Nikon 300/f2.8 with Nikon TC 20E III converter

merv

merv

Messages
1,118
Name
Mervyn
Edit My Images
Yes
Anyone used this combination for planes or anything and if so how successful was it, IQ etc?
merv
 
I use the 1.4x with the 300 F4, which to mt eye, barely degrades IQ, if at all. When I was reading up on it, the general consensus seemed to be that the 1.4x is best to maintain good image quality - the 1.7x is the best compromise for both IQ and extending focal length, and the 2x is a bit of a no, no. It'll downgrade the IQ more than cropping down a file using the 1.7x.

Someone who actually uses one could tell you better though
 
I DID have the 1.7tc on my 300 2.8 VR11 & was more than happy.
A mate tried the TC X 2 (mark 11) on his 400 2.8 & wasn't happy at all. He bought the newer X2 (mark 111) & he loves it.

Do you know anyone who has the TC so you could try it out?
 
I use a Nikon 300mm f2.8 VR11 & a TC-20e III & using a D800e find it slightly soft - even at f8. But I like it damm sharp....

I do however use a TC-14e III & at F4 (420mm & wide open) is damm sharp - this is on the lens now - used this way pretty much all the time.

The TC-17eII (which I also have) I'm not keen on - find I HAVE TO STOP DOWN to f8 so don't use it.
 
Last edited:
Well that debunks that myth about 2x making images softer I guess :D
 
I use the TC-20Eiii on a 300 2.8 VRii. Sharpness is reasonable if you stop down a shade but if the light isn't good the AF is god awful.

Have had a root through my catalogue and it turns out I don't often use it and most of what I have is utter garbage (mainly my fault). Though it does seem at 5.6 it's a bit muddy but by 7.1 you're fine.

The attached image is at 1/250 f7.1 ISO 800, touch of fill flash too. Theres a 100% crop too.
 
That plane and those birds look fantastic. I have the TC 2EIII but don't have the 300/2.8! Was using it with the 300/f4 at an airshow but results poor so was thinking of investing in a 300/2.8 second hand if I can find one!
 
Cagey75 said:
Well that debunks that myth about 2x making images softer I guess :D
Click to expand...
Honestly, I think a lot of people's issues w/ softness/IQ is underestimating the SS/stability requirements for critically sharp images at long FL's. The 1/FL is just too slow for real reliability unless on a rigid tripod w/ locked head. (it's about "magnification" and long FL's is a lot like macro work in that sense)

The first image (the worst of them) was at 1/800 *handheld* (probably no VR). The second was at 1/250 but was lit w/ a 300WS strobe at 1/128th power and ambient ~ 1 stop under (faster than 1/8000 T.1 "effective flash SS") and using a Bipod mounted SharpShooter CameraMount. The last was taken at 1/2500 using my SharpShooter WindowRail Slider.

I'm not saying TC's don't cause a loss of some IQ... I'm just saying that I think many see a greater "loss" than is caused by the TC.
 
I've used the 300 f2.8 vr1 and 2tceIII a few times on a d7100. I've yet to try it with the a d800 but I've found it to work well. Shutter speed is key to sharp images as 600mm (or 900mm EFL) needs a high shutter to reduce shake induced blur.

The image below was taken in overcast evening light at 1/250 on a bean bag and ISO 1400. I struggled to get the shutter speed faster due to the light.


Water Vole by Rob'81, on Flickr

Some barn owl images taken with the same combination, the first a way off tripod mounted at 1/800 f8.


Barn Owl Sunrise by Rob'81, on Flickr

A barn owl taken after sunset in low light at 1/200 f5.6 on a bean bag from a car.


Barn Owl- Perched Hunter by Rob'81, on Flickr
 
Last edited:
You guys seem to be doing better than I am, have you done micro adjustments at all? I'm using a D700 and just not getting the detail you all are and I am not sure if thats down to the sensor or the lens/tele combo. I have a D7000 and a D5300 so I could test with those I suppose.
 
maninsuitcase said:
You guys seem to be doing better than I am, have you done micro adjustments at all? I'm using a D700 and just not getting the detail you all are and I am not sure if thats down to the sensor or the lens/tele combo. I have a D7000 and a D5300 so I could test with those I suppose.
Click to expand...
With the D800 I had a +15 AFMA and it was still inconsistent; I could never find a setting that worked well consistently and would have to reset it for different working distances. With the D4 and D810 I have 0 AFMA set. With cameras with high pixel density (small pixels) like the D8xx/D7xxx you have to balance stopping down for sharpness against diffraction... Anything beyond f/5.6 (wide open w/ 2x TC) and you're loosing detail to diffraction, but I find that loss is a bit less than the increase in lens sharpness @ f/8 (w/ 2x)... IMO, f/8 is the sweet spot.

But the light/scene contrast is a huge factor as well... probably more important than the other's.
 
sk66 said:
With the D800 I had a +15 AFMA and it was still inconsistent; I could never find a setting that worked well consistently and would have to reset it for different working distances. With the D4 and D810 I have 0 AFMA set. With cameras with high pixel density (small pixels) like the D8xx/D7xxx you have to balance stopping down for sharpness against diffraction... Anything beyond f/5.6 (wide open w/ 2x TC) and you're loosing detail to diffraction, but I find that loss is a bit less than the increase in lens sharpness @ f/8 (w/ 2x)... IMO, f/8 is the sweet spot.

But the light/scene contrast is a huge factor as well... probably more important than the other's.
Click to expand...
That last sentence is probably the real issue. I've not really had the chance to use the combo since I got it as much as I would have liked. Hoping this will change soon so will try it out in better light and with multiple bodies. Might investigate microadjustment too but need to make/buy a test rig for that.
 
maninsuitcase said:
That last sentence is probably the real issue. I've not really had the chance to use the combo since I got it as much as I would have liked. Hoping this will change soon so will try it out in better light and with multiple bodies. Might investigate microadjustment too but need to make/buy a test rig for that.
Click to expand...
IMHO, don't buy anything for AFMA. I bought FoCal and it is/was crap for long lenses...
Look up "dot tune."
 
Phew breaking out in a sweat listening to all that hitec stuff just now. i'm embarrassed by my lack of knowledge!
:oops: :$:mad:
 
I think you would struggle with a 2.8 for airshows because of the weight even the f4 all day is takes it out of you I think the 2.8 would be too much and I don't think you can shoot on tripod or monopod you lose the required agility to get the shots.
 
Mine only gets used 'handheld' also with a 1.4 tele... Its not that heavy & you get used to it.

Now my 400mm 2.8 - that's heavy - lol
 
I used a 300 2.8 AF-S II (non VR) with a TC-20EIII in a D800 for one aviation event last year and the combo was so poor in terms of IQ that I sold the TC the following week, without the TC it was the sharpest lens I've owned. A VR version lens may well be better (and clearly can be given some of the pics posted).
 
john_e said:
I used a 300 2.8 AF-S II (non VR) with a TC-20EIII in a D800 for one aviation event last year and the combo was so poor in terms of IQ that I sold the TC the following week, without the TC it was the sharpest lens I've owned. A VR version lens may well be better (and clearly can be given some of the pics posted).
Click to expand...
Probably the camera and not the lens/TC...
My D800 was very hit/miss with focus and AFMA, especially w/ TC's... The only lens I have that it ever really liked was the Sigma 120-300 for some reason; even w/ TC's.
 
Well will have it soon and will try out the combo.
Thanks
MERV
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top