To teleconvert, or not?....

trackdemon

trackdemon

Messages
245
Name
Steve Hall
Edit My Images
No
For the majority of my work, my 70-200 f2.8 delivers all the reach I need.... but just occasionally, I could use a bit more. Not being flush with £££, I find the step up to a 400 a bit much, so have found myself pondering a 1.7TC (the 1.4 doesn't give enough extra, the 2.0TC reviews terribly and pushes the f stop / focal length / shutter speed conundrum too far). Therefore, the ability to occasionally get to 340mm, still below f5, would be very useful and worth the £150-200 it'd cost. BUT... will image quality take a serious dive (70-200 f2.8 on a D3) or will it be genuinely useable?

The other curveball is to use the 70-200 on my D7000 backup cam, and get an effective 1.6 boost on the DX sensor....

Thoughts?
 
Last edited:
Or stick it on a m43 body to get effective 400mm and keep the 2.8 aperture.
 
Hadn't thought of that, although using DX goes some way whilst retaining 2.8. Example of body? Surely very expensive solution?
 
trackdemon said:
For the majority of my work, my 70-200 f2.8 delivers all the reach I need.... but just occasionally, I could use a bit more. Not being flush with £££, I find the step up to a 400 a bit much, so have found myself pondering a 1.7TC (the 1.4 doesn't give enough extra, the 2.0TC reviews terribly and pushes the f stop / focal length / shutter speed conundrum too far). Therefore, the ability to occasionally get to 340mm, still below f5, would be very useful and worth the £150-200 it'd cost. BUT... will image quality take a serious dive (70-200 f2.8 on a D3) or will it be genuinely useable?

The other curveball is to use the 70-200 on my D7000 backup cam, and get an effective 1.6 boost on the DX sensor....

Thoughts?
Click to expand...
I've contemplated a TC myself for the 70-200mm and have tried the 2xTC and results were poor. The 1.7x isn't supposed to be great either so the only one I'd consider is the 1.4tc -III.

I also ran a test with my D750 alongside the D7200 to see what reach advantage I'd get and tbh there isn't any really imo. The D750 crops better and so you can end up with the same reach and IQ, albeit with lower resolution.

If you don't want the 1.4xTC I'd suggest hiring, or at least trying the 1.7TC first.
 
D750 that stands up, but the D3 only gives 12MP (plenty for magazine work, but not enough to crop). I'll trial the D7000 on my next shoot, see how good/bad it is. With the 1.7TC, my thinking is I can acquire quite cheap and if the quality isn't up to scratch just resell at little/no loss. I know the answer is 200-400, or 400 f2.8 but the cost is very high vs the frequency of use; it's a lot of lens to carry around when it might only deliver 2-3% of my shots...
 
I use a TC1.7 E-II on my 500 f4 VR a lot of the time and am very happy with the results in getting closer to birds than I otherwise could ... on a f2.8 lens it should work fine.
 
trackdemon said:
D750 that stands up, but the D3 only gives 12MP (plenty for magazine work, but not enough to crop). I'll trial the D7000 on my next shoot, see how good/bad it is. With the 1.7TC, my thinking is I can acquire quite cheap and if the quality isn't up to scratch just resell at little/no loss. I know the answer is 200-400, or 400 f2.8 but the cost is very high vs the frequency of use; it's a lot of lens to carry around when it might only deliver 2-3% of my shots...
Click to expand...
Sorry I missed the bit about you having the D3 ;) If you do try the 1.7TC on the 70-200 I'd be interested to hear your thoughts. Another option would be the older 300mm f4 but that's a few hundred more than the TC.
 
Think I'll go 1.7, not much to lose really! Will post thoughts on that vs 70-200 on D7000
 
Used D300 for £250 or so would be an option.

I used a 1.4 TC a few times on a 300 f4 and IQ didn't seem to drop much at all, only issue was the increased length made shooting at 1/200 harder (prop planes).
 
I use the 1.4 TCE-II with the 70-200 f2 8 vr2, its works very well with the lens. Whilst the 1.7tc gives an extra 60mm I've always thought that little extra length could be gained by a slight crop. How much is gained from 280mm to 340mm? Unless you have the latest new lenses the mk2 version is a very good buy and much cheap second hand too. The 1.4 mk3 doesn't work with older lenses so it's a good idea to check the compatibility charts before buying to ensure your lenses are compatible.
 
trackdemon said:
The other curveball is to use the 70-200 on my D7000 backup cam, and get an effective 1.6 boost on the DX sensor....
Click to expand...


Dx crop factor is a mere 1.5x compared to Canon's 1.6x! :p OR, you could go down the 1 series route which'll give you a 2.7x crop factor at the cost of sensor size, AF speed, ISO capability etc.. You would need an F-T1 adaptor as well.
 
cambsno said:
Used D300 for £250 or so would be an option.

I used a 1.4 TC a few times on a 300 f4 and IQ didn't seem to drop much at all, only issue was the increased length made shooting at 1/200 harder (prop planes).
Click to expand...

Already have a D300 backup, D7000 too which gives me a bit more ISO & Crop factor on 16mp sensor. Will try it on a shoot tomorrow!
 
rob-nikon said:
I use the 1.4 TCE-II with the 70-200 f2 8 vr2, its works very well with the lens. Whilst the 1.7tc gives an extra 60mm I've always thought that little extra length could be gained by a slight crop. How much is gained from 280mm to 340mm? Unless you have the latest new lenses the mk2 version is a very good buy and much cheap second hand too. The 1.4 mk3 doesn't work with older lenses so it's a good idea to check the compatibility charts before buying to ensure your lenses are compatible.
Click to expand...

Can't really crop on D3, and the mag will want RAW's anyway, hence interest in the 1.7... maybe I'll get both and sell whichever doesn't get preference. I'm using a 70-200f2.8 VR1, so assume performance will be fairly close to your VR2
 
Nod said:
Dx crop factor is a mere 1.5x compared to Canon's 1.6x! :p OR, you could go down the 1 series route which'll give you a 2.7x crop factor at the cost of sensor size, AF speed, ISO capability etc.. You would need an F-T1 adaptor as well.
Click to expand...

I think we're slightly over-complicating things here ;)
 
IMO, the 1.7 isn't worth it... might as well go to the 2x in terms of IQ. The 1.7 is actually 1.6 something. I was never very happy w/ the D7000 performance personally.

The choice of using a crop body/cropping vs TC is a circle of tradeoffs:
A smaller sensor gets less light so performance at the same ISO is reduced. But a TC restricts light which requires a higher ISO.
A smaller sensor is more demanding of the lens and delivers less contrast/sharpness. But a TC reduces sharpness/contrast.
A longer effective FL reduces DOF by a factor of 2 which often requires stopping down to regain. W/ the TC that helps restore sharpness, with the smaller sensor that leads to diffraction sooner. Both will be at a higher ISO which the larger sensor tends to handle better.
Depending on the camera, the aperture restriction due to a TC may reduce AF performance notably (not typically w/ an f/2.8 lens).
Neither actually increases resolution notably... they are both just "enlargement" of what the lens transmits (both good and bad). Although a TC might add it's own optical errors as well (CA).

In the end, nothing matters as much as getting closer if possible.

This is a test image 70-200 VRII + TC-E 2.0 III almost wide open @ f/6.3 (a bit better on flickr)

Demo Shot by Steven Kersting, on Flickr

The vast majority of my wildlife images are taken w/ the 400/2.8 + 2x... it works for me.

SGK_6131-Edit.jpg by Steven Kersting, on Flickr
 
Last edited:
Image quality with a telecon is 90% dependent on the sharpness of the lens it's attached to. Even the best TC cannot put back what isn't there to start with. Plus the loss of maximum aperture, and often a hit to AF performance too. But start with a really good f/2.8 lens and they can work very well.

Another factor often overlooked is the atmospheric impact of shooting at greater distance with very long lenses, that never helps and can be severely detrimental. As Steven says, nothing beats getting closer.
 
I have all 3 of nikons teles and the 70-200 vr2. The 1.4 is excellent, 1.7 crap & the 2.0 soft - except in really good weather.
The 1.4 is sharp with no need to stop down.
The 1.7 doesn't work (really soft) until f8 so I use the 2 instead
The 2.0 I stop down to f8 and is then not bad.
 
wezza13 said:
My 2x is total crap, it's still sitting in my cupboard. I haven't got the nerve to sell it and inflict it on someone.
Click to expand...
The earlier ones pretty much were crap... The only 2x's I've found to be good are the latest Nikon (ver III) and the latest Sigma, and only when used on same brand lenses.
 
sk66 said:
The earlier ones pretty much were crap... The only 2x's I've found to be good are the latest Nikon (ver III) and the latest Sigma, and only when used on same brand lenses.
Click to expand...
I wasn't impressed with the TC2-III on the 70-200mm f2.8 VRII tbh.
 
trackdemon said:
Hadn't thought of that, although using DX goes some way whilst retaining 2.8. Example of body? Surely very expensive solution?
Click to expand...
Much cheaper than a 400mm f/2.8 though. In your scenario, if you can do manual focus and aperture priority with an aperture ring on the lens then its cheap. A dummy adapter and a used 16 megapixel Olympus or Lumix can be had well under 200 £/$/€. Not far from the price of a good teleconverter I guess. You lose AF but you keep all the light from the lens...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top