What is the difference / Benefit ?
- Thread starter Rocket
- Start date
- Messages
- 1,951
- Name
- Jason
- Edit My Images
- Yes
A very quick google says the II is near enough a paperweight and the III reduces your income tax, improves your handwriting, cures disease & is optically amazing.
Pound Coin
Horatio Nelson
- Messages
- 4,297
- Edit My Images
- Yes
You forgot to say that the II will turn you lens into beer goggles, and the III will turn you into a sex god.
- Messages
- 1,951
- Name
- Jason
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I didn't read the BuzzFeed article "33 amazing things your TC-20E III can do"
Optical quality with newer lenses mainly, however I personally wouldn’t use either the 1.7 or 2.0 TCs in the F mount as they just degrade the image too much for my tastes. I used the TC14III extensively when I shot nikon with my 400 f2.8 and 500 f4 lenses then the vastly better TC125 which only works with the 800 f5.6.
The newer Z version of the 2x TC is much better but only works on the Z glass though
The newer Z version of the 2x TC is much better but only works on the Z glass though
Garry Edwards
Moderator
- Messages
- 12,313
- Name
- Garry Edwards
- Edit My Images
- No
No idea, but here's a quote from my new book on beginner photography that may or may not help you . . .
This specific product is designed to fit a camera on which the lens can’t be changed, and it magnifies the image by 1.4 times, so perhaps it could be useful?
No, because the simple truth of the matter is that if you want to magnify the image by 1.4 times it’s far easier to do that on a computer. As discussed above, image cropping always reduces image quality but will reduce it far less than by fitting a lens converter!
You also need to be aware that the 1.4 times image magnification results in an effective loss of maximum aperture of one stop, and a 2 times image magnification results in an effect loss of two stops, effectively changing the maximum aperture of a f/4 lens into f/8.
I mention lens converters only because a lot of them are offered for sale on the used market at low prices. Back in the days of 35mm film cameras they were possibly useful and so people try to sell the ones that they used to use, but digital has changed that.
This specific product is designed to fit a camera on which the lens can’t be changed, and it magnifies the image by 1.4 times, so perhaps it could be useful?
No, because the simple truth of the matter is that if you want to magnify the image by 1.4 times it’s far easier to do that on a computer. As discussed above, image cropping always reduces image quality but will reduce it far less than by fitting a lens converter!
You also need to be aware that the 1.4 times image magnification results in an effective loss of maximum aperture of one stop, and a 2 times image magnification results in an effect loss of two stops, effectively changing the maximum aperture of a f/4 lens into f/8.
I mention lens converters only because a lot of them are offered for sale on the used market at low prices. Back in the days of 35mm film cameras they were possibly useful and so people try to sell the ones that they used to use, but digital has changed that.
- Messages
- 5,330
- Name
- Peter
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Garry has laid out well the disadvantages.
The main reason to use a converter is to maintain pixels on the subject.
As has been noted, cropping reduces them. So it's a trade off.
The ones you mentioned are Nikon F mount. The 2.0 (both versions) were poor - the 1.4 is OK and quite a lot of wildlife togs still use this with their Nikon 500mm PF's on their mirrorless cameras.
The main reason to use a converter is to maintain pixels on the subject.
As has been noted, cropping reduces them. So it's a trade off.
The ones you mentioned are Nikon F mount. The 2.0 (both versions) were poor - the 1.4 is OK and quite a lot of wildlife togs still use this with their Nikon 500mm PF's on their mirrorless cameras.