Nikon Teleconverter comparison - thoughts please

D

Doog

Messages
1,812
Name
Dougie
Edit My Images
Yes
The reason I don't have one already is because I can't make up my mind. Primarily I'd be using it on a 70-200 2.8 Nikkor lens for wildlife (mainly birds) and the extra length of a x2 seems the obvious choice but I'm concerned about light levels and wonder if the x1.7 would be the better choice and give better results with a little more crop. So I guess my main question is setting aside the zoom aspect, which teleconverter is the better performer, the x1.7 or the x2.0
 
I can't say much for the nikon 2x teleconverter as I don't own it but I recently brought a 1.7tc to use with a 70-200mm f2.8 vr 1.so far I've used the 1.7tc a few times and I'm quite impressed with it. I also have the 1.4tc and a nikon 300mm f4. The 1.7tc auto focuses well on both the 70-200 and the 300mm, I haven't seen too much degrading difference between the two tc's, would say the 1.4tc is the better one of the two. I brought the 1.7tc as it made more sense for me as I could use it on both the 70-200 and the 300 f4. I read reviews were people said the 2x tc works great but I thought it would push the auto focus too far at f8 on the 300mm. If I only had the 70-200 I would have probably gone for the 2x just for the extra reach. I have worked out the 70-200 f2.8 needs good light for a tc to work well, it seems great in sun during the day but not so good at sunrise when the is low light.

For birds reach is everything, even a 600mm lens is said to too short sometimes. I brought the 70-200 to get the wide shots I couldn't get with the 300mm (where you can get close falconry centres, skomer etc), when focal length is important i use the 300mm with either teleconverter.

A few sample photos.

Here's the 70-200 with 1.7tc


Grey Squirrel by Rob'81, on Flickr

300mm with 1.7tc


Sanderling by Rob'81, on Flickr

300mm with 1.4tc


Turnstone by Rob'81, on Flickr
 
Last edited:
I don't have a 300 that i can fit a nikkor converter on to. I believe the 70-300 nikkor will accept a kenco converter though. My idea was to just extend my range a little with the 70-200 2.8 and a nikkor x2 but would make do with the 1.7 if I thought that cropping it would give better results?
 
I have tried them all and will now only use the 1.4 tc

Its the same old debate but it should be obvious as You don't get anything for nothing.
 
straycat said:
I have tried them all and will now only use the 1.4 tc

Its the same old debate but it should be obvious as You don't get anything for nothing.
Click to expand...

Hardly worth sticking a 1.4TC on a 70-200 though for all the gain you'd achieve. I can see why you'd use it on 300 upwards though. What do you use yours on?
 
I've used the 1.4, 1.7 and the new 2x and the least affected comes from the 1.4 (as you would expect) but IMO the 2x is a better option than the 1.7 like-for-like.
 
gramps said:
I've used the 1.4, 1.7 and the new 2x and the least affected comes from the 1.4 (as you would expect) but IMO the 2x is a better option than the 1.7 like-for-like.
Click to expand...
Is the degradation pronounced with TC's or is it negligible. Thinking mainly at 100%?
 
gramps said:
With the 1.4 it is negligible, the 1.7 noticeable but by no means ruinous ... the 2x I would put between the 1.4 and 1.7.
There's a very good review of the 2x HERE
Click to expand...

Thanks Gramps, I'll go have a read at that now. :cool:
 
you can use a 1.7 on 70-200 f2.8 i wont go past 1.4

i will never use a 2 again

look how much a nikon 400mm lens cost, there is no way a 2 is going to even come close or there would be no need for the big primes.

i bought the new 70-200 and new x2 as they are made for each other

its important to realise i am no pixel peeple or wall tester,but even i could see the quality just went.
ok for a journalist maybe but not regular use.
 
straycat said:
you can use a 1.7 on 70-200 f2.8 i wont go past 1.4

i will never use a 2 again

look how much a nikon 400mm lens cost, there is no way a 2 is going to even come close or there would be no need for the big primes.

i bought the new 70-200 and new x2 as they are made for each other

its important to realise i am no pixel peeple or wall tester,but even i could see the quality just went.
ok for a journalist maybe but not regular use.
Click to expand...

Ok, that's interesting. Price wise I can't see me ever purchasing a nikkor lens over 300. The big Sigmas may be another course of direction but much more costly and I'm unsure how they'd compare in the scheme of things. My options are limited it seems.:thinking:
 
I did a back to back test with a fellow tog a few years ago - lenses used were 500mm f4, 300mm f2.8 [non VR], 300mm VR I and all three TCs 1.4, 1.7 and the latest 2.0 MkIII.

Test subject was used in OK light [cloudy but midday if I recall] - all lenses and TCs used on two bodies and same tripod. After a of of testing I reckoned the 300mm f2.8 [either lens] with the 2.0TC were slightly sharper when cropped to the same size image than the 500mm f4 - not the result either me or the 500mm f4 owner were expecting!

He went out and bought the 2.0 TC shortly afterwards!

On Sigma lenses - I've been lucky enough to have the 120-300 f2.8 Sigma and the 300mm f2.8 Nikon [non VR and VR I] and I found the Sigma horribly soft and it wouldn't take a matched Sigma TC. The two 300mm f2.8's have both been outstanding [but expensive, even third hand]. Hope that helps
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top