TC and 80-400VR Nikkor

I've been confused lately by reading that it is "not recommended" to use a TC with the 80-400 VR Nikkor. I've also read a couple of reviews of a Kenko 1.4 TC where people state how great it is to use with this lens!
If anyone can elaborate on this it would be much appreciated.

Neale,

I would be very interested in the replies too since I use the lens all the time.

I have the Nikon 80-400mm VR and have tried the Tamron SP 1.4x on it, which is the exact same one you are talking about (Kenko makes it.) Don't do it. Image quality is not very good, even using a thousand dollar tripod/head.


Kent in SD

Well Kent doesn't like it! Thanks for your input.
Lia, you don't need one, you're so good at sneaking up on 'em!
but this is what got me interested:

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/371026-REG/Kenko_K14PRO300DGN_1_4x_Teleplus_Pro_300.html

then click on "Read Reviews"
.......I think I'll need more persuading.

Neale, I used that TC for awhile with my Canon 100-400L, and in good light with perfect technique it produced acceptable (to me) results.

Will your camera body autofocus the lens/TC combo? Mine didn't, so it was a manual focus. So that's Strike One. Strike Two is that reviews of the 80-400 VR indicate it has an older, slower focus mechanism, and TCs tend to somewhat slow down autofocus speed. If the body will autofocus the lens/TC, can that slow-focusing lens afford that slowdown? Strike Three, TCs also encourage the lens to hunt a bit more in low-contrast situations, so . . .

If autofocus does not work on the lens/TC combo, strikes two and three do not apply. You can restore AF by taping off three specific electrical pins on the TC (the ones that report aperture to the camera), but my reading indicates that will burn out some autofocus motors more quickly.

You're also going to bump from 400mm max focal length to 560mm, and that will require a bit of mental adjustment when it comes to your steadying technique in order to avoid softer/blurry images from both lens shake and subject movement.

I'm not trying to persuade you in any direction, but these are issues you might think through before making your decision. On the plus side, this TC is significantly less expensive than the comparable Canon and Nikon models, and if you take the plunge and later decide it isn't working for you, you won't take much of a hit on the used market if you decide to sell. It's a popular TC.

Good luck! Gear acquisition is always a work in progress, and fun work at that.

Neale,

I can sneak up on shorebirds really well, I think that is because of my stalking technique though! LOL (no one probably wants to see me sneak up on shorebirds, what a mess!!)

For passerines & hawks I find myself wishing for a bit more focal length at times though.

I read the link you sent, I think I would need a bit more persuading too.

What is a "good" image for one unknown person might be shots that I delete without hesitation, so I am hesitant to listen to some reviews, I'd put a lot more trust in NPN'ers than strangers.

After reading the reviews on B&H, I definitely would trust the people here. One person is using the TC on a 80-400 VR and a 18-200 DX VR, saying AF is "very fast" on the latter. Can't imagine that being the case, and I've heard enough reports of knowledgeable people strongly discouraging the use of TCs if they get you down to f/8 "wide" open (I've used a f/7.2 AF lens once, and I can tell you that the AF wasn't "very fast"...). Another person says that the images become a bit softer, but still very good. Which is kind of a contradiction in itself (it's worth to note that the bare 80-400 VR becomes a bit soft at the longer focal lengths, and the TC won't improve this). Also, hand holdability of a 560 f/8 lens is claimed. I doubt that, in spite of VR...

Yep, I know, I shouldn't question people's expertise and skills, but here, I do. TCs may be great on fast supertele primes and some very high quality constant aperture zooms, but for everything else, I'd forget about them...

Basil

TCs may be great on fast supertele primes and some very high quality constant aperture zooms, but for everything else, I'd forget about them...

This is exactly my approach to TCs/zooms in general. There are exceptions to this, but they are uncommon.

My 400 f5.6L, while not fast, is a prime, and from a tripod/rock steady monopod I've had good luck in manual focus situations. IQ is barely compromised at all with that combo, and I have to seriously pixel peep to see minor differences.

I think I have a very good copy of the 80-400mm VR (or maybe my skills have just gotten better). I really do not notice my lens softening up at 400mm, but it is slow to focus, and on flight or action shots that can be problematic. With a TC I would think it would be even slower.

Another person says that the images become a bit softer, but still very good.

You are right Basil that is a contradiction in itself. Soft isn't good if you are going for sharp images. If I want some thing softer, I can do that in PS.

Hi Neale,

I've used the Kenko Pro 1.4x TC with my 80-400 VR lens. In my experience, image quality is generally acceptable (depending on one's definition of acceptable). Autofocus is iffy. In bright light it will work but it's much slower and hunts more. In low light you'll be focusing manually. The VR also works with the Kenko TC but it's slower to lock on to the subject.

If you really need the extra reach, the Kenko 1.4x TC + 80-400 VR is an affordable solution but less than ideal.

Cheers,

Good points and useful information, thanks everyone. I'm thinking I won't be rushing to buy a TC anytime soon.

Since you want the maximum in stability at "560mm", a tripod is really mandatory, and VR becomes redundant. I'd start saving for a 500mm. The KEH prices on the excellent P Nikkor 500 f/4 are very reasonable today. I've used one for years and I find that the loss of AF is minor for nature subjects. Additionally, it accepts 1.4X TCs with great results. (The 2X TC is workable, but needs stopping down, and that can give a significant loss in light.)