Nikon TC-17 vs TC-14

<p>I keep seeing posts that recommended the TC-14 instead of the TC-17. The image magnification of the Nikon TC-14 almost does not seem worth the purchase. Why would anyone prefer the TC-14 over the TC-17? Does the TC-17 really degrade the IQ that much? I have a friend that bought the TC-17 for use with his D300 and he loves it. He says he cannot see IQ degradation with this teleconverter.</p>

<p>Jose,</p>

<p>The big issue with the TC 1.7 E is that it drops the lens back 1.5 stops and does indeed slow down AF in anything less than brilliant ambient light. I have the TC 1.7 and use it regularly on a 300mm f/4 AF-S. It produces excellent IQ - I have no isssue with it's image reproduction, but it does make for 'interesting' auto focusing when the sun is under heavier cloud cover or I'm shooting under tree canopies etc. </p>

<p>I want to purchase the TC 1.4 E as well to keep my interest up when the light is less than perfect. If you understand and accept that the TC 1.7 E auto focus performance is less reliable in anything less than brilliant ambient light then I'd recommend it highly based upon it's IQ reproduction o0n the 300mm f/4.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>He says he cannot see IQ degradation with this teleconverter.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Jose, many who have the 2x t/c say the same thing. However, many don't. Guess it's a beauty in the eye of the beholder kind of thing.</p>

<p>Personally, I have never done a test of cropping vs t/c to see which gives better IQ so I don't which is really better. Perhaps it depends in part on the camera/lens, maybe in part how demanding the photographer is. Bottom line, if you are happy with it, go for it.</p>

 

<p>Jose, I suggest you borrow your friend's TC-17 before you buy one for yourself. Bruce is right : the loss of image quality might not be seen or be considered bad by everyone.<br /> <br /> I own both both TC-14 and TC-17 that I use on the AF-s 300/4. My personal opinion is that the TC-14 is great and I leave it on 99% of the time. On the other hand, I find that the TC-17 noticeably lowers the sharpness and contrast. I'll go as far as saying that I can even see it in my tiny viewfinder :)<br /> <br /> Oh, and although you are right that the TC-14's magnification is not mind blowing, I still put it on because I will gladly accept any boost in range that I can get.<br /> <br />I hope this helps!<br /> <br /> jm</p>

<p>Maybe it depends on what your starting point is. I use a TC-14 (the original no-suffix one) on the old 400/5.6 AI lens, which makes for a slow but still acceptable 560/F8 lens. The two are very well mated, and still good and sharp. To go any longer would slow it down too much, and if you start compromising sharpness, you might as well crop instead.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"I have a friend that bought the TC-17 for use with his D300 and he loves it. He says he cannot see IQ degradation with this teleconverter."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The possibilities are:</p>

<ol>

<li>Your friend either only looks at small JPEGs or small prints</li>

<li>He/she does not care about details</li>

<li>Your firend has problmes with his/her vision</li>

</ol>

<p>The trade off is very straight forward: the more you magnify the original lens, the most quality you lose. A 1.4x TC will make your lens cover exactly half of the original area (as 1.414 being the square root of 2).</p>

<p>I use TC17II and TC14II on my 300mm2.8AFS, they are both great. It depend how do you "vs" them. Side by side, TC17 degrades a lot of IQ than TC14. If you crop TC14 picture to the same view as TC17, TC17 still have better IQ. </p>