Quality of 300, 2.8 and 2X teleconverter

[mike_medina]

I thought I posted this question before but I don't see it.

 

There are many threads on this subject but the answer does not seem

apparent.

 

Just how good/bad is the image quality of a Nikon 300 2.8 with the

matched 2x teleconverter?

 

Please try to quantify the answer in some way.

 

Thanks

 

If you can respond to me personally that would be preferred.

[john_robison]

I find the 300 2.8 AFS with TC20E converter to be acceptably sharp when enlarged to 8x10. There seems to be very little loss of sharpness with this setup.

[bobatkins]

Cant speak for Nikon, but I have tested the Canon lenses, which by all accounts are very similar in image quality. With a 2x the sharpness measurably suffers, but is still pretty good. In the center of the image it's a notch below the image quality of the 600/4 (which is excellent), but at the edges and corners of the frame it's several notches bellow the 600/4. I would be most suprised if the Nikon was very different.

 

With side by side slides of the same subject on the same film

in the same light at the same aperture on a light box and a good loupe, it's

not at all difficult to figure out which were taken with a 600/4

and which with a 300/2.8 + 2x. However if you only look at one slide

and it's projected, it might not be so easy to guess which lens was

used.

 

At a few hundred $ for the 2x vs. many thousand $ for the 600/4, the 2x is worth trying and will be "good enough" for many users - not to mention the saving of 13lbs or so in weight!

[don_baccus]

Please don't ask for personal answers. If you can take the time to post a question to this site, you can take the time to read the answers. If you don't have the time to do so, why should we take the time to answer?

 

One purpose of this site is to preserve questions and answers for future visitors. Private rather than public answers don't serve that purpose.

[clivecc]

I can only speak for Canon but should not differ too greatly from Nikon. Like Bob I agree that although not quite as good as a 600mm (4.0), dropping from center to edges, it is a wonderfull setup that gives you more flexibility and easier handling as well as shorter minimum focus distance. I mostly entered club competition when I had this setup and image quality was more than adequit for this. Images were slightly better at F8 - F16 than wide open.

[richard_ditch]

I've been using the Nikkor 300/2.8 AF-S coupled to the TC20E 2x since August and am extremely happy with it for my bird photography. I find the image quality to be very high, but have not made any quantifiable tests to see how good or bad it is. The images it produces are generally better than the ones I was getting with my old manual focus 400/5.6 EDIF on the TC14 1.4x matched converter.

 

Benefits of this combination over a 500/4 or 600/4:

- lower cost

- smaller size

- less weight

- very close focus without adding questionable Kenko extension tubes or using manual Nikon tubes

 

This combination works great for my normal approach of shooting from the car window with the lens resting on a piece of pipe insulation on the edge of the window glass.

 

Try using Elite 200 with a one stop push so you can stop down one or two stops. This avoids the slight vigneting I see wide open.

 

Personally, I couldn't see going to a larger, heavier, more expensive Nikkor lens for possibly better image quality if it wouldn't allow me to take bird photos the way I currently do - image quality is useless if you can't make the desired image in the first place.

 

Richard Ditch, Phoenix, AZ

[nick_chronis9]

I currently have both the Canon 600/4 and the 300/2.8(thanks to Don for pushing me over the edge on the 300). There are certain times when I dread taking the 600 with me, and I contemplate whether the 300 + 2x will work in these instances. I don't own a 2x but am considering one. I'm planning a trip later on this summer to Machias Seal Island to photograph Puffin. To Bob and Don....do you feel that the 300 +2x combo would give publication quality images that would meet the standards of the higher quality nature mags?

[bobatkins]

Probably. There's certainly no point in taking the 600/4 though, so

the point is moot. There's absolutely no room in the

blinds for a lens that big. The blinds are maybe 3-4 ft wide

by 10-12ft long, and there are 3 or 4 of you in there.

Getting a tripod in is tricky, nevermind a 600/4.

Even with a 300/2.8 it will be a little cramped!

Remember the other people in there may just be there to see

the birds and if you have too much gear you will disturb

them as well as the birds.

I got excellent shots there with a 300/4L (sometimes with a 1.4x), with a

<a href="http://bobatkins.photo.net/gallery/img0025.htm">Puffin </a>

filling the frame.

[don_baccus]

Nick: yeah, I shot with the 300/2.8 + 2x and have published a fair number of photos from that era. I still use the combination in situations where I don't want to/can't lug the "six" around.

 

Getting the eyes in focus and good light and composition (or at least a good composition that can be easily cropped into being) is a lot more important than absolute sharpness for publication.

 

In my rather limited experience, at least...

[lars]

I would also like to get some more quantified and objective measures of lens and TC performance so I tried to search for MTF tests of TCs i combination with lens. I could not find any however. Anyone know of any?

[bobatkins]

There's nothing out there I'd trust much. George Lepp did some tests in his "Natural Image" newsletter many years ago but he gives a overall 1-10 rating, not MTF or lp/mm and real lenses get numbers between 6 and 9, so the scale isn't very fine and minor differences probably don't show up (but since minor differences aren't very important, that may not be a bad thing!).

 

My own testing shows something like 80+ lp/mm for the Canon 300/2.8, dropping to 70+ with the 1.4x and 60+ with the 2x, depending on the exact aperture and film in use. With Tech Pan I can see close to 100 lp/mm with the 300/2.8 at around f5.6. All numbers taken in the center of the frame of course. You do lose a little contrast too and the edge numbers drop off faster than the center numbers.

 

My qualitative description would be "excellent" without a TC, "very good" with a 1.4x and "OK" with a 2x, but I'm pretty critical. My "OK" might be someone else's "good"!

[michael_medina]

Thanks for all the info. I only asked for a personal response because I am a field biologist and am limited to a non web based email account except for about one day out of every two weeks. A CC would have been fine. Thanks

[michael_medina]

Richard Ditch brings up another question.

Is the newer TC20e better than the TC301?

[bobatkins]

As long as you check the right box when you post a question, all responses are automatically mailed to the poster of the question as well as appearing here in the forum. You actively have to turn that option off when you post if you don't want copies. The default is to send them.

[michael_medina]

I see that now but have no recollection of it from before... hmmmmm???