS versions (which I have) so thats why Ive never bought it. I guess the chromatic aberration is easy enough to correct in post. Thanks for your help.

 

[fcotterill]

Yes should have warned more specific for reported incomptability with some older lenses.

btw THIS was the article I was referring at.

Nikon have a Compatibility List for the Teleconverters
As I recall TC2 III was released with the current model of the 300 f2.8G VRII, and optimized for this prime. It is a significant improvement on the vII TC, which quite a few former owners suggest is best as a fishing weight. (The Sony TC2 is much better than the current Nikon version, and ow we have the Z-TC2's which are both excellent, apparently.) I read somewhere Nikon designed TC14 III to perform best with the E aperture telephotos (I recall it was released with the 400 f2.8E FL, and optimized by Sato-San for this prime, and the data confirms this). Overall, my experience with 300 f4 PF, 70-200 f2.8E and 400 f2.8E concurs with Nasim's and others (including Brad Hill). It is excellent, but I never tested these E optics with the TC14 vII I used previously on the 300 f2.8 (traded in both). Not there is copy variation, and this ogre also affects IQ with certain lenses.

As with the irritating trend with quite a few articles on PL, this article has been updated recently (judging by the date, but there's no history of its previous editions). It first appeared a couple of years back. I copied and pasted relevant sections of earlier versions of some of the telephotos especially into a big compendium of relevant reviews etc on Nikon lenses (it's been growing since 2015). Before saving for my current telephotos I invested much effort in reading reviews etc, including the TCs. I don't think there is any other review of Nikon TCs close to Nasim's, and PL is also a rare tester of the super exotic 800 f5.6E FL. They also recently updated their review of the 600 f4E PF.

I agree with most aspects of his summary, namely:

• Nikon TC-14E III – 7% Sharpness Loss
• Nikon TC-17E II – 19% Sharpness Loss
• Nikon TC-20E III – 30% Sharpness Loss

But I find TC2 III gives excellent results on my 400 f2.8E FL provided one adheres to primary Rule of don't crop with a TC, and do NOT expect decent IQ at longer subject distances! I've also found TC17 II very fickle - fine on the 400 f2.8, very good on my copy of the 300 f4 PF, but utterly useless on the 70-200 f2.8E (?!)

Steve has tested and discussed IQ impacts with TC14 III - https://backcountrygallery.com/comparison-test-crop-camera-vs-1-4x-teleconverter-full-frame/

 

[Warren D]

But I find TC2 III gives excellent results on my 400 f2.8E FL provided one adheres to primary Rule of don't crop with a TC, and do NOT expect decent IQ at longer subject distances! I've also found TC17 II very fickle - fine on the 400 f2.8, very good on my copy of the 300 f4 PF, but utterly useless on the 70-200 f2.8E (?!)

I've had the opposite experience with the 1.7 EII on my 70-200 E, it's a really great combo with very little loss of IQ. That said, it does take a wide swing of AF fine tune @200mm but I've gotten some remarkable shots with it. It's OK on my 600EFL as well, but I do see about 20% loss of sharpness as quoted. The 1.4EIII seems excellent on all the latest E series lenses.

 

[fcotterill]

Historical context - the current battery of exotic telephotos were designed by optical genius Susumu Sato in the 1990s. He is still active in Nikon R&D (I was in contact with Haruo Sato last year, and asked him to extend my grateful thanks to Susumu Sato-san for the excellence of the 400 f2.8E. It is my core lens for wildlife and often with TC2 III !) https://imaging.nikon.com/history/story/0067/index.htm

It is worth quoting the context: "....A 2x teleconverter increases axial chromatic aberration by four times. Therefore, axial chromatic aberration for the newly designed lens had to be reduced to 1/4 that of the current stand-alone lens (with double the focal length). 1/4 may not sound like much, but to an ordinary optical designer it is a mind-boggling target. It is certain that Sato thoroughly reconsidered every aspect with his new designs, from lens type and structure to the glass materials used. In short, his new lenses had to offer a level of performance that thoroughly compensated for any drop in performance that occurred when a teleconverter was used. The resulting lenses themselves offered such a high level of performance that one might even consider them to be of excessive quality. That was the heavy cross he imposed upon himself. However, Sato was amazingly successful. That was his genius. Sato's design concept forms the basis of today's telephoto and super-telephoto NIKKOR lenses. "

Brad Hill also tested the Nikkor TCs intensively.
http://www.naturalart.ca/artist/fieldtests/tc_series3.html

http://www.naturalart.ca/artist/cameragear2.html

Here a few more links, which hopefully still work:-

Nikon 400mm f/2.8E FL ED VR Review - Page 3 of 6

photographylife.com

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4274542?page=2

http://www.truetoad.com/Reviews/nikon-600mm-f4-vs-nikon-400mm-f28

https://photographylife.com/nikon-tc-14e-iii-vs-tc-14e-ii-performance-comparison

https://photographylife.com/reviews/nikon-tc-20e-iii

Nikon 400mm f/2.8E FL ED VR Review - Page 3 of 6

photographylife.com

 

[fcotterill]

I've had the opposite experience with the 1.7 EII on my 70-200 E, it's a really great combo with very little loss of IQ. That said, it does take a wide swing of AF fine tune @200mm but I've gotten some remarkable shots with it. It's OK on my 600EFL as well, but I do see about 20% loss of sharpness as quoted. The 1.4EIII seems excellent on all the latest E series lenses.

Thanks for sharing your findings.
My copy of TC17 II must be fickle, but as it works well on the 400 f2.8 ie a 680 f4.8, I dare not change it!