Nikon 2 x converter III and 300mm 2.8

kevshore

kevshore

Messages
4,626
Name
Kevin
Edit My Images
No
Just wanted to show an example shot of my new converter on the 300mm
2.8.
So this is handheld 600mm f11. The weather was grey and bland. I don't think it did too bad. Certainly better than the old 2 x converter. :)

DSC_6509.jpg



Kev.
 
I've just bought a 300mm afs, that picture is making me want the 2x TC as well now :D
 
wack61 said:
I've just bought a 300mm afs, that picture is making me want the 2x TC as well now :D
Click to expand...


Its just as good on the 70-200mm too. (y)



Kev.



p.s pop over on friday and we can pop it yours. you can shoot a few Reds!
 
Just had a look at the price £425, er I think i'll have to wait a bit :D
 
Kev where is it available for less than £425? Might be after one to go with my new 70-200 :D
 
icecavern said:
Kev where is it available for less than £425? Might be after one to go with my new 70-200 :D
Click to expand...


I got mine for £400 from Comley Cameras at Cleethorpes. I always try to support them.
I would be willing to see if they would sell me another at that price for you. (y)


Kev.
 
Well I need to sell some stuff on ebay first ( gonna put auctions up tomorrow ) but might well be up for that.
 
Kevin

Does that combo have enough resolution to be provide the higher pixel density of the D300 to work well or would the 300 + 1.4x work better on the D300?

Andy
 
It would work great on the D300. If I get chance this Friday, I'll try it for you. I have all 3 converters and this new one has left me stunned.
Its worth searching on the net for more shots. there are plenty out there now. Almost every one I looked at raved about how good it was.
Its very early days, but i can't wait for the summer and Airshow season to arrive. Also this combo is going to be much lighter to take up the hills in Wales..

Kev.
 
I think if you can get a good TC that doesn't add anything nasty (lateral CA, fringing or additional resolution degradation), it comes down to how much resolution you have in reserve in the original lens. Certainly on this evidence, it looks good. I can happily shoot wide open with my 300/2.8 with the 1.4x TC with no obvious degradation at a 100% crop. With the 2x TC I would normally stop it down to f3.5 (f7.1 overall) and the results are almost as good. That's 1200mm of equivalent reach!

This one is at f6.3 overall with the 2x TC and cropped to 100%: http://picasaweb.google.co.uk/ellio...untryPark27thNovember2009#5410679719195872530 (so only stopped down 1/3 stop)

Andy
 
I'd like to see a side-by-side comparions with the TC-20E II and the 20E III.

A Nikon 300mm f/2.8 is going to be good with a 2x TC, as its a damn good lens, with resolution in spades. I've got some very sharp ones with the 20E II and the 300mm f/2.8 VR.

I think this TC is designed to help with CA and corner performance, but I'm not convinced that if it was shot side-by-side against the older one, there would be much difference in center performance.

Need to see a vs b blind tests to see if this is worth £400 vs the older one I think.

Crop looks a bit ugly with nasty noisy patterns in the red, so with resolution being lost by noise and motion blur, we can't really tell.
 
puddleduck said:
Crop looks a bit ugly with nasty noisy patterns in the red, so with resolution being lost by noise and motion blur, we can't really tell.
Click to expand...

Agreed - a static subject is a better comparison, but it's nice to see it being used in a real situation too rather than a test chart!

Andy
 
i think user skill/strength also has a lot to do with it and not just the focal length but the physical length of the lens combo.

that is iam useing a 70-200 vr1 with a tc2 and i am just not physically steady enough to hold it steady so my movements are realy exagerated through the lens [which is why i am selling my 2x converter and going to buy a 1.7]

i tried the new shorter vr2 and 1.7 converter at focus and i was convinced i was able to hold it steadyer and not have as much movement.even the new2 x seemed to much for me.

i also tried the 300mm f4 [i thought the 2.8 would be to heavy for me] with the convetrers.not bad with the 1.7 for me.

then i tried the 200-400 on its own, i just couldnt hold it full stop.
 
Mifsuds are selling the TCIII for £399 inc VAT.merv:thinking:
 
If I pop a 2x TC in the post to you, fancy doing a controlled blind test?

Often folks buy new stuff and declare instant victory to the new (more expensive) purchase but usually don't keep the old stuff to a to b it, so its very hard to draw objective conclusions which I think are important when you are looking at a £150 price difference between v2 and v3.

I picked up a 300mm f/2.8 AF-S this week (annoyinging at such a good price I needed to buy another Nikon body to use it), I'd consider the new version if I can see a tangible improvement over the old.
 
Better still Andy, I'll happily send you mine and you can do the test. Then you have time to play with it and see what you think. (y)


Kev.
 
kevshore said:
Better still Andy, I'll happily send you mine and you can do the test. Then you have time to play with it and see what you think. (y)


Kev.
Click to expand...

Great :)

Slight problem is that I only have a Nikon D60 (picked up this just this week), comedy value aside from putting a 300mm f/2.8 AF-S on a D60 body :LOL::nuts::LOL:, the D60 doesn't have mirror-lock up which is going to be needed to test effectively at 600mm.

I'm quite intrigued by this TC, as conventional wisdom says that TC performance is derived almost exclusively from the master lens. Given the shorter design, and aspherical element, this tells me a design goal was to improve CA and corner performence, but I would not really expect much central resolution improvement. Hence intrigued by a "a to b" :)
 
Yes, the side by side test is the thing I've seen nobody do despite all the "OMG its sooooooo much better than the II".
 
I'm intrigued as Olympus have only one version of the 2x TC... What was wrong with the version II of the Nikon that they had to fix? Or am I cynically assuming a large element of this is a marketing ploy...
 
Well, it goes a bit like this.... 2x TC II, widely regarded as "you'll get the image but don't look too hard at it" and now TC III, "no honestly, we've done loads to it and you won't think it sucks now".

BTW, Canon's 2x offering is just as poor as the Nikon 2x II, so its not a Nikon fault, just that 2x TC's do by and large suck.

Nikon are trying to convince us all that by adding another "I" we should spend another 400 quid to find the suckyness factor has dropped by "n" (or should that be "N") :D
 
desantnik said:
Well, it goes a bit like this.... 2x TC II, widely regarded as "you'll get the image but don't look too hard at it" and now TC III, "no honestly, we've done loads to it and you won't think it sucks now".
Click to expand...

:LOL:
 
Glad you posted this up Kev mate.

I've had the new 2x TC for a few weeks but only got to use it properly last week on the 70-200 VRII. I found that wide open the IQ wasn't great tbh. It was ok at about F7.1 down.

However - the main reason I bought the TC was for use on the 200 F2. Hopefully this weekend I'll pair them up to see how I get on. The intention is that I'll be able to shoot at 400mm wide open at F4. Here's hoping...........

With regards Puddleduck's comments I paired the TC-2.0E II with the 200 F2 last year and was unimpressed. Sent the 2x II back to Amazon and haven't used one since.

Ryan
 
ryanyboy said:
I've had the new 2x TC for a few weeks but only got to use it properly last week on the 70-200 VRII. I found that wide open the IQ wasn't great tbh. It was ok at about F7.1 down.
Click to expand...

Pretty much the same as the old one, f/5.6 isn't acceptable for anything over 6x4 prints. I'd stop down one full stop.

The 1.7x is probably a better TC for the 70-200 VR (can't comment on the new one mind)
 
puddleduck said:
Pretty much the same as the old one, f/5.6 isn't acceptable for anything over 6x4 prints. I'd stop down one full stop.

The 1.7x is probably a better TC for the 70-200 VR (can't comment on the new one mind)
Click to expand...

Yeah - we're thinking alike here. F8 on the 70-200 with the TC2.0e III.

Up unil last weekend I'd only used the 70-200 with the 1.7x and that was pretty good - but again stopped down a good bit.

Desantnik may be on to something :D
 
its quite obvious that something that doubles the length of a lens wont give as good a result as the lens on its own,how could it?
but it will often be the differance between getting the shot or missing it.
clearley there is a lot of skill involved as well just look at andy rouses photos to see that.
 
straycat said:
its quite obvious that something that doubles the length of a lens wont give as good a result as the lens on its own,how could it?
but it will often be the differance between getting the shot or missing it.
clearley there is a lot of skill involved as well just look at andy rouses photos to see that.
Click to expand...

If the lens on its own is *just* sharp enough to get pixel-level sharpness, quite clearly any TC will not perform well. So something that out-resolves the sensor comfortably should still be fine with a TC (depending on by how much sharper and how big the TC factor is). Any extra glass will likely additionally degrade the image, the ideal TC does this as little as possible.

An oft overlooked issue with TCs is that kit with the longer focal length needs to be steadier to get a sharp shot. So the quality of the tripod and head as well as use of mirror lock-up becomes more important.

Andy
 
AndyElliott said:
An oft overlooked issue with TCs is that kit with the longer focal length needs to be steadier to get a sharp shot. So the quality of the tripod and head as well as use of mirror lock-up becomes more important.

Andy
Click to expand...

And shutter speed - which then affects ISO requirements, which then affects noise, which then affects IQ etc etc etc.

:thinking:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top