Teleconvertors for Nikon 70-200 2.8 AFS lens

[sunny_from_the_sunshine_st]

<p>I am looking for a suitable teleconvertor for Nikon 70-200 AFS lens without appreciably compromising its performance especially for action photography and birds in flight.<br />I have tried Nikon 2x teleconvertor and found it struggling a bit .I wonder if 1.4 and 1.7 x teleconvertors would do a better job as regards above.I would also appreciate input on performance of non branded teleconvertors like kinko.Thanks .</p>

[gp photography]

<p>I've used in Alamo Dome in San Antonio lighting on my 70-200 the NIKON 1.7 TC on the D700. SP-@ SS 1000, auto ISO.</p>

[gp photography]

<p>I've used in Alamo Dome in San Antonio lighting on my 70-200 the NIKON 1.7 TC on the D700. SP-@ SS 1000, auto ISO.</p><div></div>

[gp photography]

<p>Still get OK, better than most photos even in High School Stadium lighting using it, but would like to have the f-stops back, providing lower ISO needs. I'm looking for a 300 f2.8 or 400 f2.8 now. Until then, my Editors are happy with my work in our small market newspapers. </p>

[Matt Laur]

<p>I've use Nikon's TC17EII on the 70-200, quite a lot. Of course it's always going to be a bit of a compromise, but if you have enough light to work with, and are thus able to stop down a bit, it can remain quite sharp. You'll wind up at an effective 340mm and f/4.8 ... but it looks a lot better if you can get it stopped down to f/7-ish. But at that point you're chopping out a fair amount of light, which may cost your shutter speed - and thus compromise the shot in other ways.<br /></p>

[mark_drutz]

<p>I've used a Kenko Pro 300 1.4x Telextender on a Nikon 85mm f/1.8 and it worked very well. Some Kenkos will not allow AF with bodies that don't have focus motors (D40, etc) so get one that will if you need it. I'd get one even if you don't need it now because you don't know what the future will bring.</p>

[Two23]

<p>I tried both the TC-20E and TC-17E on my 70-200mm f2.8 VR. The TC-20 was just a bit too soft and the effect on AF was very negative, especially in low light. I've been happy with the TC-17E, although in dim light it too can be borderline with the AF.<br>

Kent in SD</p>

[ntv666]

<p>The best Tc for 70-200 Vr is TC 1.4 E II. It gives the result like the original 70-200 ! You dont' lose autofocus and VR function in this TC</p>

[sunny_from_the_sunshine_st]

<p>Thank you all for your input and giving me insight into this issue.Kenko sells Pro AF 300 1.4x as well as <strong>Kenko Teleplus K1.5 AF. They dont have 1.7x .Can any one tell me the difference between the two .I understand that 1.4x would be the way to go to get more reach without compromising quality.I use Nikon D300 as my main camera body.Thanks</strong></p>

[borgis_karl_johan1]

<p>Results with the TC14E are more than acceptable to me, on slide film and with a DX camera (D200). One of the moderators of this forum definitively thinks otherwise, though- there are older posts for you to search.<br>

Cordially<br>

Karl Johan</p>

[alvinyap]

<p>I have good results with my 70-200VR + TC14EII when stopping down to 5.6. At F4, I observed some kind of blooming effect in certain conditions - doesn't always occur when shot wide open. Stopping down to 5.6 seems to solve it. The combo is also quite soft wide open, again 5.6 gives reasonable results. This was with my D200.<br>

Ever since upgrading to the D300, and with a usable ISO1600, I haven't had a need to use the TC14EII on the 70-200VR as my 300/4 AF-s (sometimes with the TC14EII) can now be used in much much tougher lighting suitations. I love technology.<br>

<strong>If you have the budget, do get the original nikon 1.4x.</strong><br>

Alvin</p>

[elliot1]

<p>You best choice IMO is not to use a teleconverter. An 200mm file cropped to the equivalent of

what you would get with the same lens usinig the teleconverter will typically be better in quality than the

image with the teleconverter. </p><p><br></p><p>If you want great IQ and a little more reach, consider

the 70-300mm VR (VR version of this lens only). While it is a bit more expensive, it is well worth the

difference in cost when it comes to IQ.</p>