Nikon TCs and 70-200mm

specialman

specialman

Messages
8,193
Name
Pat MacInnes
Edit My Images
Yes
Can't afford to get a long, fast prime and for keeping weight down a TC seems a better option.

Just after some 'real world' feedback from users on what the 1.4, 1.7 and 2.0 work like in terms of VR, autofocus and overall IQ.
 
I had the 1.4 Nikon Tc on my 70-200, worked perfectly with the VR and AF and the correct focal length appears in the EXIF, I didn't like it though, felt it made the images look soft.
 
Flash In The Pan said:
I had the 1.4 Nikon Tc on my 70-200, worked perfectly with the VR and AF and the correct focal length appears in the EXIF, I didn't like it though, felt it made the images look soft.
Click to expand...

As do the other two but by a bigger margin. In my experience the 70-200 and 200-400 don't take converter very well.
 
From what I have read (including on here) the new 2.0 gets rave reviews ? Interested in this too as I have a 70-200 VR II due to arrive early next week.
 
Beardy said:
From what I have read (including on here) the new 2.0 gets rave reviews ? Interested in this too as I have a 70-200 VR II due to arrive early next week.
Click to expand...

Is that the mk2 version? It's a fair bit more expensive isn't it compared to the other TCs?

Obviously the x2 is the one that gives me the reach, albeit with f/5.6 but to be honest, getting around 330mm at the long end in the x1.7 isn't objectionable, providing it's not going to affect IQ and AF.
 
The new 2.0 is the Mk III. As I understand it one of the reasons it is so much more is that it's in very short supply so is only available at full RRP. I imagine when/if the 1.4 and 1.7 are updated they will be priced accordingly too.
 
If I remember correctly kevshore rates the new x2 mk3 extender with the 70-200 VR2 very highly.
 
Eye_On_Me - results look good with the x2.

I'm split between the 1.7 and the 2.0; former for the faster max. aperture.... Latter for extra reach.

How much did you get the x2 for?

EDIT: just looked on t'internet and £400 or so is just out of my reach for the Mk3...... £180 for the Mk2 from MPB is more like it - might take the leap and get that if there's enough left on my works credit card
 
Last edited:
specialman said:
Eye_On_Me - results look good with the x2.

I'm split between the 1.7 and the 2.0; former for the faster max. aperture.... Latter for extra reach.

How much did you get the x2 for?

EDIT: just looked on t'internet and £400 or so is just out of my reach for the Mk3...... £180 for the Mk2 from MPB is more like it - might take the leap and get that if there's enough left on my works credit card
Click to expand...


I wouldn't bother witht he MKII 2 x converter. I had one and it just wasn't acceptable. The images were soft and lacked detail.
If budget is of concern, get the 1.4. I still have one of those and there doesn't seem to be any loss of image quality with it.
I also had the 1.7, but image quality declines from there.

Kev.
 
I have the 1.7TC used with the Nikon 70-200MkI but if i use this combo with the VR switched on i get blurry images! once the shutter has fired the image jerks leaving motion blur on many images..

Is this a common problem?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top