Third party teleconverters vs Nikon

<p>Looking at picking up a 1.4 TC, mostly for birding and wonder what folks out there think of Kenko, Sigma, Vivitar, vs Nikon. I have an 80-400 g.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I only have Nikon's own TC-14E (original version) and TC-14E III; they are both excellent. The TC-14E II is essentially the same as the original TC-14E but with a slightly different outside finish.</p>

<p>The problem with the 80-400mm AF-S VR is that once you add a 1.4x TC, the long end becomes a 560mm/f8 lens. For one thing optical quality suffers, and AF becomes slower and iffy. I wouldn't put a TC on a slow f5.6 lens. If you need something longer, I would look into the still-affordable 200-500mm/f5.6 AF-S VR or maybe a third-party 150-600mm zoom. Personally, I would rather not go below f5.6.</p>

<p>Additional issues to keep in mind is that if you have third-party teles, Nikon TCs may not work. E.g. Nikon's TC-14E is not compatible with the Sigma 70-200mm/f2.8 OS lens unless you file off the extra notch on the TC side. Moreover, the TC-14E III (version 3) is only compatible with Nikon G and E lenses; it is not fully functional with Nikon lenses with an aperture ring.</p>

<p>Next to my TC14-II's (which I only can use with AFS lenses) I also have a Kenko Teleplus N-AF 1.5 and a Tamron 1.4 N-AFD MC4 for use with my AF D lenses<br>

<br />As far as I know (read it at Nikonians) Kenko and Tamron TCs are identical (if you buy the same model. Mine obviously aren't as they are different models)<br>

In the past also had the Kenko 1.4 300 Plus TC, which could be used with bth AFD and AFS lenses, but somewhere along the road lost it.</p>

<p>With the Kenko 1.4 300 plus I had connectivity problems when using a 600mm AF-I lens.<br>

Used to shoot the 600mm+TC mounted on a monopod, in combination with a D3 hanging from it, thus inevitably putting quite a bit of stress on the connection between the directly supported lens and the camera hanging from it<br>

Compared to the Nikon 14TC-II there was a bit more play in the lensmount (between converter and lens), leading to the aforementioned loss of electronic contact (= no AF)<br>

Which was the reason for me to upgrade to the original Nikon TC14-II's (No longer have the 600mm AF-I, but still use them with my 2.8/70-200 VRII and 2/200 VR)</p>

<p>I've had no problems using the earlier mentioned Kenko 1.5 and Tamron 1.4 TC with my AF"D lenses though, I guess also due the much smaller, and lighter, lenses and camera's used in combination with those</p>

 

Be aware that Nikkor teleconverters are picky about

which lenses they will work with. My understanding is

that the most recent models are only compatible with

f/2.8 and faster lenses. I have had good luck with my

Tamron 2x, though it is never quite as sharp as a straight

lens. Mostly I used it for macro, before buying the

105mm/2.8 I've always wanted.

Actually most lenses faster than f/2.8 are not compatible with Nikon TC-E converters; the 200/2 is but others are not. TCs work best on fast supertele primes. Other lenses may work but may not give the results one may be

looking for.

 

I like to use the TC-14EIII on the 300/4 PF. AF performance is affected (there is some jitter in the AF with the TC in use)

but I've gotten good results and the rig is so compact and lightweight. I also sometimes use the 200/2 II + TC-14EIII. On that combination AF is excellent. I guess

f/2.8 is close to the optimum aperture for autofocus. I know the 300/2.8 also works well with the 1.4x.

 

I think the AF-S 80-400 itself has very good AF but if you add a 1.4x TC to it, you're at f/8 at 560mm and focusing

performance is likely not going to be very good. The 300/4 PF with 2X can't autofocus acceptably in most conditions

where I would want to use it, with the exception of static subjects with camera on tripod and live view autofocus which

does work fairly. I guess I tend to shoot in low light more often than many others.

<p>An informal comparison using various catadioptric lenses and converters:<br>

http://www.photo.net/classic-cameras-forum/00dqdD</p>

<p>The Nikon TC-1 teleconverter <em>is </em>excellent, but the Nikon-mount Vivitar Tele Converter 2X was excellent too. That was the original Vivitar company operated by Ponder and Best, not the modern Korean-based firm who bought only the name.</p>

<p>All Nikon TC-nnE teleconverters can be mounted into all Nikon AF-S (and AF-I) lenses that have sufficient clearance on their rear end, i.e. telephoto lenses from 70-200mm and up. It doesn't matter whether maximum aperture is f2 or f5.6. However, if the combined maximum aperture is f8 or slower, AF can be iffy. It helps to use a newer DSLR that can AF with f8 lenses.</p>

<p>The main exception is that the latest TC-14E III doesn't work properly with AF-I and older AF-S lenses with an aperture ring. In other words, the TC-14E III is fully compatible with only G and E (electronically controlled aperture) longer AF-S teles.</p>

Nikon's site has a list of current lenses that are compatible with the TC 14E III. None has a focal

length shorter than 70mm. There appear to be quite a few current lenses that are not listed.

<p>Rick, you don't mention which body you would use the TC on, but perhaps you don't need a TC at all. You can test this idea for free.</p>

<p>Start with a raw file of an image that you shot at 400 mm and that you consider to be properly sharp. Save the file as a TIF with a unique name just for safety, and then crop the image. You want to keep the same 3:2 aspect ratio of the original file (or very close to it) and crop down so that your image has half the original megapixels. Example - crop a 24 mp original image to 12 mp. What you then have is the field of view that a 1.4X TC on your 80-400 will give you zoomed all the way out.</p>

<p>Is the resulting 12 mp image still sharp enough? Enlarge it on screen to the size you would print it and examine the sharpness and noise. If it will work for you, you can achieve what you want by cropping without having to give up anything related to AF ability, loss of aperture, and image sharpness.</p>

<p>At the risk of hijacking yet another thread... I have a TC-14E II (at least, I think it's a II), and I'm shortly going to be off to Yellowstone with my 200-500. My past trip told me I could never have enough reach, even with a D500; this time I'll only have my D810, so it'll be worse, pixel density wise. I'm not expecting wonders, and I <i>am</i> expecting to stop down at least to f/11 (yes, diffraction, I know). But, since I have limited time to test before I go, I wondered whether anyone could comment on how bad the combination is likely to be, and whether I should think about getting a TC-14E III before I go (which I'd expect to be better, but I'm not clear by how much). Sadly hiring kit isn't really an option for logistical reasons, or I'd really be talking to Lensrentals about an 800 f/5.6.<br />

<br />

First world problems, I realise. But... Help? Thanks.</p>

<p>Update: A bit of a more thorough google suggests that I should be able to live with f/11 on the TC-14E II with a 200-500, so long as the subjects hold still and the sun comes out occasionally (and if I center the subject in the frame). At least I was complaining about blown highlights in my last set of images, so a little under-exposure is in my interests. Any personal impressions would be appreciated, though.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>TC-14E III before I go (which I'd expect to be better, but I'm not clear by how much)</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Depends on the lens, but according to this (can't post the link here but the comparison is easy to find; the site has photography and life in its name) very little.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I have a TC-14E II (at least, I think it's a II)</p>

</blockquote>

<p>They differ in appearance: the TC-14E has a smooth finish, the EII the crinkle one. It says AF-I on the E and AF-S on the EII, and also TC-14E vs TC-14EII. The "grab ring" has a finer structure on the E as opposed to the coarser one on the EII. Optically, they are the same.</p>

<p>Thanks, Dieter. I'm fairly sure I have a -II, but it's been a while since I looked at it (which is my problem). Sounds like I'll be able to avoid giving Nikon more of my money just now; yay!</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"...the Nikon-mount Vivitar Tele Converter 2X was excellent too. That was the original Vivitar company operated by Ponder and Best..."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I agree!</p>

<p>At one time, my longest lens was a 200mm f/2.5 Vivitar (Nikon mount). Back in 1970, I purchased a Vivitar 2X tele-converter to use with my Vivitar telephoto.</p>

<p>I eventually replaced the 200mm Vivitar with a faster and sharper Nikon 180mm f/2.8. However, the Vivitar tele-converter was so good that I still have it to this day.</p>

<p>Not all (tele) lenses and Teleconvertaors are cretaed equally...</p>

<p>I remember an artical on Nikonians about this subject, and although not totally recent it might still be interesting to have a peek at :<br /> The article : www.nikonians.org/reviews/nikonians-tele-converter-compatibility-table<br /> The compatibility chart : www.nikonians.org/website/var/assets/files/nikonians-teleconverter-compatibility-chart.pdf</p>

<p>Andrew, thanks to this post, found my 1.7 TC that I haven't been able to find since moving in June. Here's a shot using the 1.7 with a 70-200 racked nearly all the way out- says 405mm of 510 total potential with crop factor and tc. f/4.8 minimum up from the 2.8 with the 1.7. This was hand held at 1/320 with the vr on. 400 iso on the d200 is about my limit on that body. Distance about 8-9 feet, this guy's comfort distance. He likes to come over if he sees me outside and walks up this close but will back away if I approach and move towards me if I back away. Clamming shot is through a picture window at about 40 feet and cropped about 25%. </p><div></div>

<p>Clamming shot hand held at 510 mm. </p><div></div>

<p>Thanks, Bob - interesting to see how well that combination holds up (and you're welcome for the "inspiration"). I'll try to do an experiment with my 200-500 and post a crop here - although I've cunningly managed to pull a back muscle which is going to make hand-holding the 200-500 a little less comfortable. (I really hope it passes before I get on a plane on Saturday...)</p>

<p>Belatedly, I just had a quick play with the 200-500 and a TC-14E II (yes, it's a II) on my D810. At f/11 there's clear ringing from the JPEG sharpening engine, suggesting that the output is pretty sharp - and I can read small text on a notice board of a car park about 60m away, which I couldn't with the 200-500 on its own. That was hand-held at 1/250s (although that's higher ISO than I'd like, especially when cloudy). At f/8 it may have been a bit softer - I didn't push my luck. Looks like my TC-14E is coming with me to Yellowstone (possibly with my 300 f/4, partly in case I drop the 200-500...) Fingers crossed for wolves. Close range looked good, too.<br />

<br />

I'd missed that I lose 3D tracking when using an f/5.6 lens with the TC-14E, though (p.423 of the manual, it appears.) I guess that makes sense with the number of AF points which are actually working at f/8. Focus is a bit slow, but it's okay when given something to lock on to. It's much better than the last time I pushed my luck with AF, in any case - a TC-16A on a 500mm f/4 AI-P with a D700 wasn't too bad (if beyond the f/5.6 that it's supposed to support), but a 28-300mm f/3.5-6.3 Sigma + a 2x Sigma teleconverter on an Eos 300D, unsurprisingly, added nonexistent autofocus to horrible image quality. :-)</p>

<p>I have a TC2.0 version II, a Kenko 1.4 and a Sigma latest 1401. Kenko is compatible with all lenses but it wobbles. Sigma is great taking both Nikon and Sigma lenses. However, 80-400 once teleconverted, the image quality drops a lot.</p>

<p>Rick, I have the Nikon TC-14 E II and Nikon TC-17 E II and the Kenko 1.4X PRO 300 which are all now fairly old. In the past telconverters even the good ones were considered OK and that's all. My understanding is that the newer NikonTC-14 III when used on fluorite lenses and the TC that is built into the Canon 200-400 are considered to be quite good. I have the Kenko because it has a recessed front element that allows me to mate it with a Nikon 10.5 fish eye and the Tokina 10-17 zoom, for underwater use behind a dome port. These would probably now be considered dated or consumer lenses but optical compromises and compatibility problems are more common underwater due to water, camera, port, housing and lens disparities. Some underwater pros still use or have used the Kenko/Tokina combination stopped down to f11. I have not had any compatibility problems with the Kenko on my D7200. I hope as well on the D500 that will be next on my list. The Kenko will probably be acceptable, certainly is more affordable and for the money is a bargain. I have pretty much stopped using TCs on land because of the loss of speed and the ability to crop 36 and 24 MP images. Anyway good hunting.</p>