"Screwdriver" TCs

I know Nikon never made a TC with a screwdriver pass-through on it, and that they were only available from 3rd parties.

 

My experience with 3rd party TCs in the past has been much less than satisfactory. I've never owned a Nikon TC in any form, but I have a drawer full of Canon FD mount ones that I can't give away. The only ones I've kept in FD mount are the Canon 1.4x and the 2x-B, the latter of which is optimized for ~200mm and longer, and the former of which can't physically mount on any lens shorter than the 200mm 2.8 IF(I've used that combo a lot for a really handy 280mm f/4) and even that's fudging a bit-it really should only be used on 300mm and longer.

 

I've now found myself, though, with my first good(greater than 200mm) Nikkor lens-the 300mm f/4 AF. I opted for this lens because most praise its performance relative to the much heavier and more expensive 2.8.

 

I'd like to get a 1.4x, however, to make what should at least be a passable 420mm f/5.6. Is there a 3rd party "screwdriver" TC that's worth having?

Is there a 3rd party "screwdriver" TC that's worth having?

Kenko Teleplus PRO 300 Kenko Teleplus PRO 300 DGX 1.4x AF Teleconverter K1.4PRO300DGX-N

 

Tamron offered an SP AF 1.4x PRO Tamron 1.4x - believe it's similar if not identical to the above Kenko.

 

I used the Kenko N-AF 1.5x Teleplus SHQ with a 300/4 AF IF-ED - not all that bad but I am certain the above mentioned PRO is better.

Edited February 2, 2018 by Dieter Schaefer

Thanks Dieter!

 

Can you give me any ideas of the bodies on which you used it?

 

My main interest is going to be at my nephews' baseball games, where I'll most likely be using a D300 or D300s. I know that I'm stacking the odds with AF in the first place, but I do use an MB-D10 with the D2/D3 battery on these cameras and that "perks up" the AF speed nicely with screwdriver lenses. Hopefully I can get workable results in combination with the focus limiter. After all, I did manual focus in these situations for a long time.

Depending on how close you can get and what positions you are trying to shoot, a 300mm on a DX body can be long enough.

 

I do have the Tamron 1.4x that is supposed to be the same as the Kenko Pro, but don't recall ever testing it. I will try it on a 300/2.8 I have just out of curiosity and report. (EDIT: testing on AF-S lens may not be valid info for a screw AF, so I will try it on my 180/2.8)

 

I have always had the opinion that just cropping is about as effective as a 1.4x TC, but have never tested my opinion.

Edited February 2, 2018 by robert_bouknight|1

Can you give me any ideas of the bodies on which you used it?

Hmmh, a bit hazy on that one - D200 for sure, quite likely D70 and maybe D300. A friend used the Tamron on a D80 (with a AF-D 80-200/2.8 two-ring).

 

The 300/4 AF IF-ED lens does not focus fast (aka AF-D 80-400 kind of slow) - one way to speed it up a little is to use the focus limiter to limit the range as much as possible. Never owned a D2/D3 battery, so can't comment on whether or not it will make a difference with the slow AF performance of that lens. I considered the lens' bokeh a bit too rough for my liking.

The 300/4 AF IF-ED lens does not focus fast (aka AF-D 80-400 kind of slow) - one way to speed it up a little is to use the focus limiter to limit the range as much as possible.

 

Thanks-I debated about this lens for a while, and it seems to get high praise for its optics but not so much for focus speed. I only got it yesterday, so I didn't do anything like manually turning the screw and seeing how many rotations it takes lock-to-lock. I was playing around with it last night on a D200 and Fuji S5(same camera and AF system AFAIK) and it didn't hunt but did seem to take plenty of time to lock.

 

If focus speed does seem a problem in the situation I described above, I always have the D2x. I know that camera has its downfalls, but AF speed is certainly fast on it and I also have the 2x crop mode if I want a faster frame rate.

I only got it yesterday.

Just realized that the OP only got the 300mm/f4 AF yesterday. As I mentioned in Jay Michaels' thread:

300 mm F4 af s question

I upgraded from the 300mm/f4 AF (screwdriver AF, 82mm filter thread) to the 300mm/f4 AF-S mainly for the convenience for using the TC-14 E. Keep in mind that was in year 2001 and I was shooting 35mm film.

 

As Robert Bouknight mentioned above, on a DX body, 300mm is fairly long for sports. It should be fine for shooting baseball. I assume we are not talking about baseball at the professional level such that the photographer can get reasonably close, instead of shooting from the bleachers far away. For shooting sports, I prefer to leave some room for cropping anyway.

 

I would say use the newly acquired 300mm/f4 for a while before considering about teleconverters. Those third-party screwdriver AF teleconverters are not the best thing to use, and they may not be necessary at all.

Screw drive (slow) focus is I think an issue that is worried about too much.

 

I tested a "slow" focusing first version 300/2.8 AF by having my son (who is a pretty good athlete) run run directly at me from say 75' to close focus I think I was using a D3s at the time of the test, but it might have been a D700. Most of the test shots were keepers. I did replace that lens with an AF-S version after a few years, but don't recall that my AF hit ratio improved all that much while shooting sports.

 

For middle school soccer, I have had success with the push-pull 80-200 AFD (which is supposed to be faster than the first AF version but not as fast as the 2 ring AFD version). Even the slow 80-400 was reasonably effective at focusing when shooting my son playing youth soccer.

 

The slower focusing lenses obviously don't react quickly when attempting to transition from far to close (say short to first when the photog is near the right dugout), but I don't remember ever thinking that one of those lenses could not track most human action with proper technique and bodies say post F5 or D1,

I don't remember ever thinking that one of those lenses could not track most human action with proper technique and bodies say post F5 or D1,

 

It's interesting that you say that.

 

I have something of a(probably bad) habit of putting the F5 and D1 up on a pedestal when it comes to screwdriver lenses. I know that the AF module is nowhere near as advanced as a newer camera, but the amount of torque available from the in-body AF motor never fails to amaze me.

 

I too have the push-pull 80-200 AF-D, and I can physically feel that lens twisting and then "settling" when I use it on my F5. It's hard to describe, but I feel like the F5 jerks lenses around a lot faster and better than even a D2h/x.

 

My D800 doesn't get used that much with screwdriver lenses. My main "3 lens kit" for it is a 14-24, 24-85, and then a 50mm 1.4(earliest AF version with the thin plastic ring). Most cameras focus the 50mm well, with the only occasional issue being a bit of hunting at close ranges due to the limited DOF. I also use a 105mm AF-D Micro a fair bit, but I'm often manually focusing it so that doesn't count.

I'd second that, Ben. The F5's autofocus module is primitive, but someone took "screwdriver motor" to mean "power drill". Everything I use regularly is AF-S these days, but I once had a mk1 80-200 push-pull (AF non-D) and it was painfully slow at racking the AF back and forth on a D700; the F5 kept up appreciably better. It's also funny to put a 28-80 f/3.3-5.6 G (which is featherweight) on the F5 and talk to anyone who thinks you need AF-S to get fast focus. It's failed miserably to focus my 90mm Tamron macro at short range, though, where the digital bodies have done better - sometimes the electronics matter. And I'm not exactly arguing about the AF speed on my 200 f/2!

I should have said "including" and post F5, LOL, that's what I meant.

 

When I had a D700, I thought the AF better with the "big" battery.

Even with slow-focusing screw-driver lenses like the AF 300/4 or AF-D 80-400, tracking performance is in my experience not the issue. IF there is sufficient time to acquire focus and if the person behind the camera is sufficiently proficient in keeping the AF spot on the subject, the camera will usually be able to track not only slow moving subjects but fast ones as well (think race cars or even jets) even in the most difficult situation of a straight-on approach. A more powerful AF motor in the camera doesn't make all that much difference while tracking. Initial focus acquisition and, more importantly, re-acquisition of focus once it has been lost are much more problematic. Once that screwdriver motor is racking the lens out to minimum focus distance (or whatever the limiter is set to) and back in again to re-acquire, time is passing quickly. A more powerful AF motor can speed up the process and one can only hope that the active AF spot is still on the subject once the focus distance is in the right ballpark again. I've had enough occasions where I knew I had the bird still in the viewfinder at the proper spot but the AF never managed to re-acquire focus. One major disadvantage of the screwdriver concept becomes evident at this point - one cannot grab the focus ring to help things along. Unfortunately, even the AF-S 300/4 is rather slow to focus (as is the 200-500), so in many cases, the screwdriver AF scenario applies to those as well (but one can try to grab the focus ring to help the AF along).

In the case of the 300mm/f4 AF-S (year 2000 version, no VR and not the PF) and 200-500mm/f5.6 E AF-S VR, I think the problem is an under-powered AF motor. When I got my very first DSLR in the D100 in 2002, I realized that I had a hard time using it with the 300mm/f4 AF-S to keep track of flying birds. Of course, the D100 was based on the F80/N80 with consumer-grade AF.

 

The 200-500 is a fairly massive lens but Nikon is selling it at a fair low price to compete against Tamron and Sigma. Its AF motor is too small for that big lens.

The issue of initial AF acquisition or reacquisition after loss is something no lens or camera maker has really addressed with user setable limiters. It really shouldn't be that hard to implement in software.

 

Having a slow focusing lens rack to infinity or minimum near focus, before attempting AF lock is very frustrating when you can see the target getting away. I have been known to swear at my 200-500mm as the lens blasts right by the target and keeps going... By the time it comes back, the bird or plane has gone.

Okay, I finally got to go out and play with this lens today and I'm really happy with it. I couldn't find anything to complain about even hand-held wide open on my D800.

 

I also stuck it on the D300s, and I think you folks are right that I don't necessarily need a TC on a DX body. The only problem is that now I want a better(meaning higher resolution) DX body. Unfortunately, the D500 is the only one that REALLY interests me(I might consider a used D7200, but not a D7500) and I don't want to spend D500 money for a special use lens.

 

Also, I played with AF this evening on a couple of different bodies. The batteries are dead in my F5, and I really didn't want to stick another 8 AAs in it until I'm ready to use it again. With that said, I used an N70, N80, N90s, F4, Fuji S5 pro(D200 based), D1x, and D2H. I didn't try the D300/MB10. The N70 struggled the most-unsuprisingly-and wanted to hunt a bit. The N90s seemed faster but also hunted. The F4 didn't hunt but took a while. The D1 locked pretty quickly with no hunting. The D2H seemed about the same. The S5 was slower but still locked solidly. The N80, F4, and D800 made terrible noises when focusing.

 

I focused between two places-the door frame about ~12 feet away and a shelf of books down the hallway that was probably 25ft away. The lights were all pretty dim. Of course, the door frame is an easy target since it has a nice, solid line at the edge. I think this will do well for me. When I used to shoot baseball with my FD 400mm 4.5(sometimes with a 1.4x) I would anticipate the action and pre-focus there. I have a feeling that will work well also. BTW, this is a youth league, so I should be able to get fairly close.

 

Also, many of the reviews on this lens mention having to both engage the MF ring and turn off AF on the body in order to MF. I have other lenses that have an AF/M on the body-notably my 80-200 2.8 and 105 Micro. Flipping that completely disengages focusing by the screw. On the 300mm, you do certainly have to do both the body and the lens. MF is also uncomfortable since you can hear/feel the gear train working. Also, I'll mention that Thom Hogan references the aperture lock engaging when you flip the lens to f/32. The lens has the same sort of lock as is on my 50mm 1.4(thin ring) and turning it 1/4 turn allows the ring to move freely. Considering that Nikon made this lens from the early AF days up until 2000, it's not too surprising that they kept the old style lock.

Does anybody know if the Kenko Pro DGX teleconverters transmit the converted (modified) EXIF data to the camera for screw-drive AF lenses? I know from Kenko's marketing materials that the difference between the DGX and the older DG is precisely that it transmits converted EXIF data; e.g., for the 2X converter on a 200mm lens, it will report the focal length as 400mm, whereas a DG converter will say 200mm. My question is, does this data conversion only work for AF-S lenses, and not screw-drive lenses? Or does it work for both?

 

Or perhaps that's the wrong distinction. Does this data conversion only work for G lenses, or does it work for any lens with a CPU?

 

BTW, @ben_hutcherson, did you ever get a teleconverter for your 300mm f/4 AF, and do you still like the lens? I'm about to take delivery of one myself. I'm very excited.