Nikon 80-200 f4 + Nikon TC-200

Discussion in 'Classic Manual Cameras' started by leonar_kiolo, Feb 8, 2017.

  1. Hello. Im planing to pair Nikon 80-200 f4 Ais + Nikon TC-200 teleconverter, so I was wondering is this combination going to work? My biggest concern is that Im getting (if Im right) 160-400mm f8. That f8 is biggest concern for me. I guess that I will have to use it only in bright sunny day, so I can manage to get at least 1/400 for handhold shots. Right? And I have one silly question, because I have never used teleconverters before. Im familiar that x1.4 change aperature for one stop, and x2 changes it for 2 stops. So, if my lens aperature is at 4, and I put x2 converter, I will get f8. But, is lens going to performance good as stoped down to f8 without converter? Or it's going to performance as f4, but with less light (f8). Im little confused. Thank you.
     
  2. Or, I have on my mind Kenko TelePlus MC4 AF 1.4X DGX. I will get extra 80mm, but lose only one stop. Does it worth, that 80mm extra reach? I have found some good reviews about this one.
     
  3. I have no experience with the lenses you mention, but have had a 80-200, and a 1.4TC. I never felt compelled to use it, as the 80mm difference isn't very big. The loss in image quality, and the loss of 1 stop, to me makes it hardly worth it. Consider also that it makes it harder to use the lens hand-held, as you've got to compensate for that stop, while using a longer lens.

    Teleconverters usually do not play too well with zoom lenses, and are really better on long primes. If you really want a longer lens, I'd see to get a 300mm f/4 or f/4.5, or the 400 f/5.6 AiS. They'll simply be better than a zoom with TC, though of course not as cheap.
     
    leonar_kiolo likes this.
  4. Yeah, Im just reading about that. Lot of image quality has been lost by using teleconverter. 80-200 f4 Ais is a great lens. Sharp at f4, but one stop higher, at f5.6 is sharp like knife. You are right, 80mm doesn't make big difference. Im considering that Nikon that You said. I have found one Nikon 300mm f4.5 Ais for ~160 euros. It's around 170 dollars. Not too expencive. I will try to manage to try it, I check it for dust/fungus. But Im quite sure that lens is a monster.
     
  5. SCL

    SCL

    Different people have had different experiences with teleconverters. I've used everything from el cheapos to Leica ones, and my experience has generally been that the loss of image quality and light, not to mention greater difficulty in focusing, just isn't worth it if I am planning to use the combo often. IMHO there is a world of difference in using a really good prime lens of the appropriate focal length, and the same focal length cobbled together.
     
    leonar_kiolo likes this.
  6. Tnx for Your replies guys. I have another question. Im planing to get one of Soligor/Tokina/Vivitar 400mm f6.3. Most of these lenses have T mount. I never used one with that kind of mount. I used M42 mount on my Nikon, and like many M42 lenses, I had problems with infinity focus. Is there the same thing with T mount? And I saw few different T mounts, T, T2, T4...
     
  7. SCL

    SCL

    01 moon 9pm.jpg I converted a T mount Spiratone 400/6.3 to a Leica Visoflex mount, which I often use with my micro 4/3 body via an adapter, or with my Nikon D300 via an adapter. No problems with infinity focus, as I made sure in the conversion that I could hit it on any body I might be using. The models you mention are quite similar to the Spiratone, which was manufactured in the 1970s by a third party. Just so you are prepared, these lenses need to be stopped down between f/8-11 to achieve best resolution, which generally limits them to bright light usage unless you are using a sturdy tripod with timed exposure. My experience is that some are better than others, especially in the difference between the central part of the image and the field, especially true with regard to chromatic aberation, and also contrast and resolution. Having said that, I've been well rewarded with mine (compared to the Leica Telyt of same FL and f/stop, such that I sold the Leica and kept the el cheapo Spiratone. I've attached the below photo to indicate what this lens is capable of when stopped down and well supported on a tripod.
     
    leonar_kiolo likes this.
  8. Yes, the typical 400mm f6.3 preset can be quite good. I've had one under the Seimar brand (bought through Kalt) since the late 70's and it performs well. A friend gave my a Tele-Astronar 500mmk f8 which also does well.
     
  9. As a general rule I would skip the teleconverter, especially since the 80-200 in question is so good. However, though it's been long since I did it, I found the 80-200 worked rather better with a teleconverter than one might have expected. I had a fairly decent Vivitar 2x, and it matched surprisingly well.

    As for T mounts, I never had any problems with infinity focus.
     
  10. Yes. Im very satisfied with 80-200 f4 manual focus lens. Im using it on my D7100. Only problem that I have is CA. But with today's photo software, it's not a big deal. Sharpness at f4, colors, contrast, build quality is great, and it cost around 100 dollars. My friend has Tamron 70-300 non VC version, and its very unusable above 200mm, and it must be stoped down to get a decent image. AF is painfuly slow, and he is using it in manual mode. So, when Im on budget, I would always take old Nikon manual lens, than new Tamron/Sigma at the same price level. Im also a fan of manual lenses, I have few Russian ones, and Im also considering Nikon prime 300mm f4.5.

    Anyway, You used that 80-200 f4 with Vivitar x2 converter? Do You manage to get decent sharpness with it, wide open? In that case, I would consider even Nikon TC-200 X2 for that lens. I would get 160-400mm f8, which can be very useful.

    There's another question in my mind, with today's sensors, does teleconverters have any sense? I mean, cheap ones like TC 200/201 or Kenko at the same price? Is it going to make any difference from simple crop in post processing?
     
  11. Im also considering Mirror 500mm lens. Tokina. But I guess that better combo will be 80-200 f4 + tc 200 than Tokina 500mm F8 mirror?
     
  12. I got pretty decent sharpness with the Vivitar TC on film, but have not yet tried it on digital. I'll try to dig up the pieces soon, and give it a test. I suspect it will not come up to the lens alone. I did test the lens alone with a D7100, and it still sings.
     

Share This Page