Nikon 200-400 and tc's

[Escy]

Ive just manged to purchase a 200-400vr and was wondering if anyone had any experience using tc's on it, either the 1.4 or 1.7. Ive read differing opinions about the 1.7, some good some bad. I dont pick the lens up till this coming friday so am unable to test it out with the 1.7 which I allready own. So I have been debating whether to chop the 1.7 in for a 1.4 or keep it and buy a 1.4 as well.
I currently use the 1.7 on a 70-200, though only when I have to as the images are a tad on the soft side when using this combo, so getting rid of it would not be an issue. Any thoughts on this if you have used either.

 

[Trig's]

Not that this will have anything to do with the 200-400 but it may help you on the 70-200 & 1.7 tc = soft images.... Nikon TC17E tests...

 

[Escy]

Thanks for that, makes most interesting reading. Will have to get out and give it a try tomorrow.

 

[Martyn...]

Click on the thumbnails.

I removed the front filter from mine, my opinion is that it produces better images without it, but try it for yourself.

200-400 + 1.4TC


200-400 + 1.7TC


200-400 + 1.4TC Heavy crop (it was a fair distance away)


200-400 +1.7TC (it was minus 6°)

 

[Escy]

Thanks for that, some superb images you have there.

 

[Martyn...]

Thanks for that, some superb images you have there.

Thank you, with the 1.7TC on I found a slight improvement by not fully zooming the lens so it was shooting at 650mm rather than the full 680mm.

Something to watch for once you start sooting at those lengths, is air turbulence (heat haze) degrading the image. Even on a nice frosty morning if the sun starts warming the ground, the air rising can be a right pain. I have a 500 f4 and can see the effect through the viewfinder with either TC mounted.

 

[Hairyduck]

I use the 1.4x with mine nearly all the time, the 1.7 is ok but I find it slows af down too much so I seldom use it these days

 

[Richard Peters]

I wrote a couple of reviews on my blog a while back about these combos.

200-400 + 1.4 review

and

200-400 + 1.7 test - this was less of a review though, as I've only really ued this combo once as I don't own the 1.7

Both reviews feature 100% crops, with the 1.4 review you can click and drag around the 100% crops when you click on them to view bigger.

 

[fatphotographer]

"One man's bread, another man's poison" springs to mind.
I struggled with the 200-400, let alone putting a TC on it, but I was looking to shoot 100mph+ bikes and cars with it. But before the 200-400, I was shooting with 300 or 400 - f2.8 and 6000 f4, so a long zoom (albeit a very good one) was a step backwards, and then adding a chunk of glass inbetween (TC), didn't help. I think that static subjects are better suited to using TCs than expecting the lens to cope with fast moving subjects.

 

[kevshore]

If you still have that 6000mm f4 lying around, can I have first dibs!

Kev.

 

[Richard Peters]

I struggled with the 200-400, let alone putting a TC on it, but I was looking to shoot 100mph+ bikes and cars with it. But before the 200-400, I was shooting with 300 or 400 - f2.8 and 6000 f4, so a long zoom (albeit a very good one) was a step backwards, and then adding a chunk of glass inbetween (TC), didn't help. I think that static subjects are better suited to using TCs than expecting the lens to cope with fast moving subjects.

Agreed, 300, 400 and 600 primes will always be better than telephotos zooms especially at keeping up with something going at 100mph. I'd never sell the 200-400 though, even though after getting my 600 I rarely use it.

That 6000 f4 must be bloody heavy :nuts: