TC-14 or TC-17 on a 70-200 2.8 VR

[david lloyd]

Hi,

 

I do realize that TC-14 or TC-17 threads have been posted before.

 

On Monday, I'm acquiring a new 70-200 2.8 VR, and I need to decide between the TC-14 or TC-17. I'm

asking for anyones experience of these converters - their pros and cons with this lens especially.

 

I've seen threads of these converters, but mainly coupled with other (prime) lenses. I am for the 70-200

2.8 VR, I've thought long and hard about it - any others lens is out of the picture.

 

My primary picture taking is of general and wildlife. In case you want to kindly suggest that I may need a

longer lens, know that I'm selling a Sigma 100-300 + 1.4 for my new setup. I'm prefering more of the

70mm end than the 300mm one for my purposes, based on my picture taking history so far.

 

I'm not overly bothered by test charts, but more of the differences that might be visible on a final 12 by

14 inch print, say.

 

I'm to be using these on a D200.

 

Sorry to be so specific, but I really want to thwart chart/brick wall/loupe type responses because I'd expect

most of my pictures won't be examined using a loupe anyway...

 

Any other comments egarding these I'll welcome. Many thanks if anyone can supply the benefits of each

these two converters. It will be much appreciated :)

 

-David

[alex_lofquist]

I keep a TC-14E with my 70-200 just in case I need a little more reach and am not carrying my 300 f/4 with me. See Shun's article on the 70-200 with TCs.

[david lloyd]

The little extra reach is definitely a consideration. I've just read Shun's piece with the test

shots as well. That is very useful, but I am also interested in other factors besides optics.

 

Currently my feeling is if I have a 1.4 I might use it all the time in a safari truck, but if I have a

1.7, I would use it only part time. I don't know why I feel this - it's no more that a gut feeling.

I'd like to know how others might think about this...

[jimlarson]

I use a TC-17 with my 70-200 2.8 VR. I've had the lens for several months and recently aquired the teleconverter. The lens by itself is tack sharp. I haven't had much occasion to use the TC-17 until a few weeks ago at a horse jumping event. The first day was dark and dreary and I missed the speed of the lens while using the teleconverter, but I needed the reach. I was shooting as wide open as I could (f4 or 4.8, can't remember) and still getting decent shots. The next day was bright and sunny and I was up in the f8 and 11 range. I think I was also using a Moose Peterson polarizer which also saps a little lens speed. In any case, when I finally got these images downloaded to my computer, I was somewhat surprised to see that I had very sharp images from both days of shooting. I love this lens!! I had read about image degradation using a TC prior to getting one, but really haven't found it to be the case on this setup. I haven't tried the TC-14 or the TC-20, but don't have any complaints with the TC-17.

[raymond_petty1]

I'll give you my unscientific anecdotal experience with the 80-200/2.8 AF-S + TC-14.

I have read all the "threads and comments" and to sum it up in a short paragraph or two, the general consensus was:

 

 

 

1) primes tolerate zooms much better than zooms (as you already know), 2) don't even try consumer level zooms, 3) as much as the temptation is there, you will probably be disappointed with any teleconverter greater than the 1.4X. I looked at thread after thread. You can find the rare individual who was happy with greater magnification, but this was definitely against the consensus.

 

 

Even with the lens you have + TC-14, Shun, and several other respected sources will tell you to stop down at least a stop to effective 5.6 for optimal sharpness.

 

I use the 80-200/2.8 AF-S + TC-14 for many of my kid's athletic events with acceptable results. I usually do not stop down because I want maximum isolation.

I will tell you this, however, when I take the same shots without the teleconverter, even wide open at 2.8, the quality is "at another level."

 

So, for an unscientific opinion from someone who has some similar equipment, I would wholeheartedly advocate the TC-14 and avoid shooting wide open, if possible, if you can swing the lesser reach. My guess is that you are just going to get further degradation (as mentioned in some of the threads I perused) that you will probably notice if you go with the 1.7X (as nice as it would be to have the reach).

[david lloyd]

I absolutely appreciate views on the TC14 and TC17 on lenses other than the 70-200 VR,

however I'm prompted to post this thread on the basis that whil the TC17 may be excellent

on a prime, it has trouble with the 70-200.

 

At least that was what I read in one thread somewhere. So it seems that various

combinations vary is performance and quality. While a converter may be excellent on one

lens it might not be so on another, albeit similar, one.

 

I'm much aware of the optical difference between a TC-14 and a TC-17 now. What I'm

most interested in is where they compare regarding color, contrast, (bokeh?), and AF

speed.

 

Sharpness is one thing, but not everything (particularly at normal viewing distances

without a loupe)...

 

Anyone?

[elliot1]

I use the 70-200 with the 2x and get more than acceptable results. I turn my sharpening up to maximum in my d200 and get great 4 x 6 and 5 x 7 prints. 8 x 10's are still pretty good but beyond that or with cropping, they are just ok. The 1.4x and 1.7x work much, much better than the 2x.

 

I have not used it a lot but have done some simple comparisons taking a cropped 200mm image (to the same field of view as the 400mm with the 2x) and comparing it to the 400mm view. I believe the cropped 200mm image is as good and likely a bit better than the 400mm image using the 2x so I don't know if the 2x is worth getting (when making prints larger than 8 x 10).

 

If you are looking for quality almost as good as the original lens, stick with the 1.4x. If you can accept a small amount of loss in quality and loss of aperture, go with the 1.7x. I am happy with the 2x for what I want it for but wouldn't really recommend it unless you are going to keep your prints on the small side.

 

Good luck!

 

I

[david lloyd]

Raymond,

 

You made an excellent point: "I usually do not stop down because I want maximum

isolation."

 

I didn't consider this initially and it helps me a lot.

 

I, too, normally like to shoot wider open to isolate. To gain sharper images, especially with

converters - as Shun suggests, you need to close down. If I have to close down another

stop with the 1.7 over the 1.4, I'm going to opt out of the 1.7 and prefer the 1.4.

 

This is exactly the kind of clue I was looking for when I posted my question. Many

thanks :)

[chwn]

I use a D200 with a 70-200 2.8 VR and TC 20EII 2x converter. I tried it for the first time last

week in the Zoo without a tripod and was very happy with the results. A few examples:

http://www.photo.net/photo/5619653 and http://www.photo.net/

photodb/photo?photo_id=5619072 . You may want to consider it.

 

Chris

[ShunCheung]

It is very simple. If you have a chance to compare it against 200mm primes, you'll quickly realize that the 70-200mm/f2.8 VR is not all that sharp to begin with, but it is good enough for me. The stronger the teleconverter you use on it, the further you degrade it..

 

Exactly what is acceptable or not highly depends on how picky you are. For some people, the 70-200 + TC-20E is just fine. For some other people, the 70-200 by itself is not sharp enough. Most of us probably fall somewhere in the middle. That is something only you can decide for yourself.

 

My advice is against using any TC on the 70-200. If you must use one, I would stick with the TC-14E and at least stop down to f4 for an effective f5.6 after the TC.

 

If I could do it over again, I probably would never have bought my TC-20E and TC-17EII

[david lloyd]

Shun,

 

What you say is correct - albeit only from an optics sharpness point of view. Like I've said,

I'm looking for other factors. An outstanding distance photo will often be better than a

slightly sharper one with poorer framing. Other factors include what is going in your bag,

how often you choose to the longer lengths and your trade-off acceptances for these. For

myself, it's the 70-200 with a converter. I'd use the 70-200 range more than most and

only occasionally more. A zoom, *and* a long prime, as well as my wide-angle is too much

for my bag. There's no definitive solution for all - obviously - but I'm seeking the odd clue

that would help my decision.

 

I have some seen excellent photos of a fox in a wildlife book I have taken with a 300

(prime) and with both a 2.0 and 1.4 converter on, and not stopped down. I wouldn't know

that by looking at that 8 by 10 inch photo. If only a 1.4 was employed, the photo I guess

would not have been published.

 

Unfortunately there seems a bit *too* much emphasis on optical sharpness only these

days when considering a buy.

[ShunCheung]

<I>Unfortunately there seems a bit *too* much emphasis on optical sharpness only these days when considering a buy.</I>

<P>

David, it sounds like you have already made up your mind and merely wants confirmation. If that is indeed the case, why don't you go ahead and get a TC-17EII and use it for a while. That is probably the only way for you to find out whether that combo works for you or not.

<P>

To me, there is no such thing as too much emphasis on optical sharpness. However, there problem in this forum tends to be sharpness is everything. While composition, lighting, and timing are far more important factors. A technically sharp but poorly composed image is still worthless.

[david lloyd]

I decided on the 1.4, then went to pick up the 70-200 with the 1.4 then at the last minute

got the 1.7 converter, and I'm pleased that I did. So far so good, but not had a chance to try

things out yet. Many thanks for all your responses :)

 

If you are in London, I recommend Gray's of Westminster - wonderful shop, and wonderful

service.

[john.mathieson]

David - any further feedback on the 1.7 since you have been using it a few months? One question I have is how does it affect the mechanics of hand holding the lens - balance, feel etc?

 

I have used a number of lenses. Surprisingly, some of my best soccer images have been crops from my simple 18-200. Sometimes the images from this lens are amazing! But, I would be interested in the 70-200 with a TC as an option compared to the 80-400, rather than as a comparison to a longer prime. A longer prime is obviously perfect for certain situations - and the focus speed of the 80-400 a major deterrent. I know the focus speed of the 70-200 is good with a 1.4 - how is it with a 1.7?

Cheers