|
Search this group's discussions
|
Nikon 70-200VR TC choices
|
I am looking into the 70-200VR, but would like to extend the range to around 400 or so. Reading around everywhere, I have determined that the Nikon 2x TC is going to soften the IQ of the lens too much. So, looks to me that the Nikon 1.7x TC is the best option, even though I don't quite get 400mm (before the 1.5x conversion on my D70).
However, the Nikon 1.7x TC works only with AF-S lenses, so it wouldn't work with my other lenses (except the 18-70 kit lens). Does anybody have any experience with the Kenko PRO line with the 70-200VR? Does AF and VR work flawlessly with this combination?
Also, the Kenko is a 2x converter, how much IQ degradation is there compared to the Nikon 1.7x or the Nikon 2x?
Any info or suggestions most welcome!
Thanks,
Shash
Originally posted at 3:43PM, 28 June 2006 PDT
(permalink)
shashchatter edited this topic 72 months ago.
|
|
The 70-200VR is an excellent choice and you'll be extremely happy with it. I have that lens and I use the TC-20E II on it and I can say that I'm pretty happy with the results. The image quality is slightly soft, but it's really not that much of an issue. I shoot primarily handheld with this combo and through much use I find that the sharpest images are had if you get a high shutter speed and keep the VR off.
A couple things you should be aware of using a TC, especially the 2x Nikon with this lens. It does slow AF speed down a bit, but not so much that it's a problem. You also have to use it with the lenses on Nikon's approved lens list since there is risk of damaging the lens/TC from mechanical interference of the rear element and TC element.
I did some tests with the 70-200mm and TC-20E II and have found the sharpness to be acceptable. I set up a can of WD-40 at exactly 40' away from the lens front and the results were that the fine print on the box underneath the can is fully readable and slightly soft.
On a side note, I use the 2x TC on the new 105mm VR Micro Nikkor and it is optically perfect and unnoticeable. My assumption is you are going to have same optical degradation no matter which the 70-200mm and any TC or manufacture you use. The problem is the 70-200mm has too much glass in it.
Here is a shot from that test. I cropped out the surrounding distractions so this isn't full frame. The WD-40 was selected so that you can get an accurate scale of the subject size.
Posted 72 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
The Nikon TC's won't work with some of your lenses because it has a tab to prevent it from mounting on lenses Nikon doesn't you to mount them on. A number of people "hack" theirs by filing off the blocking tab in order allow it to mount or to "stack" teleconverters.
Note that when the aperture goes smaller than f/5.6 the AF system starts to fail.
I can’t help beyond this since I have a TC-20E II that I use with my 70-200mm VR. When people say that there is a unacceptable loss of sharpness, I've decided they’re smoking something. Sometimes my TC-20E II + 70-200mm VR is so sharp it’s scary!
Posted 72 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
@tychay I agree with what you say on sharpness. You're going to get some degradation, but it's really nothing to be concerned about. I got into this debate with a gentleman in another group, hence the WD-40 tests. He claims the TC-20E II was so bad that he had to return it.
As for AF, you'll be able to AF up to f/8. Anything past that and it might not recover automatically. I found this out on the 105mm f/2.8 VR Micro Nikkor.
Also, I love that pic. I seen it before and it's fantastic! Here's a shot with the TC at 400mm VR off.
Originally posted 72 months ago.
(permalink)
DSP (Digital Soft Paw) edited this topic 72 months ago.
|
|
|
@DSP, @tychay - thank you both for the fast and informative answers.
I can't argue, the samples you provide here are very sharp. I can only assume that when people talk about softness, and @DSP you say that, it must be relative to the even sharper results you can get without the TC 20 E II (or versus the 1.4). Or, the other thing maybe, that due to variations in individual lenses, @tychay, you got a very good set which is much better than the average for this combination. But, unquestionably, this is very sharp in any case.
So, my only remaining question is that if I didn't do the tab hack on the TC 20 E, and go with the Kenko option, how is image quality compared to the Nikkor option?
Thanks,
Shash
Posted 72 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Yes, the short answer is there is *some* loss of sharpness (of course) -- at full-size you can see that that tychay's might be a bit sharper without the TC, but that it's still perfectly rocking (more importantly, that shows excellent AF performance).
TC's are strange beasts, an they react wiith different lenses in different ways -- for example, too many users to ignore have said that the TC 20EII not only works very well with the 200 f/2, but it works *better* than the 1.4 or 1.7. Weird.
Posted 72 months ago.
(permalink)
|
 |
screen name not available [deleted] says:
i can tell you the 1.4 works beautifully with the 200-400VR... i don't attach it to my 70-200VR, but i have read reliable reports that the 70-200VR and TC-14 combo produces images that are at as sharp, if not sharper, than the 300 2.8.... ive heard terrible things about the TC-20 with the 200-400VR, but i don't know if the same results occur with the 70-200VR... im generally suspicious of the TC-20, though... cheers...
Posted 72 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
@carpe icthus - good point, the AF performance certainly seems very good.
@paul - Oh, yes, as I wipe the drool, 200-400 VR would be awesome to have! Well with two kids to put through college in a few years, that a'int in the cards at the moment. Maybe, when my kids are wildly succesful in whatever they do, they'll remember dad and his 200-400 VR dream :-)
I too have seen the reports of the awesome performance with the 1.4x, but given that the whole point of a TC is to extend the focal length, the 280mm focal length just doesn't seem that interesting or effective. I want to be able to get decent closeups of birds and animals, at least when I visit bird-sanctuaries or zoos. The 80-400VR is just too slow focus wise for my taste, and f5.6 for most of the range. I am hoping the 70-200 will allow me the versatility to do sports etc. at f2.8, some candid street portraits from a fair (safe?) distance, and with a TC-17 (340mm/f4.8) or TC-20 (400mm/f5.6) do some limited bird/wildlife photoghraphy. I want to buy a decent used 300mm/f4 if I can find it at a good price, so I can use that with a TC. Can I spell NAS?
Originally posted 72 months ago.
(permalink)
shashchatter edited this topic 72 months ago.
|
|
shashchatter - The 80-400mm f/4.5-5.6D VR will give you better image quality at 400mm than the 70-200mm f/2.8G VR in conjunction with a TC-20E II from what I have heard.
I have the 70-200mm and love it. It's a wonderful lens. I also have the TC-14E II, TC-17E-II and TC-20E II teleconverters. I have to say the TC-14E II is much better than the other two as far as image quality, AF speed, viewfinder brightness, vignetting, etc. is concerned. The combination is wonderful. The TC-17E II is a good compromise. The TC-20E II does show some softness and is much slower to autofocus. I only use the least powerful teleconverter I need to maximize image quality.
For bird photography, you need all the focal length you can get. I think the 300mm f/4D with a teleconverter would be a better choice in that case. I've seen bird photographers use 600mm f/4D lenses with a teleconverter to get in close enough with small birds. Bird photography seems to be the most demanding as far as photographic hardware requirements go. Of course with large lenses like that, you need a big heavy tripod with a Wimberley head to support it as well. ;)
Originally posted 72 months ago.
(permalink)
disneymike (a group admin) edited this topic 72 months ago.
|
|
A few points from a dyed-in-the-wool TC jockey (can't afford the really big glass, but I shoot loads of birds, so I use what I must)!
Those who say the 70-200 VR and TC20EII work well together are right on the money. I use that combo all the time. It's the cheapest way to get to 400 mm with AFS, VR, and good optics, and on a D70 the results can be fantastic. Just be careful about the lighting conditions -- things get ugly fast when you're shooting in harsh backlighting. Most of my photostream was done with this combination. With good technique, it's useful for more than just limited bird/wildlife photography. I find the TC17EII a bit short for that task, though it's handy to have in lower light when shooting at f6.3 or f7.1 for sharpness just won't cut it.
I also have a feeling that I'll notice the sharpness loss more when I move to a D200. On a D70, the sensor is the limiting factor.
Filing the tabs will allow you to mount the TC to older lenses, but it lacks the screw necessary for AF to work. You'll need to go to a third-party converter for that. I haven't played with the Kenko, but my 7-element Tamron 2x produces mixed results. Fantastic on the 70-180 micro, usable but iffy and prone to CA on my 300 mm f4 AF-D.
Originally posted 72 months ago.
(permalink)
Jamuudsen edited this topic 72 months ago.
|
|
screen name not available [deleted] says:
shashchatter, i hear from people who do bird photography, over and over, that you want at least 500mm plus a TC. i struggle getting good bird photos with the 200-400VR and the 1.4 attached, so i'd have to agree with that. i don't think the 70-200 will do the trick.. this is the closest i've come to getting wildlife shots with it, for what it's worth...
![[ take off envy ]](http://static.flickr.com/54/147876932_8a488aff6d_m.jpg)
![[ kicking back ]](http://static.flickr.com/62/176031393_d9b1b828e2_m.jpg)
but it's been absolutely great for just about all else, including candid street shots and general city photography--
![[ eye contact ]](http://static.flickr.com/52/152509659_ca0b61ba5d_m.jpg)
![[ ship in the sky ]](http://static.flickr.com/53/137242673_25527280f5_m.jpg)
cheers...
Originally posted 72 months ago.
(permalink)
screen name not available edited this topic 72 months ago.
|
|
|
More thanks for the responses guys, very informative. Also, every one of you guys that have responded here are just awesome photographers from what I see in your streams. My compliments!
@disneymike - I think the 80-400 is a very nice lens. But I'd rather get the 70-200 VR for it's wonderful sharpness and wide aperture and versatility, I'm pretty much sold on it, as you are. As you suggest, I too have come to the conclusion, that the TC-17 is the best compromise between reach and IQ, as well as effective aperture.
@jamuudsen - thanks for the D70 versus D200 sensor point, I am eventually going to go from the D70 to the D200, after working on my lens collection. That is certainly something to think about, and why I have hesitated about the TC 20.
@paul - the second pic is a great example for how difficult it is to fill a frame with the 70-200 unless the animal is huge.
But, mostly from all three of you guys' points, I am getting convinced that even with a 2x TC, the 70-200 is on the order of minimum required focal length for even limited bird photography. So, balancing budget, IQ, focal length and versatility, what does everybody think of this compromise list:
- used 300mm f4 ED + Kenko PRO 2x TC - I can use the TC with any other lens, and get 600mm for shots in decent light. The 300mm is supposedly quite sharp.
- 70-200 f2.8 VR ED AF-S - for available light and versatility
- TC 17E II - forn extending the 70-200 for best compromise IQ/focal length/aperture, for shots like @paul shows (a little closer maybe) or @jamuudsen's stream (a little less close)
I agree that 500mm-600mm would be ideal. The Nikkors are too expensive, not too sure about the Bigma. Maybe in a pinch I can rent the glass.
Let me know what you think.
Shash
Originally posted 72 months ago.
(permalink)
shashchatter edited this topic 72 months ago.
|
|
|
Couldn't wait to share the news with other enthusiasts - step 1 is being implemented. 70-200 VR is on order at B&H. Can't wait.
Posted 72 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
screen name not available [deleted] says:
congrats! you're going to be very, very, happy!
Posted 72 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Yes, congratulations! Don't be surprised if you find that your 70-200 is your 'walkaround vacation lens'. It works rather well for so much in addition to birding.
FWIW I went with the 1.7x because it seemed like the best tradeoff of size and magnification.
Originally posted 72 months ago.
(permalink)
Rob Gruhl edited this topic 72 months ago.
|
|
screen name not available [deleted] says:
i definitely second rob's sentiment--the 70-200VR is too awesome and versatile a lens not to use it as a walk-around lens for all sorts of shots.. and it is not nearly as heavy as some folks seem to suggest--i carry it around regularly..
Posted 72 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
| paul |: I agree. I don't own one but spend a fair bit of time with one annoying a local store clerk. It's surprisingly light for it's size.
Strangly, so is the 200mm f/2 VR which I finally got to try out. ... sadly I'm short $5k.
Posted 72 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Paul, Rob - definitely agree with you on this. As many said before, 70-200 even with 2x TC is going to work for birding, but not an ideal choice. I bought this for general photography, mostly for the awesome sharpness (I drooled for years for a 80-200 f2.8), but also for the max aperture more for subject isolation than low-light. The VR is just icing , particularly with subject motion, but I will use that too.
I am also going to get the 1.7x Nikon TCin a few months. For now, I am going with a Kenko PRO 300 2x, so that I can use it with a used 300mm f4 AF, this is going to be my poor-man's birding lens (although f8 :-( with the combo). I am thinking of bumping up the ISO on my D70 to 400, as well as shooting at a -1 EV compensation which I will take out in post-processing - I am hoping I'll get acceptable noise-levels with this.
edited: Meant to also say, that in a pinch I can also use the Kenko with my 70-200VR
Originally posted 72 months ago.
(permalink)
shashchatter edited this topic 72 months ago.
|
|
|
The 200mm isn't *light* for its size, but it's so stubby that it's surprisingly hand-holdable, since it keeps its weight close to your center of gravity.
Now, for a heavy lens, I was just made aware yesterday of an 800mm f/4 for the Pentax 67. Its very existence boggles the mind -- the fastest 800mm I know of for 35mm cameras is f/5.6, and in what world are medium format optics *faster* than 35mm optics?
When you're willing to design a lens that's 39 pounds, that's when. Seems a steal at $7.5K -- the Nikkors that heavy can cost six figures.
Posted 72 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
I recently bought a TC 17EII for my 70-200. I'm very pleased with the results from a visit to a falconry. Although for shots of swooping birds, the D70 shows its limits...
Posted 71 months ago.
(permalink)
|
Would you like to comment?
Sign up for a free account, or sign in (if you're already a member).
|
|
Nikkor /
Discuss
Feed – Subscribe to Nikkor discussion threads
