300mm f/4 plus 1.4X TC or 70-200 VR plus 2X TC?

[hayward]

I've had the 70-200 AFS VR for a few weeks and love it - so much so

that I really don't want to use my 300mm f/4 (non AFS). I generally

used the 300mm with a 1.4X TC for birds. I don't want to use a 2X TC

with it, and end up with f/8. I would be willing to use a 2X TC with

the 70-200 at f/ 5.6. My question is: How would you compare the

image quality? Would a 70-200 plus 2X be worse than a 300mm with 1.4?

[ShunCheung]

Actually I now have all of the above components and can do a quick test, maybe next weekend. However, I doubt that the 70-200 VR + a 2X TC will fair all that well.

[ilkka_nissila]

Shun, I thought you sold your 300 mm non-AF-S some time ago in favour of the AF-S?

 

I never used a TC with the 300 mm non-AF-S but I would guess that it would give noticeably higher image quality than the 70-200 and 2X TC, unless you hand-hold.

 

Although the 70-200 is a lovely lens and we would just like to keep it on our cameras all the time, it's not a magic lens that does everything in the best way.

[ShunCheung]

Oops, I thought we were talking about the 300mm/f4 AF-S here. Sorry about that, but the AF-S should be a close enough substition for this test.

[walterh]

I bet 10:1 oranges that the 300mm + 1.4x will beat the 70-200 with an 2x converter. But I am willing to learn and wait for the test :-)

[suresh_basavaraju]

I have the same combo and had the same query.

 

Shooting a chart on the wall, AF 300 f/4 ED IF with Kenko Pro 300 1.4x is sharper then the 70-200 f/2.8 VR with the TC 20 E II.

 

In the field, stopping to f/5.6 on the 70-200 f/2.8 with TC 20E II and careful handling has yielded a few keepers.

[ShunCheung]

If you stop down your 70-200mm/f2.8 VR to f5.6 and put a TC-20E on, you have a 400mm/f11 (it only makes sense to use it at the longest focal length). That is a very limiting aperture for a long tele.

 

I guess I am on the hook to test these two set ups. I am going to shoot everything wide open, which is how super teles are typically used.

[greg s]

My money is on the 300mm + 1.4x (excellent resolution). If the 70-200 VR plus 2X can equal that or come close, it's a d__n good lens. :)

[borgis_karl_johan]

I took this picture of a great grey owl in our open air zoo in Stockholm on slide film some weeks ago, using the VR lens and TC 200 E I. Closed down one step, which makes it f8, VR turned on. Though maybe not 100% tack sharp I feel it?s quite adequate.

Karl Johan<div></div>

[suresh_basavaraju]

<p><i>"If you stop down your 70-200mm/f2.8 VR to f5.6 and put a TC-20E on, you have a 400mm/f11 (it only makes sense to use it at the longest focal length). That is a very limiting aperture for a long tele."</i></p>

 

<p>Well, there is no such thing as a free lunch in Photography. TCs on a zoom wide open don't perform anywhere close to the original lens. closing down helps a little bit.</p>

 

<p>Here is something that was taken with a 2X TC and the zoom 70-200 wide open</p>

 

<a href="http://www.photo.net/photo/3379278">http://www.photo.net/photo/3379278</a></p>

[ShunCheung]

I ran the tests as promised earlier. These shots are from the 300mm/f4 AF-S with TC-14E vs. 70-200mm/f2.8 AF-S VR with TC-20E, with VR off. Everything was shot with a Nikon D100 at ISO 200 and on a Gitzo 1325 tripod, which is an overkill for those lenses. Shutter speed is around 1/1000 sec so that camera shake should not be an issue.

 

The result simply confirms most of us suspected all along: the 70-200mm zoom with a TC-20E is not going to give you very good results.

 

300mm/f4 AF-S with TC-14E, shot at f4, effective 420mm/f5.6, 1/1250 sec on a D100 at ISO 200<div></div>

[ShunCheung]

70-200 VR with TC-20E, shot at 200mm/f2.8, effective 400mm/f5.6, 1/1000 sec on a D100 at ISO 200, VR off.<div></div>

[ShunCheung]

The lower right corner from the 300mm/f4 AF-S with TC-14E image above.<div></div>

[ShunCheung]

The lower right corner from the 70-200mm/f2.8 VR with TC-20E image above.

 

This is clearly not nearly as sharp as the image from the 300mm with 1.4x TC. The surface pattern on the size is fuzzy and so are the digit 2 and the screw on the right.<div></div>

[hayward]

Thanks, Shun. It was kind of you to run the test for all of us. Given that most of the shots I would take with a TC setup would be cropped, the 70-200 with TC wouldn't be good enough.

[ShunCheung]

John, you are welcome.

 

There are two rules of thumb concerning long lenses: (1) 2x TCs degrade images rather significantly while 1.4x TC usually provide very acceptable results and (2) while modern high-end zooms are very good compared to primes, zoom still don't work well with TCs. When you combine 1 and 2, it is pretty much predictable that you'll have unacceptable results. Unfortunately, the TC-20E turns a high-end zoom (in this case the 70-200 VR) into a rather poor 400mm/f5.6.

[borgis_karl_johan]

I checked my original slide again with a loupe and do feel the TC20E +VR zoom combo has been prematurely brushed aside as "a poor 400 mm ". This claim done after a test only taking maximum aperture and corner performance of one particular combo into account. My slide - taken closed down one step with VR - clearly shows every minute hair around the owls beak and the in-focus breast feathers. This is easily visible in the jpeg image - submitted in my previous reply above- as well. So the combo isnt such a poor beggar for certain - at least in the more central area of the image. Dont forget that youre free to close down a step or two - thanks to VR technique - in many cases.

Maybe Im lucky and my combination works better than yours due to sample variation. The judgement "a rather poor 400mm combo" is harsh and fortunately not accurate in my experience. If you happen to own the TC and lens, I suggest you rather try for yourself.

This is not to claim that the 300mm +TC 14E may not be better.

[alan_wilder1]

I currently have the 80-200/2.8 AFS which I occasionally use with the TC-20E for travel when I can't always bring my 300/4 AFS and TC-14EII. My own resolution tests comparing it to the 80-400 VR and my 300 plus the TC-14EII showed it to perform better than the 80-400 but slightly worse than the 300 combo. Following these tests I returned the 80-400 to my mechant for a refund.

[ShunCheung]

Alan, I wouldn't expect the 70-200 VR with the TC-20E (there is no optical difference between the TC-xxE and the TC-xxE II versions, so that is not a factor in this discussion) to perform better than the 80-400 VR at 400mm. Either you had a poor sample or the 80-400 VR is a really poor lens optically, which I am sure a lot of owners of that lens would defend it.

 

I re-ran my tests this morning. Unfortunately, I did it too early so that the sign was not under full sunlight and my shutter speed was rather slow. I prefer to shoot a 1/1000 sec so that camera shake is not a factor. In any case, I tested both the 70-200mm/f2.8 VR and 80-200mm/f2.8 AF-S. Both perform rather poorly with the TC-20E. Even at a stop down (f4 -> actually f8 with the TC), the edges on the D100 frame is rather soft.

 

I also tested my 300mm/f2.8 AF-S (not the f4 I used a few days ago) with the TC-20E, and that combo yields decent results, much better than either zoom with the TC-20E.

 

The bottomline is that I wouldn't use any 70/80-200mm/f2.8 with a 2x TC. If you have a $100 70-300mm/f4-5.6 G and get that type of results, maybe it is perfectably acceptable. We pay a lot for those f2.8 zoom and I wouldn't let a 2x TC degrade its quality to such a large degree. Also keep in mind that I was testing with a D100. If you shoot film, my edge performance is merely your mid-frame performance.

[alan_wilder1]

FWIW Shung, I tried two different samples of the 80-400, one of which was sent back to Nikon to check optical collimation because I felt imaging was pretty soft off axis. In the end I just couldn't accept it's level of sharpness and returned it for a refund. Not surprisngly, when Popular Photography reviewed the 80-400, their resolution figures were in line with mine. If anyone is interested in my resolution figures for the three lenses, I'll be happy to post them.

[ShunCheung]

Here is one more sample with the 70-200mm/f2.8 AF-S VR with a TC-20E. This one is shot at 200mm but one stop down to f4, effective f8 with the 2x TC. Sharpness has improved from wide open but still on the soft side. I shot another one at f5.6 (effective f11) and it is pretty good, but to me, a 400mm at f11 is not useful. Again, most of the time, I shoot long teles wide open.

 

I also tested the 300mm/f2.8 AF-S with the TC-20E. Even at wide open, it provide decent results. When both have the TC-20E on, I would say the 300mm/f2.8 at 2.8 is superior to the 70-200mm/f2.8 at 200mm/f4.

 

IMO, the bottomline is that a 300mm/f4 is not that expensive and not that big. A 70-200mm/f2.8 with TC is not a substitution for the 300mm.<div></div>

[alan_wilder1]

John, since Shun was nice enough to post additional test shots, I'll share my resolution results of my 80-200 AFS + TC20E vs. the 300/4 AFS + TC14EII to put it in quantitative terms FWIW. I'll also include the 400/5.6 EDIF. This assumes of course the 80-200 and 70-200 are similar in resolution. The figures are listed as center/edge/corner in lp/mm with Reala 100 for the zooms and Ektar 25 for the 400/5.6 prime.

 

80-200 + TC20E @ effective 400mm, f/5.6 effective: 47/34/38 lp/mm

80-200 + TC20E @ effective 400mm, f/8 effective: 53/38/41 lp/mm

80-200 + TC20E @ effective 400mm, f/11 effective: 66/41/47 lp/mm

 

300 + TC14EII @ effective 420mm, f/5.6 effective: 48/38/31 lp/mm

300 + TC14EII @ effective 420mm, f/8 effective: 62/38/38 lp/mm

300 + TC14EII @ effective 420mm, f/11 effective:62/43/38 lp/mm

 

400 @ f/5.6: 47/38/40 lp/mm

400 @ f/8: 52/47/46 lp/mm

400 @ f/11: 52/58/52 lp/mm

 

With the exception of the corner for the 300 + TC14EII wide open, all figures shown would be considered "excellent" by Modern Photography's resolution ratings.

[ShunCheung]

Alan, your data show that the 80-200mm/f2.8 AF-S + TC-20E combo are comparable to the 300mm/f4 AF-S + TC-14E. That is quite different from my conclusion.

 

I have the 80-200mm/f2.8 AF-S also. Initially, I thought there was something wrong with my 70-200mm/f2.8 VR, but I have compared those two zooms and they show similar results.

[alan_wilder1]

Shun, I've revisited the negatives and think I can square my resolution figures with your(and mine) at odds practical(non-resolution chart) shooting experience. They are as follows: 1.) there is less chromatic aberration with the 300 combo; 2.) there is greater contrast with the 300 combo; 3.) lastly, resolution is limited to imaging of both radial AND tangential target lines in any given group. Even though the zoom combo had slightly better corner results due to better resolution of the tangential lines of a group, the 300 combo far exceeded the zoom in it's radial line resolution giving normal subjects a sharper look. Incidently, this form of astigmatism is quite common to super telephotos from Nikon, Canon, Leica etc. based on their published MTF charts. Hope this helps and it proves sharpness is more than straight resolution. Unfortunately, the other issues are harder than resolution to quantify.

[bwcombs]

Shun, your tests are completely invalid.

 

That playground explicitly said, "For children 5-12 years old."

 

Sorry.