I’ve decided to take the plunge and buy the 70-200 f/2.8E. Thanks for your thoughts.
TC 1.4 II vs 1.4III
- Thread starter dutchbenke
- 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).
Dmacfarl
Active member
Anyone have experience with the old Nikon Tc14i vs the Tc14iii? Ive been using the Tc14i on my 500PF and its seems fine. Any reason to get the iii ?
Yes, there's very little difference between the II and III versions of the TC-14 but I owned the I version and wasn't at all happy with it. I didn't own the I and III at the same time but I did own the I and II at the same time and the II version yielded much sharper and higher contrast images. As posted earlier in this thread I find very little image quality between the II and III models on anything but the newest E series lenses where the III has a very slight edge but the I version was a different beast and not a TC I'd recommend.
O
Well-known member
The Ducks Guts from the coal face bedroom test and more Lol
1) hold up the TC II side by side with TC III and look through from the direction of the camera mount side, you will see clearly that the the TC II has ever such a slightly larger view and the subject appears literally closer or magnified more, do this on a subject like a tree of plant from 6 or 7 meters. You will also see that there is a slight difference between the whole diameter be it an optical illusion or not, also there is ever so slightly noticeable a bit of distortion in the outer edges of the II, is this a sample variation or another reason for the redesign ?, i handed this test over to several friends without telling them what they will see , all picked it clearly, validating that i haven't lost it ...yet LOl.
2) then hold the two TCs tightly side by side under a single LED bedroom ceiling light around waist height, you will see flair in both TCs as you move them around up or down, OK if you made it this far you will then be slapped in the face with a strong colour cast from the TC II again spotted by the friends with out being prompted.
3) Hold up both TCs next to each other from the direction of the camera mount, look outside through a widow, you will see clearly that the TC II is slightly brighter or looks more like plain glass or has a little glare about it as where the TC III looks like it has a very fine polarized look or filtered about it showing slightly nicer contrast and colour, it looks far better than the the TC II.
4) The TC III has a different formulae, added coating, the optical clarity by viewing through them hand held is clearly apparent in different and challenging conditions like snow or white surf.
5) Comparing the images on the back of the D850 screen at 100% its hard to pick the difference as far as needle sharpness goes, look at the images on an Eizo screen with a super high end Mac Pro Tower and there is a difference in micro contrast, glare and colour, in doors under artificial lights like a stadium you may see that colour cast depending on where your are positioned......... of course we then take these high end photos taken on exotic gear only to email them via your phone via some crappy telco LOL.
6) Before buying a TC III i asked Thom hogan if it was a worth while upgrade, he answered defiantly. I never asked why, Now when i trolled the internet and looked at reviews till my head hurts i found the majority of reviewers say the upgrade from the II to the III is not worth it as they can hardly notice any difference if at all, and to the average or majority of people i would see why that's the case and would agree their isn't a lot in it looking at things initially, however as i ignore mostly the internet reviews and ask why did Nikon upgrade the TC II led me to do the coal face test of my own as mentioned in point 1, 2, 3, also the TC x 2 II was a pig, the TC x2 III is better, it would be logical that similar issues with TC x 2 II would be in the TC 1.4 II but far less evident being only 1.4, so their had to be a difference and for me there clearly is.
Once seen or noticed, or using specific different lenses like the PF or FL lenses, different conditions low light high iso, contrasting conditions, artificial lighting and its in there the difference becomes more noticeable as time goes on and more so in some conditions/lenses more than others.
To me the magnification difference in my point 1 has me puzzled asking was the TC 1.4 II a 1.5 or 6 not a true 1.4 ??
Any way i upgraded for only $200 AUD difference as the II has a good resale because everyone thinks their isn't a difference to the III.
The D850 on good glass shows a difference in areas i mentioned such as colour micro contrast, i am told by some that there is a difference in the outer edges so i guess i am not alone.
Only an opinion
Oz down under
1) hold up the TC II side by side with TC III and look through from the direction of the camera mount side, you will see clearly that the the TC II has ever such a slightly larger view and the subject appears literally closer or magnified more, do this on a subject like a tree of plant from 6 or 7 meters. You will also see that there is a slight difference between the whole diameter be it an optical illusion or not, also there is ever so slightly noticeable a bit of distortion in the outer edges of the II, is this a sample variation or another reason for the redesign ?, i handed this test over to several friends without telling them what they will see , all picked it clearly, validating that i haven't lost it ...yet LOl.
2) then hold the two TCs tightly side by side under a single LED bedroom ceiling light around waist height, you will see flair in both TCs as you move them around up or down, OK if you made it this far you will then be slapped in the face with a strong colour cast from the TC II again spotted by the friends with out being prompted.
3) Hold up both TCs next to each other from the direction of the camera mount, look outside through a widow, you will see clearly that the TC II is slightly brighter or looks more like plain glass or has a little glare about it as where the TC III looks like it has a very fine polarized look or filtered about it showing slightly nicer contrast and colour, it looks far better than the the TC II.
4) The TC III has a different formulae, added coating, the optical clarity by viewing through them hand held is clearly apparent in different and challenging conditions like snow or white surf.
5) Comparing the images on the back of the D850 screen at 100% its hard to pick the difference as far as needle sharpness goes, look at the images on an Eizo screen with a super high end Mac Pro Tower and there is a difference in micro contrast, glare and colour, in doors under artificial lights like a stadium you may see that colour cast depending on where your are positioned......... of course we then take these high end photos taken on exotic gear only to email them via your phone via some crappy telco LOL.
6) Before buying a TC III i asked Thom hogan if it was a worth while upgrade, he answered defiantly. I never asked why, Now when i trolled the internet and looked at reviews till my head hurts i found the majority of reviewers say the upgrade from the II to the III is not worth it as they can hardly notice any difference if at all, and to the average or majority of people i would see why that's the case and would agree their isn't a lot in it looking at things initially, however as i ignore mostly the internet reviews and ask why did Nikon upgrade the TC II led me to do the coal face test of my own as mentioned in point 1, 2, 3, also the TC x 2 II was a pig, the TC x2 III is better, it would be logical that similar issues with TC x 2 II would be in the TC 1.4 II but far less evident being only 1.4, so their had to be a difference and for me there clearly is.
Once seen or noticed, or using specific different lenses like the PF or FL lenses, different conditions low light high iso, contrasting conditions, artificial lighting and its in there the difference becomes more noticeable as time goes on and more so in some conditions/lenses more than others.
To me the magnification difference in my point 1 has me puzzled asking was the TC 1.4 II a 1.5 or 6 not a true 1.4 ??
Any way i upgraded for only $200 AUD difference as the II has a good resale because everyone thinks their isn't a difference to the III.
The D850 on good glass shows a difference in areas i mentioned such as colour micro contrast, i am told by some that there is a difference in the outer edges so i guess i am not alone.
Only an opinion
Oz down under
Last edited:
Dmacfarl
Active member
Thanks. Some sites indicate that the only difference between the i and the ii is cosmetic.. Not your experience, I gather. But the iii is much better thsn the ii ?
Dmacfarl
Active member
Hi,
So if the 14 i and ii are identical other than cosmetically, then you are suggesting that the iii is much better than the ii ( and therefore the i ) ?
In my experience the II and III are much better than the I but as I posted I saw very little difference between the II or III though the III seems a bit sharper with better contrast on my 70-200mm E FL and 600mm f/4 E FL lenses. Still I wouldn't not say the III is 'much better' than the II, a little bit better on certain lenses and no difference I could detect on most of my lenses including the 600mm f/4 G and 70-200mm VR II G lenses.
Perhaps I had a bad copy of the original TC-14 E (what I'm calling the I version) teleconverter or it just didn't match up well with the lenses I owned but I wasn't happy with mine.
O
Well-known member
I have no knowledge of the 1.4 1 and don't accept opinions easily.
I can only say with the II and the III on my desk and conducting the simple test described above there is a difference in design with the III with some definite improvements as described.
If you don't have a 1.4 TC then the III is the right choice, again it depends greatly on the camera lenses and conditions as to noticing advantages.
I found it somewhat puzzling that we spend a fortune on cameras and expensive lenses then process images on a lap top or PC then upload them to the internet or email them.
Oz down under
O
Well-known member
Contrast, colour, sharpness, less colour cast with in door arenas seems to be what i have noticed on my 70-200 FL/D850.
The 70-200 FL lens is the sharpest and best lens Nikon makes other than being slightly edged out and i mean slightly by the 200 F2 and the 105 1.4, the TC 1.4 III is more capable on these lenses than the TC 1.4 II.
Only an opinion OZ down under
Dmacfarl
Active member
I have a TC14 Ei. Since the i and ii are the same:
From Ken Rockwell…
“The TC-14E and TC-14E II are identical except for the name and trim. Both work with both AF-I and AF-S lenses.
I use the names TC-14E and TC-14E II throughout the text interchangeably. They are the same product.”
So, since the iii is better than the ii, it is worth upgrading from the i to the iii.
O
Well-known member
Short answer ...........Was it a worth while upgrade form te II to the III, for Me, Yes.
Will it be for others again that depends on your gear and application and what you use to review your images on.
Long answer............I found it to be better on the 300 2.8VR II and the D850 shooting surfing, the 70-200 FL indoors on a basket ball match, wheel chair sports, cycling, there was a difference in contrast colour and sharpness especially wide open on the 200 F2 @ f2.8 70-200 FL. @F4
Some reviewers say there is little to no difference, others say there is in contrast and sharpness. I borrowed one first.
I feel if your shooting at F8 F11 F16 things may be different in noticing sharpness than shooting at F2.8 and F4.
I cant tell you to buy one, you should borrow one first or rent one.
But using the lenses and camera i do with the applications i have, i have no regrets upgrading considering the low change over cost.
Is the difference a great difference or so little its not worth while, for myself it was worth while, especially as i shoot more wide open.
Only an opinion
Oz down Under
Dmacfarl
Active member
O
Well-known member
Example, TCx2 III on 70-200 FL hand held Jpeg snaps taken at F11 at 400mm, cropped heavily then resized to around 1200 x 800 etc.
It shows that its a usable combination despite not being recommended. F5.6 140mm to 400mm with no focus breathing.
The TC 1.4 III is defiantly better than the TC 2x. but if you need that extra reach !
The subjects were about 30 meters away, next time i will try subjects 100 meters away then crop.
Again the 70-200FL is an exceptional lens, i noticed the focusing was a whisker slower with the 2x TC but certainly not an issue and the most important thing is it focused accurately.
I shoot Jpeg fine 98% of the time and full size TIFF only for critical stuff.
I also often use the internal adjustments for contrast, saturation etc (Ken Rockwell) Style LOL
Oz Down under
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
Last edited:
Steve W
Well-known member
The 70-200 f/4 is a fine lens but, aside from being a f/2.8, the 70-200 FL has that extra something
Snapshot2020
Well-known member
I thought the wait for my 500PF at 3 months was too long and I’m at the point with my wait list at several Nikon Camera Dealers for the TC 14 iii. Still on back order and I want the TC for use on my 70-200 2.8 E FL and a 300mm PF.
Dmacfarl
Active member
This is with my D500, 500mm Pf and the old TC14ei
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
O
Well-known member
Absoluitly its what all glass should and can be, The 70-200 FL and the 200 F2 and the 105 1.4 are my favorite lenses for that unique magical look, they are also as i have mentioned on occasions i feel the best glass Nikon has made.
Light FL glass is just adds that amazing magical look, especially in the new 400.
I own the 70-200 FL, its my go to lens, as well as the 300 2.8 VR II showing is vulnerability now, other than that I rent what ever i need unless its longer term use then i often borrow.
The prices of the new exotics simply put are extortionate, they only way i would buy current models is if i had full time daily use, again the cost of owning is really is only the difference between what you pay and sell for anyway its what else you do with your money that matters for me.
Only an opinion
Oz down under
O
Well-known member
Lovely, what were the settings, wonder if its possible to clone out the folage in the facial area, what do you think.
Oz down under
O
Well-known member
I am going to try the TC 2 III on the 70-200 FL in DX mode on the D850 using TIFF, i find the D850 is good to 6400 and highly usable subject to conditions and shadows to 12,800 iso.
So theory has it LOL i will have 210 to 600 with the amazing optics of the 70-200 FL F2.8 it will be interesting..just for fun LOL. Normally this should not be any good but hey that 70-200 FL is an awesome base to start from.
OZ down under
Steve W
Well-known member
Yep, prices can be outrageous down here. I waited and picked mine up on an Easter sale. Saved almost $800. I hate paying full retail so wait patiently for the deals. It was that same with the 500 PF and the D850.
O
Well-known member
The biggest benefit with the 70-200 FL apart its colour accuracy and sharpness is the VR, i can do clean shots easily down to 1/10th hand held. It has no focus breathing and its lighter.
Oz down under
Snapshot2020
Well-known member
You won’t be disappointed with the 70-200 f2.8 E. Amazingly sharp and it‘s a frequent visitor to my Z7 II.
Last edited:
Teleconverter Compatibility Chart
AF-S Teleconverter Compatibility (nikon-cdn.com)
AF-S Teleconverter Compatibility (nikon-cdn.com)
O
Well-known member
Interesting Chart by Nikon, its amazing how the parameters of the 500 PF and the 200-500 are very similar.
There is a lot to be said for the 70-200 FL, its an extraordinary lens. It even works well on the TC X 2 III and teh D850, i am going to soon try it in DX mode with et TC 2 III.
The one thing i love about Nikon is simply the accurate natural colours, for me its the best in the business, and its also a consensus by leading reviewers.
Peoples taste may be different and that's ok, but from what i see and hear, Nikon has the game on this point.
Oz down Under
There is a lot to be said for the 70-200 FL, its an extraordinary lens. It even works well on the TC X 2 III and teh D850, i am going to soon try it in DX mode with et TC 2 III.
The one thing i love about Nikon is simply the accurate natural colours, for me its the best in the business, and its also a consensus by leading reviewers.
Peoples taste may be different and that's ok, but from what i see and hear, Nikon has the game on this point.
Oz down Under
- Status