NikonTC II

That 'soft' thing is a bit of a pet peeve for me, so my comments are a little biased. I have a friend who sees pretty much every lens except Canon L 'a tad on the soft side' as he phrases it.

I think whether you want a lens to be soft or not entirely depends on what you want to shoot with it, and also the results you wish to achieve.

There are images which profit from a soft lens, and there are those which profit from a sharp lens. Only the photographer can decide what kind of image he wants to create, and whether a softer (within limits, of course) or sharper lens is required for this.

All of the above only IMHO, and if I'm wrong, I stand to be corrected. But I have images where I think the softness of my lens was beneficial, and others where I think it was detrimental. I also wonder what others think about this.
 
The IQ you get is 90% down to the mother lens. All the telecon does is enlarge it and TBH there's very little to choose between the better quality telecons optically (eg Nikon, Canon, Sigma, Kenko Pro).

The flat light in those test shots doesn't help perceived sharpness. Try them in bright sun and things will perk up, at a mid-range aperture.
 
I would agree with hoppy that the subjects are not great especially the face of the statue that was never going to appear sharp, the peg is acceptable no issues there but the light is low also, whay ISO settings and F stop? at the end of the day a TC will reduce quality of that there is no doubt.
 
nictry said:
F7.1 1/1000 and left the ISO on auto the outside shots were around 2-400 if I remember rightly.

I guess my question is more, would I get the same IQ from the 70-200 on its own but very tightly cropped or using the TC with a reduced crop but having the extra reach being an advantage?

As for 'bright' light, come on we live in the UK I think I have only seen the sun 5-6 times this year so far ;)
Click to expand...

Rule of thumb is best sharpness is obtained optically.

Best - a lens designed for the job.
2nd best - telecon.
Least good - cropping, pixel count substantially reduced.

In your situation, first of all you're already pushing the lens a lot harder by shooting on crop format D7000, so contrast is already reduced vs full-frame. Then the VR1 version of that lens is not as sharp as the VR2, and at f/7.1 you're barely past maximum aperture (f/5.6) and would benefit from stopping down a little more. Then the flat light does IQ no favours.

All that is before you start considering the quality of the telecon. IMHO that is most likely the least contributor.

Some interesting comments and comparisons of that lens with various Nikon telecons here http://www.photozone.de/nikon_ff/457-nikkor_afs_70200_28_ff
 
I think that 2x also is pushing it for optical quality @ crop. maybe for a different subject where you want a compromise between zoom and quality and the subjetc is bigger, say motorsport or a situation where you physically cannot get closer. I have recently faced a similar situation having a nikon 70-300 VR as my std lens i wanted to get closer so purchased a sigma 150-500 its a great lens but when i crop on the 500 the quality isnt there where it is for the nikon. i put the difference down to the nikon glass being slightly better quality than the sigma.
 
I think I would probably have gone a different route, I would have sold on the D7000 and put the money to the D7100 for the more pixels and then a better crop should be achievable, don't know if it would be as good as the TC though, just my take on the situation.
 
nictry said:
I did read that prior to buying but the review is based on the V2 of the TC and everything I read suggested the v3 was a massive improvement in IQ over the v2 although equally a lot did also say it is a better match for the 70-200 vrII rather than mine :(
Click to expand...

I read similar things about the Canon Mk2 and Mk3 extender/telecons. Some say big difference (usually when they've also fitted the Mk3 to a new/better lens) and others say no difference, maybe a minor improvement at the edges. Truth is, within reason, a decent telecom itself makes b****r-all difference. The big factor is the actual lens, and the more you try to pull out of that, with 1.4x, 1.7x and 2x (as per Photozone tests) so sharpness progressively falls.

Stick your telecom on say a 300/2.8 and you'd be amazed at the quality. Would also be significantly better on a 70-200 VR2. Older lenses were not designed for today's big res demands :(
 
Ivan S said:
I think I would probably have gone a different route, I would have sold on the D7000 and put the money to the D7100 for the more pixels and then a better crop should be achievable, don't know if it would be as good as the TC though, just my take on the situation.
Click to expand...

ha ha funnilly enough i posted a thread up asking the very same question and received mainly NOPE that will not get you any better :lol:

its still an option tho.
 
nictry said:
I did look at the option of the VR2 although to be honest pretty much every review said that on DX the performance/quality difference was negligible especially considering the extra ££££ only makes the difference on FX which for now is not a route I plan on going.
Click to expand...

The reverse is true - a better lens will show relatively more benefit on DX. It cannot be otherwise, because of the higher resolution demands of the smaller format (it's about sensor size, rather than pixels).

FX is the way to go for best IQ, but for more reach it will only take you in the opposite, and much more expensive direction. If you want both good sharpness and reach, then the most cost-effective compromise is a really good lens (preferably a prime) on DX. That tends to be the birders' choice. Maybe 300/4 with 1.4x?
 
nictry said:
This is primarily for motorsport actually but wanted to get some basic tests done to see if it really is a no-go and send back for a refund or whether there is some value.

I have done a little more testing today (again on cr*p subjects) but between 140-300 I actually think it is pretty good, even though I know I would get f2.8 from 140-200 without the TC the 200-300 range with it I am actually finding pretty good. Also as sad as it sounds I did some car shot testing on some of the nice folks that drive past my house a little too fast for the limits :cuckoo: and again was pretty impressed at how the AF held considering it is miserable as sin weather wise today!
Click to expand...

I think Nick you have arrived at the right answer then at 2x your pushing the glass a tadge to hard for the wee stuff, but i would say in better light when the sun comes out proper you may find the lens tightens up, thats exactly what i found with the sigma 500 it just needs great light to perform, wheras my 70300 seems to perform superbly all the time.
 
HoppyUK said:
The reverse is true - a better lens will show relatively more benefit on DX. It cannot be otherwise, because of the higher resolution demands of the smaller format (it's about sensor size, rather than pixels).

FX is the way to go for best IQ, but for more reach it will only take you in the opposite, and much more expensive direction. If you want both good sharpness and reach, then the most cost-effective compromise is a really good lens (preferably a prime) on DX. That tends to be the birders' choice. Maybe 300/4 with 1.4x?
Click to expand...

absolutley agree with you there hoppy the 300/f4 and the TC1.4 on DX is supposed to be epic.
 
nictry said:
Although even with the latest version there seems to be a lot of dissatisfaction with the AF speed and with the 1.4 it will be worse and back to f5.6........arrgghhhh it seems like unless you spend £3k + there is always a compromise :(
Click to expand...

maybe but if you go the digitalrev route you can get the combo of the 300/f4 and the 1.4tc for something like £1029 and the lens has a full warranty.

thats a lot of lens for not much moola.
 
Last edited:
nictry said:
Although even with the latest version there seems to be a lot of dissatisfaction with the AF speed and with the 1.4 it will be worse and back to f5.6........arrgghhhh it seems like unless you spend £3k + there is always a compromise :(
Click to expand...

Always ;) And there is no perfect solution. Even if you throw tons of cash at it, with full-frame and mega expensive super-teles, for really long reach you end up with a massive and unwieldy rig that weighs half a ton :(
 
TBH unless you are prepared to spend say £5k on a 400mm lens then £200 -£300 on a TC to give you very reasonable image quality is a cheap trade-off.
Care with taking the image followed by careful sharpening and processing saves you a chunk over £4k :shrug:
 
nictry said:
F7.1 1/1000 and left the ISO on auto the outside shots were around 2-400 if I remember rightly.

I guess my question is more, would I get the same IQ from the 70-200 on its own but very tightly cropped or using the TC with a reduced crop but having the extra reach being an advantage?

As for 'bright' light, come on we live in the UK I think I have only seen the sun 5-6 times this year so far ;)
Click to expand...

Should be close enough to the "sweet spot" as far as aperture goes.

What's the intended final use for the images? If it's massive prints, you'll start running into pixellation if cropping heavily but up to A4 or so, you may get away with cropping - try it and see; only you can judge what meets your wants/needs! If it's for screen viewing, crop away to your heart's content!!!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top