Teleconverters for a Nikkor 70-200 VR I f/2.8

Discussion in 'Nikon' started by anda_m, Nov 16, 2010.

  1. Hi all
    I have recently asked a question concerning teleconverters and the answers at that time were, in sum "no TC WOULD WORK WITH YOUR LENSES". Now, I have a new lens which I believe makes a better candidate for TC: a Nikkor 70-200 VR I f/2.8. I'd like to make it as long as possible, without losing the quality of the image. Which TC shall I buy? Is there a risk if I buy them used (eg on ebay?).
    Thanks a lot for your help.
  2. Any TC will degrade the image a little. Nikon's TCs are probably the best for that lens; TC-14E II, TC-17E II, TC-20E II, and TC-20E III.
    eBay is eBay. I have bought several lenses and cameras on ebay and have had good success.
  3. I have a TC-20E II, which I occasionally use on my Nikon 70-200 VR I. At 200mm (converted to 400mm) the image is just a bit soft. At 180mm (converted to 360mm) the image is just fine. I generally use the combination with the lens pulled back just a bit, and the pix are OK. I have not tried a TC-17E , but it's supposed to be better. Also, the TC-20E III has aspherical components and is supposed to do a better job, but I haven't had one to try out.
  4. The TC 14 E works pretty well. I haven´t tried the TC17E.
    Results with the TC2o E are softish, but will work in a pinch if you miss a good image otherwise.
  5. Thanks so much for your replies. It seems the TC-20E III is out of stock everywhere so I guess TC-17E II is the next best choice. Thanks again.
  6. I use the TC17E II on the 70-200/2.8 VR I on occasion. If you've got enough light to allow you to stop down a bit, and can (as mentioned above) back off just a bit from the longest end of the lens's focal length range, it can actually work quite well. Of course it's always a compromise ... you lose a bit of light, a bit of sharpness. But I've had some very useable results. A lot of it depends on your subject matter and shooting style, and of course on how large you're going to print or how aggressively you might need to crop.
  7. Matt, thanks so much. Do you have maybe some sample pics taken with a the TC17E II? Many thanks
  8. I tried the TC-20E and didn't think it was quite sharp enough. I went with the TC-17E and the results were good enough. Most everything I own came from either e Bay or KEH.
    Kent in SD
  9. "Is there a risk if I buy them used (eg on ebay?)."
    The Nikon TC-xxE teleconverters are quite uncomplicated in construction (compared to even simple prime lenses), so there is not a lot that can go wrong with them. They have only a couple of very simple moving parts (stopdown linkage and AI linkage) and a basic CPU chip, so there is little chance for failure if they are not abused.
    Provided the seller has a good reputation (be it eBay or a brick and mortar retailer) with a proper return policy, it makes good sense to me to buy used if the savings are significant, and they usually are for these. Unless you are the type who worries obsessively and must have a warranty on everything you purchase, there is really not a lot to be gained by buying new. And if you must buy new, this is one item where (assuming you are in the USA) it is probably worthwhile to buy grey market vs. Nikon USA. On the TC-17EII for example, there is a 23% price difference ($91) between grey and USA at B&H Photo.
  10. Thanks Kent and Michael! Not only I don't "worry obsessively and must have a warranty for everything", but even when I do have a warranty I lose it :), luckily I never needed one! Michael, I have a friend in the US (I live in The NL) and she usually ships my stuff in case the seller doesn't send internationally. How can I buy on the grey market (I normally buy from adorama and b&h in the us)? Thanks
  11. How can I buy on the grey market (I normally buy from adorama and b&h in the us)?
    I meant to buy grey market (imported) from B&H or Adorama. If you search on B&H for "Nikon TC-17E" it will bring up both the "Imported" (grey market) TC and the "USA" TC. They are identical products, with the only difference being the duration of the warranty (1 year vs. 5).
  12. i believe by "grey" MF meant the "imported" -- rather than "USA" -- item from B&H. he is not suggesting that you buy from some clandestine operation...
  13. :) Ok, I understand, it's still legit...
  14. Speaking of buying used and KEH, I do have to wonder what they were smoking when they set their prices for a used TC-17EII. It's available brand new with a 1 year warranty (and free shipping) for $309.00 at B&H. Prices for a *used* TC-17EII at KEH range from $349 to $399. Duh... :)
  15. Hmm. Digging around some other threads on this topic, I remembered this shot that I posted while answering a similar question:
    This was in pretty miserable light, which is why I had to go to ISO 1000 - and that definitely robs some detail. But still, you'll get the idea. A lot of that type of shooting, for me, is done with the 70-200 VR1 in its natural state. It's really nice to be able, sometimes, to go for that longer reach without having to be lugging a 300mm lens around through the mud and weeds. So, the TC compromise is sometimes very reasonable. A lot of it really does depend on how the images will be used.
  16. ShunCheung

    ShunCheung Administrator

    I'd like to make it as long as possible, without losing the quality of the image.​
    I hope you realize that those are contradicting objectives. Unfortunately, you cannot have it both ways.
  17. I'm pretty happy with the TC14-EII on that lens for DX format. Here's an example made with a D300 at ISO 800, 1/400 @ f/4 (f/5.6 effective).
  18. I use the TC-17EII on occasion with my Nikon 70-200/2.8 VRI lens. I don't find the results very pleasing. I use it under fairly bright light taking soccer photos, so I can stop down just a little--but not that much because the TC takes away a stop or two in itself and I need to keep my shutter speed up around 1/500 or faster. My conclusion is that what you get is not much different than simply cropping the image. Maybe if you can stop down farther it would be different, but you'll compromise an out-of-focus background if that's something you want.
  19. Correction, Sheun: I like to make it as long as possible, without losing the quality of the image under an acceptable threshold :). Thanks for posting the samples. I like them both, the 1.4 looks a bit clearer, but the DX format helps a bit. Also, I think Matt's pic is suffering from some noise due to the higher iso? Ben, since the lens is a 2.8, losing two stops would mean what? 5.6 or 6.3? I think these both are acceptable w.r.t the blurred background, given the very occasional use I plan (architectural details) for it...well, if it is really "what you get is not much different than simply cropping the image", indeed, I'll better not buy it. What I'll do: I'll go for a used one (thanks Michael for reasurring me) and if indeed I will not be too pleased with the results, then at least I would not have thrown away a huge fortune. Thanks again and have a great day.
  20. This is an example of a photographer who uses the 70-200 f2.8 + 2x convertor in a forested environment. Please see this link to see the quality of the images:
    Hope this may be helpful.
  21. I too have a 70-200mm f2.8 vr1 and I think I will end up buying the 1.4 TC. It will give me a still pretty good 280mm (~420mm equivalent) and f4 wide open, which will still render most backgrounds out of focus.
  22. woow, Michael,thanks for the link. I definitely like the pics (they're a little bit sharpened and small sized), but it's much better than I expected, I'd be happy with such images. Many thanks.
  23. Ofer, I was also considering the 1.4, but I really liked the quality of the 2x, and, as I am not a professional and will not sell the pics, I can accept a little degradation. Good luck!

Share This Page