Best Teleconverter for the 70-200VR for Sports?

Discussion in 'Nikon' started by andrea_ark, Apr 30, 2007.

  1. I was wondering what the fastest teleconverter there is out there for shooting sports, because a teleconverter adds onto your F-stop #'s making things a bit slower. I recently got the TC-17EII and I thought it said that it would only take away 1 1/2 F-stops, but it actually went from the 2.8 to a 4.8 and I was pretty disappointed. I thought this was the best one from the other two or so that I read. The 20 one is slower and the 14 I'm not sure of. If someone has my lens and shoots sports and is familiar with teleconverters could you please tell me if there is any out there that could be used with sports without purchasing a whole lens to go 300-600 or so. Thanks, Andrea
  2. 2.8 to 4.8 is 1-1/2 stops, so no worries there.
  3. With the TC-14E you loose one stop, you get a 100-280/4 lens With the TC-17E you loose 1.5 stops, you get a 120-340/4.8 lens. With the TC-20E you loose 2 stops, you get a 140-400/5.6 zoom. The TC which retains the best image quality and focus speed is the TC-14E.
  4. I use the 1.4X teleconverter [TC-14E] and have had exceptional results. It makes the lens a f4 when wide open.
  5. Tamron SP AF 300-FNs 2x is nice I have it for my 80-200 2.8 lens
  6. I would agree with Roland on this one. Either one of the Nikon TCs will do well. I personally use the TC17E-II to photograph hummingbirds on that specific lens as well as on the 300mm f/4. But since you're not happy with it's result I would say use the TC14E-II or just buy a used 300mm f/4 off eBay. I got mine for $ 750.00, but I have since seen them go for less & then you get a lens with high IQ & a fixed f/4. JMHO Lil
  7. ShunCheung

    ShunCheung Moderator

    In another recent thread, we have already discussed the 70-200mm/f2.8 AF-S VR with teleconverters. While opinions vary, IMO, that lens is best without any teleconverters. If you must add a TC, I would add no more than the TC-14E. For sports, you are better off with the 300mm/f4 AF-S or better yet, a 300mm/f2.8 AF-S, which, unfortunately, costs a lot more. The current VR version is over $4000 new, but you may be able to find an earlier AF-S, no VR version for a lot less.
  8. Thanks everyone for your help. I might send the 17E-II back and get the 14, but what I wanted it mostly for was with baseball, getting the outefield, which I cannot get with the 200mm. Baseball, Soccer, and possibly Football seem to be the sport in which it would help to get a little bit more close for the action. But I also won't be shooting sports forever sooo, I may want to stick with the 17E-II. thanks agian, -Andrea
  9. I had the TC17eII and the images were exceptable, but they weren't quite sharp enough for me. I sold it and purchased the TC14eII and I'm very happy with the results on the 70-200VR and 300VR. At this point I need to pick up a second one as it does not come off my 300VR.
  10. I use the 70-200VR with 1.7TC with great results...this is compared with my 200-400VR...I think the 300mm or other prime teles are not as useful as a zoom tele for sports, especially when players are coming at you and's easier to get them in the frame....the 80-400VR with no AFS is a glaring hole in Nikon's offering IMO, conversely the 100-400 Canon with push/pull is goofy...hence the 70-200VR with TC is the only real option....

Share This Page