Bad result with NIKON D3, TC-E17II and 70-200 VR

[photojournalist sofus come]

Dear Nikon friends

Im having some serious ghosting problems when i combine the NIKON D3, the TC-E17II and the 70-

200mm 2.8 VR lens. Without the TC-E17II the D3 performs great and so does the 70-200 VR except on

200mm. I find it somewhat soft.

 

But my question to other Nikon D3 users is: Do you also experience heavy ghosting effects in you pictures

when using the D3 + TC-E17II + 70-200 VR?

 

Please have a look at some of my files here:

http://kontaktark.scomer.dk/tce17.zip

 

Inside the zip ypu will find jpgs with arrows pointing to the ghosting effects. and also one pointing to

some heavy purple fringing on the D3 with ISO 6400.

 

All the gear is brand new from November 30th 2007.

 

All photos are only for viewing privately. Any other usage must be agreed in writing with Photojournalist

Sofus Comer first.

 

PS i have contacted Nikon Denmark and they are "i believe" aware of the issue, but 6 weeks after still no

news from them, so it would be great to strengthen any case if any if we are more with the same problem.

 

ATB Sofus Comer<div></div>

[lwg]

All your shots you posted were taken with the lens wide open. Even with the TC-E14II converter I need to stop down to f/8 (2 stops) to get what I consider acceptable results with this lens. This is what I expected going in, so i am not disappointed, but it does cut down the usefulness of the combo. I will soon be buying the 300mm F4, which should work well with the converter.

 

So, try a sequence of shots at different apertures. I bet it gets better around f/8 to f/11 with your combo. My tests are with a D300, so the D3 may be better, given it isn't as demanding of lenses as the smaller sensor camera.

[lex_jenkins]

Ghosting describes a specific type of optical flare. One of the the problems you're referring to appears to be chromatic aberration.

 

Under the best of conditions the example you've posted here would present a challenge. If this photo was taken with the lens wide open and at a high ISO, almost any camera and lens would produce similar results.

 

Your expectations of what any camera and lens are capable of under these conditions might be unrealistic.

 

If you would like more opinions you might consider providing links to photographs in standard JPEG format. Due to security concerns I won't download and open a zip file.

[photo5]

It seems to me that rather than using a 1.4x teleconverter, wouldn't it be better to just crop the image? I've often wondered why people use teleconverters in the digital age when digital interpolation is a very good option.

[Jerry_]

Any "extra" glass elements between a camera body and the lens = a chance at less than expected results. With a film body or a digital body. [You seem to want 'just like film results' with telextender and lens, but on a digital SLR....it could be that the extra glass behind the lens is not going to give you the results you expect.]

[photojournalist sofus come]

Thanks a lot for your answers so far. I am aware of the fact that extra glass can corrupt any

output. But again i didnt purchase the TC-E17II to use it at f8.0 or higher when the stats are

different promising when i bought it.

 

The zip is to show the full sized JPGS and yes its a matter of trust :-)

Looking forward to hearing more from you with similar issues if any.

Kind Regards Sofus Comer

[lwg]

Sofus, what exactly did Nikon promise in your country? I have never seen any claim of equivalent performance in the US. They only state what lenses it works with and how much you lose as far as maximum aperture. These are all verifiable facts. How much image quality you lose at each stop isn't published to my knowledge.

 

Dave Lee, the reason to use a teleconverter is to get longer reach (as you know). If the lens has higher resolution than the sensor can record then a teleconverter could provide better results than interpolation. If you are at the limits of the lenses resolving power on the sensor you are probably right. The 70-200mm lens seems to be near it's limits at f/2.8 - hence its poor performance with a teleconverter wide open. However stopped down a couple of stops I see an advantage to the converter.

[lex_jenkins]

"...the stats are different promising..."

 

The American humorist and author Mark Twain said: "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics."

[alex_lofquist]

I don't see any ghosting in the photo. Perhaps some slight spherical aberration or maybe lateral color.

[tony_thompson1]

I too am seeing this ghosting with a D300, a TC14EII (rather than 17) and the 70-200VR.

 

Here's a link to a crop of the "effect":

 

http://www.flickr.com/photos/14489588@N00/2257547624

 

I'm wondering if I have a poor copy of the lense. Stopping it down to 5.6 fixes the issues. The effect is only visible on bright edges.

 

- Tony

[jorge_o.]

..and it happens with and without filter in a RAW file without processing at all?????

[photojournalist sofus come]

Hi folks Its all basic from the rawfile no sidecar .xmp adding effects to these photos.

In progress is that Nikon has aknowledged the bad results and asked me to hand in my 70-

200 and the TC-E17II, so will do this and report back here once thats done. This is to

eliminate the fact that its a single case. Either way i will post back here as soon as possible.

And if other like the mentioned TC-14 also can be confirmed to behave poorly with the 70-

200 VR Nikon should know about this, cause i am guessing that they should reconsider

removing the teleconverters from the 70-200 accessories list.

ATB Sofus

[tony_thompson1]

I've returned my lense and received a refund. After further testing, and removing the TC, the lense still performed very poorly at 2.8 with blurry and ghosted images - obviously the lense was a bad copy.

 

Plan is to purchase another one asap but finding somewhere with them in stock in the UK is an issue.

 

In my case, the TC was not a 70-200VR compatibility issue.

[ilkka_nissila]

You're just expecting too much from a TC. Compatibility doesn't imply usefulness. A lens has to be capable of projecting more detail than the sensor can record, for a TC to be of any use. Why don't you just plug in a D300 body to get whatever detail the lens has to offer beyond the D3's ability to record, and avoid the unfortunate side effects of adding more optics between the lens and the body?

 

The 70-200 at 200mm & f/2.8 just isn't that good. If you want a longer lens without quality loss, you need to get a longer lens, preferably a prime, and no TC.

[ShunCheung]

I have pointed out that while Nikon's 80-200mm/f2.8 (various versions) and 70-200mm/f2.8 AF-S VR are quite good by themselves, none of them is going to be all that good with a televenter at f2.8, even a TC-14E. If you are willing to stop down by one stop to f4, which will become f5.6 with a 1.4x TC and even slower with a more powerful TC, you'll get more accpetable/good results.

 

If you are picky about optical quality, a zoom + TC is not going to be the way to go. Since one typically needs shutter speed at long focal lengths, it also gets hard to stop down.