Posted by Bill Chambers on March 13, 2007 at 4:54 PM
Shooting mostly landscapes I've never needed a long lens or teleconverter, therefore I don't know diddly about them.
I'm considering getting a Nikon 70-200 f/2.8 VR. Since 200 isn't very long, I was also considering getting the TC14e, but have concerns.
Does a teleconverter actually increase the focal length of the lens or does it just magnify a section of the image (ala Nikon's High Speed Crop mode)? If it just mimics the Hi-Speed Crop I would consider it worthless since it doesn't actually doesn't do anything other than crop an existing image to create an illusion of larger size. Why spend money for that?
Second question - does anyone know how the TC14e matches up and complements the 70-200 VR? Is it a good "fit" with that lens, and do AF and VR functions still work with that TC?
Bill, it kinda depends. The low-end converters (the one that fit all lenses) do just that - magnify the center portion of the image circle. The idea is that the glass is good enough that the magnified image still has more resolution than a cropped piece of film. Whether this is still true with high end digital sensors I'm not sure.
The high-end/dedicated converters are actually designed to reach into the lens and become the rear lens element. These are generally limited to lenses that are designed to work with them and where the engineers made the proper allowances in the optical formula. It's similar to the way convertible lenses work in Large Format. These optimized converters have a higher quality than the simple magnifying ones and generally produce much better results.
Guy
Posted by Basil Greber on March 13, 2007 at 6:23 PM
Hi Bill
The HSC mode reduces the sensor size (or rather the portion of the sensor used), and thus the amount of pixels, while a TC will create an enlarged image that covers the whole sensor (so the combined optical system you're using has a longer focal length - and since the aperture stays at the same physical size, you'll get a slower but longer lens). If both the lens and the TC are good (and the Nikon AF-S TCs have a good reputation), this will be (much) better than a cropped image.
Basil
Posted by Kent Mearig on March 13, 2007 at 8:48 PM
Bill, I've used a 80-200 AF-S with the TC-20E for great results on a few occasions, but I don't use the combination very often at all. With the 2x converter, the center of gravity for the lens/camera is shifted too far away from the collar for my tripod to handle well. Based simply on quality of glass though, the setup you describe should function superbly.
Bill, I have great news for you. When the AF-S 70-200mm f/2.8 VR was introduced, I experimented with it shooting many images of a brick wall with and without a TC-20E. The results were that the sharpness was almost identical with or without the teleconverter. Unfortunately, I do not remember checking the autofocus speed.
Our experience wiith the TC-20E on the older AF-S 80-200mm f/2.8 was the same, though the autofocus seemed to be just a touch slower when compared to either a straight AF-S 80-200 or one with a TC-14E. In dim light the autofocus seems to be at most 10% slower. For all practicle purposes, it is difficult to detect.
If you can tolerate a very slight reduction in autofocus speed, then I would strongly recommend the TC-20E instead of the TC-14E. The cost is only slightly more for the TC-20E, but it will give you much more flexability.
Please note that this recommendation is based on the Nikkor TC-14E and TC-20E. As far as other brands, the Kenko Pro has a good reputation. But, Nikon has always had superb teleconverters specifically designed for their lenses.
Posted by Carol Hyman on March 14, 2007 at 12:23 AM
Hey, Bill,
I bought the Nikon 70-200 mm f/2.8 VR lens about a year and a half ago and I just bought the TC-17E II (1.7x) AF-S, AF-I Teleconverter to use with it.
No way in God's little green acres am I to be considered as a "birder" photographer; however, that said, I'm pleased with the results I've had so far (I've only been out once to shoot with the TC and the long lens).
Take a look at:
http://www.naturephotographers.net/imagecritique/ic.cgi?a=vp&pr=66805&b=mp&st=0&la=8&ph=2&sid=1042&u=1042
and
http://www.naturephotographers.net/imagecritique/ic.cgi?a=vp&pr=66615&b=mp&st=0&la=8&ph=3&sid=1409&u=1409
It's not going to be as great as a longer lens but I think it's a good value for the money.
Carol Hyman
http://hy-tec-training.com
Posted by Kent Staubus on March 14, 2007 at 12:43 AM
A couple of months ago I looked into replacing my 80-400mm VR with a 70-200mm VR plus either the TCE20 or the TCE14. My plan was to sell both the 80-400mm VR and my Nikon 80-200mm f2.8 AF-D and buy the 70-200mm f2.8 VR and TC20. Researching it on the web, I couldn't find a single source that said anything good about using a TC on the 70-200mm lenses. I then asked the editor at the little magazine I shoot for what his opinion was, and he told me to not put a TC on the 80-200mm but just keep the 80-400mm. I didn't try a Nikon TC on the lens, but only my Tamron APO 1.4x. The 1.4x was not as sharp as the 80-400mm. Not sure what to make of the "internet experts" being so down on the TCE20/70-200 mm combo versus the experienced photographers here reporting good results.
Kent in SD
Posted by Rod Barbee on March 14, 2007 at 12:49 PM
Not sure what to make of the "internet experts" being so down on the TCE20/70-200 mm combo versus the experienced photographers here reporting good results.
I know what to make of it. The "experts" are spending more time becoming "experts" rather than actually photographing.
There's many kinds of experts. There are those that photograph test charts in labs and those that speak from experience in the field. Both have merit but need to be weighed in context.
Guy
Posted by Bill Chambers on March 14, 2007 at 1:54 PM
Thanks again all - lots of great info, and it's beginning to look like a no-brainer. Will defintiely get the 70-200 VR and the 1.4TC, and then save up a little more for the 2xTC. Thanks.
Bill, I would skip th e TC-14E for now even though it is a superb teleconverter. Ours is alway on an AF-S 300mm f/4. WIth the TC-20E, you will get zoom ranges of 70-200mm f/2.8 and 140-400 mm f/5.6. The cost of the TC-20E is not that much more than the TC-14E. If later you find that you are mostly focusing in the 200-300mm range, then get the TC-14E.
Posted by Kent Staubus on March 14, 2007 at 8:47 PM
Or, you could split the difference and get the Nikon 1.7x, a unique Nikon option. Let me know how the 2x works if you get one. My selling the Nikons 80-400mm VR and 80-200mm f2.8 AF-D and buying a 70-200mm VR plus TCE20 are back on the front burner.
Bill, I am not sure if your question has been answered. I always thought that the TCs take the central portion of the light and magnify it to cover the intended space. The intended space is the film or sensor area. This is why the closest focusing distance and DOF is not changed by adding a TC. The lens specific perspective, ie. compression ratio of the telephoto lens is not changed by the TC.
Yes, a 500 mm lens with a 2 XTC will have the angular view of a 1000 mm lens so it will fill the frame like a 1000 mm. However, the other characteristics of the 500 remain intact except for the 2 F stop sacrifice. The 2 F stop sacrifice comes from taking the central volume of light and spreading it out over a larger area.
It is correct to say that pixels are not sacrificed as the magnified image will cover all the pixels in the frame. However the volume of light used to cover the pixels is 25% of the original light so the 2 F stop light loss.
So, is a 500 mm lens with a 2 X TC equivalent to a 1000 mm lens? Sort of! It is kind of like saying that a 100mm lens on a 1.6 sensor camera is a 160 mm lens. The angle of view on the sensor is the equivalent of 160 mm but all the other characteristics of the 100m lens still exist.
Bill
I use the 1.7 Nikon on the 70-200 VR and love it. I used it with great success at Bosque in Jan.
Steve
Posted by Gary Gulash on March 17, 2007 at 3:12 AM
I own the 70-200 and the TC20EII, but wouldn't buy the teleconverter again. I can't get really sharp results with the combination and their is an obvious loss of contrast. I admit I haven't ruled out my head/QR setup from the equation as a contributing cause for the loss in IQ, but my 300 F4 Nikkor is way "better". Just my 2c. (I really can't understand why these questions of lense and tc image quality are largely anecdotal - the least reliable of all possible data. These "opinions" on lense and teleconverter image quality seems to be all over the map. This is expensive professional gear, but a body of objective test results is sorely lacking it seems)
I remain confused on whether or not teleconverters alter the depth of field based on the discussion here, I thought they did not contribute to dof changes, but were merely "optical crops". Not a dumb question Bill.
Discussion
16 repliesI'm considering getting a Nikon 70-200 f/2.8 VR. Since 200 isn't very long, I was also considering getting the TC14e, but have concerns.
Does a teleconverter actually increase the focal length of the lens or does it just magnify a section of the image (ala Nikon's High Speed Crop mode)? If it just mimics the Hi-Speed Crop I would consider it worthless since it doesn't actually doesn't do anything other than crop an existing image to create an illusion of larger size. Why spend money for that?
Second question - does anyone know how the TC14e matches up and complements the 70-200 VR? Is it a good "fit" with that lens, and do AF and VR functions still work with that TC?
Thanks for any input.
The high-end/dedicated converters are actually designed to reach into the lens and become the rear lens element. These are generally limited to lenses that are designed to work with them and where the engineers made the proper allowances in the optical formula. It's similar to the way convertible lenses work in Large Format. These optimized converters have a higher quality than the simple magnifying ones and generally produce much better results.
Guy
The HSC mode reduces the sensor size (or rather the portion of the sensor used), and thus the amount of pixels, while a TC will create an enlarged image that covers the whole sensor (so the combined optical system you're using has a longer focal length - and since the aperture stays at the same physical size, you'll get a slower but longer lens). If both the lens and the TC are good (and the Nikon AF-S TCs have a good reputation), this will be (much) better than a cropped image.
Basil
I've used the exact combination you're contemplating. Worked fantastic for me. AF was still fast and the VR is great. Image quality is good too.
Our experience wiith the TC-20E on the older AF-S 80-200mm f/2.8 was the same, though the autofocus seemed to be just a touch slower when compared to either a straight AF-S 80-200 or one with a TC-14E. In dim light the autofocus seems to be at most 10% slower. For all practicle purposes, it is difficult to detect.
If you can tolerate a very slight reduction in autofocus speed, then I would strongly recommend the TC-20E instead of the TC-14E. The cost is only slightly more for the TC-20E, but it will give you much more flexability.
Please note that this recommendation is based on the Nikkor TC-14E and TC-20E. As far as other brands, the Kenko Pro has a good reputation. But, Nikon has always had superb teleconverters specifically designed for their lenses.
I bought the Nikon 70-200 mm f/2.8 VR lens about a year and a half ago and I just bought the TC-17E II (1.7x) AF-S, AF-I Teleconverter to use with it.
http://www.nikonusa.com/template.php?cat=1&grp=5&productNr=2151
No way in God's little green acres am I to be considered as a "birder" photographer; however, that said, I'm pleased with the results I've had so far (I've only been out once to shoot with the TC and the long lens).
Take a look at:
http://www.naturephotographers.net/imagecritique/ic.cgi?a=vp&pr=66805&b=mp&st=0&la=8&ph=2&sid=1042&u=1042
and
http://www.naturephotographers.net/imagecritique/ic.cgi?a=vp&pr=66615&b=mp&st=0&la=8&ph=3&sid=1409&u=1409
It's not going to be as great as a longer lens but I think it's a good value for the money.
Carol Hyman
http://hy-tec-training.com
Kent in SD
I know what to make of it. The "experts" are spending more time becoming "experts" rather than actually photographing.
Guy
Kent in SD
Yes, a 500 mm lens with a 2 XTC will have the angular view of a 1000 mm lens so it will fill the frame like a 1000 mm. However, the other characteristics of the 500 remain intact except for the 2 F stop sacrifice. The 2 F stop sacrifice comes from taking the central volume of light and spreading it out over a larger area.
It is correct to say that pixels are not sacrificed as the magnified image will cover all the pixels in the frame. However the volume of light used to cover the pixels is 25% of the original light so the 2 F stop light loss.
So, is a 500 mm lens with a 2 X TC equivalent to a 1000 mm lens? Sort of! It is kind of like saying that a 100mm lens on a 1.6 sensor camera is a 160 mm lens. The angle of view on the sensor is the equivalent of 160 mm but all the other characteristics of the 100m lens still exist.
Hope this helps.
Ed
I use the 1.7 Nikon on the 70-200 VR and love it. I used it with great success at Bosque in Jan.
Steve
I remain confused on whether or not teleconverters alter the depth of field based on the discussion here, I thought they did not contribute to dof changes, but were merely "optical crops". Not a dumb question Bill.