I'd like some help with Nikkor TCs and supertelphotos

Hey all. I'm considering playing around with adapted Nikon supertelephoto lenses and TCs, mostly manual focus, adapted to mirrorless systems of various sensor types. So, what resources would you recommend to find reliable information about matching lenses with the best possible TC?

 

And what has your experience been? I have an old TC-201 hanging around, but I'm not sure if that's the best one for the 400, 600 and 800mm Nikkors. I think a lot of lenses have matched TCs, is that right? Canon used to make two types of TC for FD lenses - one for <300mm and one for >300mm, although I hear that Canon's recommendations aren't always the ones you should go with.

I have an old TC-201 hanging around..

Hanging around, rather than hanging on the end of a lens, is probably the best place for it. A disappointing thing, IME, considering its price new, even compared to something much cheaper like a Vivitar tele-macro converter. But not quite as bad as the TC-16A AF converter.

 

Rule of thumb: You really don't want to go above 1.4x with a converter, and the type that intrude into the rear of the lens are better than those that don't.

Hey all. I'm considering playing around with adapted Nikon supertelephoto lenses and TCs, mostly manual focus, adapted to mirrorless systems of various sensor types. So, what resources would you recommend to find reliable information about matching lenses with the best possible TC?

If those lense-mounts are adapted, they would not fitany Nikon TC including a TC201, so what is adapted to fit what?

When I had manual focus Nikon tele lenses, like the 500mm f4 P and the 400mm f3.5, I used the TC 301 for 2x and the TC 14B for 1.4x.I found that I got acceptable results from both. There were even times when I mounted both of these tcs on my 500mm f4 P lens with the help of a Nikon metal extension tube. Cameras were all Nikon film cameras with 35mm slide film.

 

The 14B could be used with a 300mm f4 too, but the tc 301 would not mate to my 300mm f4 MF lens.

I have a variety of the old Nikon manual focus teles with the suggested Nikon teleconverters to fit each. The converters are small, and when used, allow you reach you otherwise would be unlikely to have available. As to results, primary is getting a photo that you could not have gotten at all. There can be some loss of sharpness, and heat shimmer can and will be a factor. Under ideal conditions off a good tripod I have gotten fine results on wildlife. At the extreme, I have used a Nikon 600mm 5.6 with a 2x Teleconverter on a D7200 for an equivalent 1800mm. It is a fun exercise, and since the lenses and converters are not usually particularly expensive, cost effective. At the modern end, I regularly use the TC 14EII on the AF S Nikkor 200 - 500 1:5.6E with very satisfactory results. A lot depends on the task at hand and your expectations.

At the modern end, I regularly use the TC 14EII on the AF S Nikkor 200 - 500 1:5.6E with very satisfactory results. A lot depends on the task at hand and your expectations.

+1 My favourite set-up for butterfly chasing @ f14 on a D850.

 

I often wondered whether there's any mileage to make an AF TC that could work with AI, AIS & AF-D lenses on a Z body.

 

Kinda like an FTZ with lens elements that do the AF like a modern TC 1.6A.

Thank you all for your responses and tips.

 

Can I assume, Sandy, that the newer TCs like the TC 14EII can be used with AiS lenses?

I have to question the usefulness of a TC these days, when all you need are a decent lens to start with, and a camera with megapixels to spare.

 

Full-frame taken handheld with a Samyang 135mm f/2 lens @ f/4:

And an approximately 20x crop, representing the equivalent field-of-view of a 2,700mm focal length.

 

I'm pretty sure that sticking any 2x teleconverter on the back of that lens would have done nothing to improve its image quality.

Edited July 18, 2022 by rodeo_joe|1

Thank you all for your responses and tips.

 

Can I assume, Sandy, that the newer TCs like the TC 14EII can be used with AiS lenses?

There are a total of seven TC-nnE teleconverters, initially designed for the AF-I lenses in 1992 and subsequently AF-S lenses since 1996. E stands for electronic contacts and all seven are designed for long teles, i.e. 70-200mm/f2.8 and 300mm/f4 and longer. All seven protrude into the rear end of the lens in front so that you cannot mount them on shorter lenses, e.g. 24-70mm/f2.8 AF-S.

 

Those seven lenses include the TC-14E versions 1, 2, and 3, TC-17E version 2 (there is no version 1 for the 17), and TC-20E versions 1, 2, and 3. Versions 1 and 2 are 99% identical except for the outside finish. The two version 3 are optically different from their respective predecessors. In particular, the TC-14E III is only compatible with AF-S G lenses, not the earlier AF-I and AF-S lenses with an aperture ring. I happen to have 5 of the 7, as I don't have the version 2's.

 

All seven TCs have an extra notch on their front mount so that you cannot mount AF/AF-D and AI/AI-S lenses on them, unless you file off that extra notch on the mount. There was a lot of discussion on this forum and many others about filing off that extra tab on the TC-nnE teleconverters about 10 to 20 years ago. Do a search and you'll get the info. If you choose to file that off, do so at your own risk as that will void any warranty.

 

I also have the Z-mount 1.4x TC and that TC is superb, considerably better than the F-mount ones I have used.

 

Edited July 18, 2022 by ShunCheung

Thank you all for your responses and tips.

 

Can I assume, Sandy, that the newer TCs like the TC 14EII can be used with AiS lenses?

Have never tried it with the old lenses since I have several period correct Teleconverters for AIS. Shun seems to have it covered as he usually does!

Some people here seem to argue more from theory than practice. It is true that adding more parts complicates things, and that even "matched" teleconverters would be unlike to exceed the theoretical "perfection" of a lens designed that way from the start.

 

On the other hand, there are lots of designed 'whole lenses' from any era of design that are less than ideal, even some major Meleagris gallopavo types. I have and have actually shot with a number of these converters ranging from the primitive Spiratone converters to OEM one like the Nikon series made primarily for certain mirror lenses (see: In Search of Reach: Tele Converters).

 

These were described by Burt Keppler (who some of you may still remember) in his SLR Notebook column in Modern Photography 1978-02 as “perfect” - tried by Modern’s staff with results as good as the lenses without the converter.

 

“the Nikon converters were tried by MODERN's testers at the 1976 Olympics at Montreal ("Keppler on the SLR," Nov. 1976, page 42) with Nikon tele lenses and produced practical results every bit as good as did the Nikon lenses alone.

 

When assessed by the standards of their own time --something difficult to do, apparently-- they were useful tools and filled a need for many, less-affluent photographers.

 

I am sure that many 1978 digital cameras and lenses were and are inferior to modern ones, and with sufficient funding you can do better today

Edited July 18, 2022 by JDMvW

and with sufficient funding you can do better today

I paid less than the new price of any Nikon TC for that used 135mm Samyang - in native Sony EF mount.

 

From the Modern Photography quote above:

"the Nikon converters were tried... with Nikon tele lenses and produced practical results every bit as good as did the Nikon lenses alone."

Without access to the methodology, that's a bit meaningless. Because any comparison will require a 2x or 1.4x magnification of the image from the un-converted lens at some stage, or a 0.5x (0.7x) reduction of the image from the converted lens, which would seem a bit pointless.

 

Shooting the Olympics in 1976? That's almost certainly going to be on Tri-X or some other fast cubic-grained film of the day. Well, good luck trying to sensibly compare lens quality from a 20x bare-lens print with a 10x tele-converted print using that film as a test bed! :rolleyes:

Well, good luck trying to sensibly compare lens quality f

Why thank you.

And an approximately 20x crop, representing the equivalent field-of-view of a 2,700mm focal length.

 

I'm pretty sure that sticking any 2x teleconverter on the back of that lens would have done nothing to improve its image quality.

Okay. So what I think you're suggesting is that you can either use a TC or you can crop, and either way the detail resolved will be about the same. Which I appreciate because I can believe it without doing any testing.

 

However, what I want to point out here, referring to your experiment specifically, is that I have a choice between a severe crop, which has the harshness of a camcorder from 1992, or a less severe crop, if at all, from a telephoto lens with a TC. I think I might prefer the latter, as you're getting an image that uses more photosites and thus will look much nicer. That's in theory of course. I would have to do some tests and let the results speak for themselves.

I'm always amazed at the cropping potential from a nice sharp D850 file, but there are a few TC matches that I use.

 

Recently I've been using both the 300 and 500mn PFwith the TC1.4e ii for bug chasing.

 

The TC allows the same MFD but with more magnification for skittish butterflies and the like, so about 4ff and 9 ft respectively.

 

You can use ext. tubes, but infinity focus is lost for that falcon flying over mid bug hunt..:(.

Okay. So what I think you're suggesting is that you can either use a TC or you can crop, and either way the detail resolved will be about the same.

My own modest testing and comparison leads me to believe that, say, a 300mm lens on a 24 Megapixel DX sensor will give better apparent sharpness than using the same lens + 1.4x TC on a 36 Mp FF sensor. Or even comparing the 300mm DX image with an equal quality* 450mm native lens on the FF sensor.

*But of course the price differential goes roughly as the square of the focal length difference, and so comparing IQ across different FL telephoto lenses isn't straightforward.

I have a choice between a severe crop, which has the harshness of a camcorder from 1992, or a less severe crop, if at all, from a telephoto lens with a TC.

Of course a severe crop will lose out to a modest optical magnification. That's not what I claimed.

 

With any good modern sensor a half-frame crop (0.5x linear) wouldn't be classed as 'severe', and the highest TC magnification you'd sensibly want to use is also 2x. So the images are then basically both on an equal footing.

 

It's not like anyone would stick a $25 50mm lens on a 4mm diagonal VGA webcam sensor and seriously expect it to compete with a $2000 300mm lens + $500 2x TC on a high megapixel full-frame DSLR. You have to stay within reasonable comparison parameters. Such that both the crop and TC magnification are the same or similar. In that case I think you'd very much struggle to choose the visually best option.

Edited July 20, 2022 by rodeo_joe|1

When I had manual focus Nikon tele lenses, like the 500mm f4 P and the 400mm f3.5, I used the TC 301 for 2x and the TC 14B for 1.4x.I found that I got acceptable results from both.

I've similar experience with 400/3.5 .. on slide-film AND still on D800 occasionally.

Even with historical anecdotes about the TC14B not ideally matched with this lens, it is very mu useable.

And I have used both TC301 and TC20E with this lens (..must've filed off the tab at some point, like Shun mentioned.. don't even remember!), which works well enough and they seem indistinguishable IQ-wise.

Mannually focusing is another thing to be mastered!

Vivitar used to have a series of lenses with "matched multiplier".

 

Presumably the lenses are computer designed.

 

After designing the main lens, and keeping those lens elements fixed, as the computer

to design for a longer focal length, while adding new lens elements. As well as I know,

mostly that allows for smaller lens elements than might be needed for a more

general TC.

 

I have Kenko 1.4x and 2x Nikon mount TCs. For lenses that use the motor in the

camera, the TC gears the speed down by the same ratio. That makes sense,

as otherwise the focus change, as seen by the camera, is multiplied.

 

For the motor in lens case, though, there is no speed reduction. If you turn

on AF, it tends to overshoot, try again, and otherwise not ever get the

focus right. Actually, I think the 1.4x usually works, but not the 2x.

 

I suppose you can compare TC prices to used long lens prices.

 

My best lens deal is an AI 80-200 zoom for $11. (Less than a meal

at McDonalds without coupons.) I think the Kenko TCs were reasonably

priced, though still more than $11.

 

One other thing. TCs use the center of the image produced by the

attached lens. Many lenses are optically better near the center, so it is

the best part of the image. That may mean that the result is, compared

to the whole image, better than one might expect.

I was prompted to dig out my old 2x and 1.4x converters and have a 'play'. Then noticed an interesting effect:

When comparing a non-TC DX shot with a FF shot + 2x TC with the same lens, it was apparent that there wasn't the expected 1.333x scale difference between them. Either the 2x TC FF shot was at a greater scale than 2x, or the DX shot had somehow shrunk. And I'm not talking a few percent, but more like a 25 or 30 percent scale imbalance from what was expected.

 

The lens in question has Internal Focussing and the subject was only 2.5 metres away. So my guess is that the lens has less than its marked FL at that distance, but the shift of IF components magnify the effect of the TC at that distance. Intriguing, and in need of further investigation.

 

If that's the case, then it means the '2x' converter scaling is very nominal and not to be relied on. It's also a bit worrying that the effective aperture might change drastically with focus distance too.

 

Anyone else noticed such an effect?

The effect of internal focus lenses on focal length was mentioned in some thread recently. I hadn't know about that one.

 

But the TC takes a real image, and make a new real image with a different size. It should do that without dependence on the source image.

 

Though if you put an extension tube on, after the TC, then I suspect things to get very different.

 

A lens focused at infinity has a view angle arctangent of image size over focal length.

 

For non-IF lens, as you focus closer, the view angle gets smaller in an obvious way.

 

It seems that for IF lenses, as you focus closer, the view angle can get larger.

As well as I know, this is supposed to be most noticed in video, where you might be

changing focus during a shot.

 

Other than vignetting, a TC should take any real image and make a new real image appropriately larger.

 

The only time I remember doing the calculation for an actual lens, is for the Nikon AI 55/2.8.

Without an extension tube, it will focus down to 1:2, which is an extension in the focus mechanism

of 27.5mm. 1/(55+27.5) + 1/(3*55) = 1/55, and 3*55 is twice 55+27.5.

To get to 1:1, you need a 27.5mm extension tube, so 1/110 + 1/110 = 1/55.

 

Otherwise, the first lens I ever bought, the AI 35/2.0, focuses down to 1ft (0.3m) from the film

plane, and a lot less from the front of the lens. Much more magnification than the 50mm

lens at 3ft close focus.

But the TC takes a real image, and make a new real image with a different size. It should do that without dependence on the source image.

A TC is basically a negative lens placed behind the original positive lens. All it does is lengthen the FL of the original lens.

 

A TC serves exactly the same purpose as the rear negative group of a classic telephoto design.

A teleconverter simply* diverges the cone of light exiting the main lens and thus elongates its focal length. *Leaving aside complexities like maintaining the same focal plane, etc.

Either the 2x TC FF shot was at a greater scale than 2x, or the DX shot had somehow shrunk.

My bad! The 'scale error' was in my head! I'd omitted to take into account the difference in Pixels-per-Image-Height between the cameras. Despite the greater pixel-density of the DX camera, the full-frame still squeezes in an extra 14% of pixels per unit of subject size. So the scaling between the FF + 2xTC is ~165% and not 133% for 100% pixel crops.

 

Anyhow. Further to the 'more pixels versus optical magnification' thing:

I did the experiment again - with the correct scaling in post this time.

 

Here are crops from a well-respected 180mm f/2.8 AF ED Nikkor, fitted to a D7200 DX sensor camera, and with a 2x TC attached fitted to an FF D800. The subject was about 2.5m away and indoors. So no heat turbulence, wind or Mist to skew the result.

Here are two tiny crops from the bare lens @ f/2.8 on DX and uprezzed by 165% in Photoshop:

The subject was a TMax 100 film box with a Retina Camera parked next to it. (The half-tone dots on the T-max box are a good test of resolution, and a great target to focus on)

 

Now here's the same lens + 2xTC wide open with the same (100%) crops from the D800.

Not too much visible difference in the 2 dimensional box, but the shiny and 3D camera is quite ugly.

I swapped from the off-brand teleconverter to a Nikon TC-200, with the following result -

No better, IMO.

Stopping down improved things, but the bare lens still had a 2 stop lead over the TC images. Plus I'd rather have a lens with a maximum aperture of f/2.8 than f/5.6. And with twice the depth-of-field as a bonus!

 

Sorry about the superfluous picture. It appears it can't be edited out.

 

Edited August 3, 2022 by rodeo_joe|1