Which Nikon Teleconverter

W1HWT · 18 Jun 2015

Apologies if this has been asked on the forum.

I have just purchased a Nikon 300mm 2.8 and I would like to use it for bird and wildlife photography, as I have read we all would like to have a lens with more reach.

My question is a Nikon teleconverter which one that would be best to purchase?
I understand the downfall, TC 1.4 E III becomes 420mm @ f 3.2 loss of 1 stop --------- TC 2x E III becomes 600mm @ f 5.6 loss of 2 Stops
Is there a difference in the IQ quality between the two? Also I have notice the cost is higher for the 1.4 to the 2x is that telling me something

Thanking in advance
Ian.

markyboy.1967 · 18 Jun 2015

Start off with the 1.4TC and see how you get on with it, the 300 takes it very very well. If you feel you need more reach then buy the 2xtc which if you get the latest model then it should still be a very useable combo.

Joeturner11 · 18 Jun 2015

Personally after owning all the current model Nikon Converters stick to the TC14E series, the 2x will be good on the 300mm f/2.8 but if you want the best IQ stick to the 1.4x and you will be highly impressed with the results!

rob-nikon · 18 Jun 2015

I previously had a 300mm f2.8 vr1 lens, I used the 1.4 mk 2 Teleconverter along with the 2x mk3 Teleconverter. The 1.4 TC seemed to be as good with the TC as without it. AF was as snappy. The 2x mk2 was noticeably slower but still very impressive iq and AF wise but not a patch on the 1.4 Teleconverter.

The 1.4 Teleconverter you lose one full stop so it's 420mm f4, the 2x Teleconverter is 600mm f5.6.

I have a few image examples on flicker but I'm on an iPad so it's now near impossible to copy the b&b code to post the images.

rob-nikon · 18 Jun 2015

Joeturner11 said:
Personally after owning all the current model Nikon Converters stick to the TC14E series, the 2x will be good on the 300mm f/2.8 but if you want the best IQ stick to the 1.4x and you will be highly impressed with the results!

I too have owned all 3, the order I would rate them would be 1.4, 2x mk3 then 1.7. I now only own the 1.4 mk2, I think that says it all really. I do have a 200-400 now so only the 1.4 is useable but I do miss the 300 f2.8 as it was a great lens. If I ever bought the 300 f2.8 again I think I would stick with the 1.4.

Joeturner11 · 18 Jun 2015

rob-nikon said:
I too have owned all 3, the order I would rate them would be 1.4, 2x mk3 then 1.7. I now only own the 1.4 mk2, I think that says it all really. I do have a 200-400 now so only the 1.4 is useable but I do miss the 300 f2.8 as it was a great lens. If I ever bought the 300 f2.8 again I think I would stick with the 1.4.

Agree with you there pal, always found the 1.7x to be slightly behind IQ compared to the 2x, which I used on the Nikon 400mm f/2.8

rob-nikon · 19 Jun 2015

The 1.4 mk3 has only recently been released hence the high cost. I'm not exactly sure what the benefits of the mk3 is over the mk2 1.4 TC, the mk2 worked very well on my 300 f2.8. A friend has a 300 f2.8 non vr afs2 model and he prefers the 1.7tc mainly because of the extra focal length. Personally the 1.4 is the one to go with as it works well on a few other lenses too.

snerkler · 19 Jun 2015

I'm actually renting the version iii 2x TC next weekend for my 70-200mm f2.8VRII so will post my thoughts after then.

W1HWT · 19 Jun 2015

markyboy.1967 said:
Start off with the 1.4TC and see how you get on with it, the 300 takes it very very well. If you feel you need more reach then buy the 2xtc which if you get the latest model then it should still be a very useable combo.

Joeturner11 said:
Personally after owning all the current model Nikon Converters stick to the TC14E series, the 2x will be good on the 300mm f/2.8 but if you want the best IQ stick to the 1.4x and you will be highly impressed with the results!

rob-nikon said:
I previously had a 300mm f2.8 vr1 lens, I used the 1.4 mk 2 Teleconverter along with the 2x mk3 Teleconverter. The 1.4 TC seemed to be as good with the TC as without it. AF was as snappy. The 2x mk2 was noticeably slower but still very impressive iq and AF wise but not a patch on the 1.4 Teleconverter.

The 1.4 Teleconverter you lose one full stop so it's 420mm f4, the 2x Teleconverter is 600mm f5.6.

I have a few image examples on flicker but I'm on an iPad so it's now near impossible to copy the b&b code to post the images.

rob-nikon said:
I too have owned all 3, the order I would rate them would be 1.4, 2x mk3 then 1.7. I now only own the 1.4 mk2, I think that says it all really. I do have a 200-400 now so only the 1.4 is useable but I do miss the 300 f2.8 as it was a great lens. If I ever bought the 300 f2.8 again I think I would stick with the 1.4.

Joeturner11 said:
Agree with you there pal, always found the 1.7x to be slightly behind IQ compared to the 2x, which I used on the Nikon 400mm f/2.8

rob-nikon said:
The 1.4 mk3 has only recently been released hence the high cost. I'm not exactly sure what the benefits of the mk3 is over the mk2 1.4 TC, the mk2 worked very well on my 300 f2.8. A friend has a 300 f2.8 non vr afs2 model and he prefers the 1.7tc mainly because of the extra focal length. Personally the 1.4 is the one to go with as it works well on a few other lenses too.

snerkler said:
I'm actually renting the version iii 2x TC next weekend for my 70-200mm f2.8VRII so will post my thoughts after then.

Thank your all, for putting your time in helping me in choosing Rob thank for the correction f4

Reading my email again my 300 f2.8 is a VR 2 my camera D700
Many thanks
Ian

OldCarlos · 19 Jun 2015

I had the 300 2.8 VR11 & used it no probs with the 1.7tc. At first on a D7000, then latterly (for a short time) on the D800E.

rob-nikon · 19 Jun 2015

Here are some images I took with the 300 f2.8 vr 1 and 2x mk3.

Barn Owl Sunrise by Rob Cain, on Flickr

Barn Owl- Perched Hunter by Rob Cain, on Flickr

Water Vole by Rob Cain, on Flickr

Heres some with the 1.4 mk2.

Black Headed Gull- Follow Me by Rob Cain, on Flickr

Water Vole by Rob Cain, on Flickr

W1HWT · 20 Jun 2015

OldCarlos said:
I had the 300 2.8 VR11 & used it no probs with the 1.7tc. At first on a D7000, then latterly (for a short time) on the D800E.

Hi Carl, Thanks for your comments great photos on your Flickr very nice.

rob-nikon said:
Here are some images I took with the 300 f2.8 vr 1 and 2x mk3.

Hi Rob,
Fantastic photos here I think I have some work to do in match the quality of these.
Thanks for sharing and helping me to try and the right decision.

Cheers
Ian
I will have to try and upload some of my photos taken 12-18 months ago with 70-200mm

Barn Owl Sunrise by Rob Cain, on Flickr

Barn Owl- Perched Hunter by Rob Cain, on Flickr

Water Vole by Rob Cain, on Flickr

Heres some with the 1.4 mk2.

Black Headed Gull- Follow Me by Rob Cain, on Flickr

Water Vole by Rob Cain, on Flickr

OldCarlos · 20 Jun 2015

If you're shooting on a cropped sensor/body, I'd say stick with the 1.4 TC111 for quality & AF speed.
If you're shooting full frame, you may find the 2x TC111 useful for the extra reach, but you can also crop into your images later if you needed.

The newer type 111 TC's are supposed to be better than the previous versions. (especially the 2x)

W1HWT said:
Hi Carl, Thanks for your comments great photos on your Flickr very nice.

Thanks for your comment Ian.

W1HWT · 20 Jun 2015

OldCarlos said:
If you're shooting on a cropped sensor/body, I'd say stick with the 1.4 TC111 for quality & AF speed.
If you're shooting full frame, you may find the 2x TC111 useful for the extra reach, but you can also crop into your images later if you needed.

The newer type 111 TC's are supposed to be better than the previous versions. (especially the 2x)

Thanks for your comment Ian.

Hi Carl
I have a D700 full frame I've been thinking of the 2x III until I asked the question. But is the IQ and is the AF, as quick as the 1.4 III

markyboy.1967 · 21 Jun 2015

IQ and AF always drop with the 2xtc but can still be useable. If bith IQ and AF are a concern then stick with the 1.4tc.

BillN_33 · 21 Jun 2015

snerkler said:
I'm actually renting the version iii 2x TC next weekend for my 70-200mm f2.8VRII so will post my thoughts after then.

never found this combination to work well

It would be nice as it would give a 400mm f5.6 Nikon with VR that should be good for BIF

The lens on it's own is really good, but not for birding as it is too short

70 200 + TC20Elll was always very disappointing for me

snerkler · 21 Jun 2015

BillN_33 said:
never found this combination to work well

It would be nice as it would give a 400mm f5.6 Nikon with VR that should be good for BIF

The lens on it's own is really good, but not for birding as it is too short

70 200 + TC20Elll was always very disappointing for me

I'm hearing this a lot the last couple of days

Oh well, not really cost a lot to hire so not the end of the world.

eccles · 23 Jun 2015

70 200 + TC20Elll was always very disappointing for me

It depends what you're shooting. If you want long range reach then it is less than stellar, and you can forget chasing birds in flight. But I have shot close range stuff such as butterflies and dragonflies and got excellent results.
I also have a 300mm F2.8 VR2 plus the three Nikon teleconverters and wouldn't give up any of them. On my D7200 the 1.7x gives me 510mm F4.8 and AF is quick enough to chase birds in flight. VR is still quite effective and it is my favourite birding combo. For small birds around a feeder where AF speed is less important, the 2x works well at about F7.1, VR performance is less effective with the 2x.

snerkler · 23 Jun 2015

eccles said:
It depends what you're shooting. If you want long range reach then it is less than stellar, and you can forget chasing birds in flight. But I have shot close range stuff such as butterflies and dragonflies and got excellent results.
I also have a 300mm F2.8 VR2 plus the three Nikon teleconverters and wouldn't give up any of them. On my D7200 the 1.7x gives me 510mm F4.8 and AF is quick enough to chase birds in flight. VR is still quite effective and it is my favourite birding combo. For small birds around a feeder where AF speed is less important, the 2x works well at about F7.1, VR performance is less effective with the 2x.

Interesting. My idea of having a TC isn't for birds in flight but rather to give a bit extra reach for when I go to wildlife parks etc. I thought the 70-200mm VRII with 2xTC would give me IQ at least on par with the 70-300mm but with 100mm more at the long end. If it can do this I'd be happy, but reading the comments above I'm not sure it will.

Mark twiglet · 25 Jun 2015

I've got a 80-200 2.8 and at a park in Scotland I borrowed a mates 70-300 Tamron! Was so impressed I bought one!

For the same price of a nikon 2x convertor

stemll · 26 Jun 2015

Interesting read. I'd always assume that a teleconverter would compromise the quality too much but the opinion and the pictures on here show otherwise. Seems I may need to look at these again

rob-nikon · 26 Jun 2015

stemll said:
Interesting read. I'd always assume that a teleconverter would compromise the quality too much but the opinion and the pictures on here show otherwise. Seems I may need to look at these again

Really depends on the lens you are using it on, prime f2.8 lens are ideal and are what Teleconverters are designed to work with. F2.8 or f4 70-200s take a 1.4 TC well. I personally wouldn't bother trying to use them in a f5.6 lens but I have heard some lenses work ok with the 1.4 TC.

The 300 f2.8 with 1.4 TC and 2x TC are a great combination.

snerkler · 26 Jun 2015

My hired TC-20e III arrived today and after reading members posts on here on other threads I wasn't expecting much. Numerous people posted that the TC with 70-200mm f2.8 wasn't a good combo, someone even said results were unusable. Well this was just a grab shot of my cat this lunchtime and I personally think it's pretty acceptable. Only PP is 50 sharpening and +5 contrast in LR.

DSC_5276 by TDG-77

Whilst not the best shot you'll ever see, and IQ maybe not quite as good as the lens without TC it's not too bad at all IMO, considerably better than I was expecting. I'm actually now looking forward to using it at the Yorkshire Wildlife Park this weekend. Just hope the weather holds out. I then need to decide then whether this TC or a 150-600mm will better fit my needs.

snerkler · 26 Jun 2015

snerkler said:
My hired TC-20e III arrived today and after reading members posts on here on other threads I wasn't expecting much. Numerous people posted that the TC with 70-200mm f2.8 wasn't a good combo, someone even said results were unusable. Well this was just a grab shot of my cat this lunchtime and I personally think it's pretty acceptable. Only PP is 50 sharpening and +5 contrast in LR.

DSC_5276 by TDG-77

Whilst not the best shot you'll ever see, and IQ maybe not quite as good as the lens without TC it's not too bad at all IMO, considerably better than I was expecting. I'm actually now looking forward to using it at the Yorkshire Wildlife Park this weekend. Just hope the weather holds out. I then need to decide then whether this TC or a 150-600mm will better fit my needs.

Please remove, clicked quote rather than edit :banghead: