Nikon 300mm f2.8 VRII w/TC-14EII, OMG!!

Discussion in 'Nikon' started by tim_carroll, Oct 9, 2014.

  1. Oh my gosh, just tried the Nikon TC-14EII on the Nikon 300mm f2.8 VRII lens. It screams. I can't believe how crisp and clear the images are, they even seem sharper than without the TC because when you focus on a distant object, shoot with the 300, then focus on the same object with the 420 (300 w/TC) you're much more zoomed in, and looking at the images side by side, the 420 image looks sharper.
    Really impressed, way to go Nikon.
    Best,
    -Tim
     
  2. Samples, shot from the same position using a monopod with VR turned off.
    First, 300mm f2.8 VRII (300mm)
    [​IMG]
    Second, 300mm f2.8 VRII w/TC-14EII (420mm)
    [​IMG]
    No sharpening in post.
    I was pretty impressed.
     
  3. they even seem sharper than without the TC because when you focus on a distant object, shoot with the 300, then focus on the same object with the 420 (300 w/TC) you're much more zoomed in, and looking at the images side by side, the 420 image looks sharper.​
    The downsized image (above) with the 420mm will, of course, be sharper. This surprises you? After all, you put the TC on there to get more data, right?
    If it were sharper pixel for pixel with the TC, then I would be surprised.
    --Lannie
     
  4. Sorry Lannie, I don't understand your point. Shooting a distant object from the same point, using the same optics (the 300mm lens) and adding a second optic (the TC) I figured would degrade the image somewhat, but it actually sharpened the image somewhat.
    Maybe I'm dense, but I can't figure out what point you were making in your post.
    Best,
    -Tim
     
  5. I think what Lannie tries to say is that it's a bit of a balance - give a little, take a little. The image seems sharpened because it is more "zoomed in" hence revealing more details. Now, that added detail could have been lost to the loss in quality that a TC brings (and it does to some extend), but as your photo shows: a good TC looses less quality than the increase in magnification brings out. So, net result you win.
    The TC14E2 is a good piece. It does not improve the 'naked' lens, but it does balance loss in quality really well versus the added range. I think if you make two identical framed shots (so move back for the 420mm combination), however, you will probably find the lens without TC is the better performing still. It is at least for my 300 f/4 (which also works really well with the TC14).
     
  6. Wouter, thanks for clearing that up.
    I have used this same TC-14EII with the 300 f4 AF-S lens and found that it degraded the image slightly. Have not seen that same degradation with the 300 f2.8.
    Best,
    -Tim
     
  7. And then someboby happens to bring in seemingly irrelevant variable, the camera model and its sensor:
    A coarse explanation: if the camera pixel amount is the more limiting factor on IQ of the system, then a TC may give an advantage. As seen by Tim's photos.
    On the other hand, if the camera has enough pixels to allow sensible cropping - zooming in - then the results might be better without a TC.
    Btw. I have different af-fine tune values for a naked 300/4 and 300/4+TC. Fine tuning gave visually detectable improvements.
     
  8. Thank you, Wouter, for saying what I meant. My explanation was not at all clear.
    Tim, that is one heck of a lens. I wish I could afford one. Enjoy! I had a Sigma 300 2.8 which was pretty good, but it could be disappointing at times. I'm glad to see that the Nikon does not disappoint.
    --Lannie
     
  9. Tim,
    Looks like you compare the 300mm F2.8 wide open (effective F2.8) to 4201mm F2.8 * 1.4
    Could you do de the same comparison but this time closing the 300mm aperture by 1 ( 1.5 ?) stop and see if you still seem the same improvement ( i.e. have a comparable DOF) ?
     
  10. The 300mm f/2.8 ED-IF AIS and TC-14B is an absolutely unbeatable combination if you prefer, like I do, to focus yourself.
     

Share This Page