Telephoto compromise (TC-20III)

[jon_savage]

<p>Having asked advice on lenses over the last month or two I thought it only fair to feed back what I ended up doing.<br>

<br /> I wanted to get to 400mm. I was starting with already owning a 70-200/2.8VR (pre-owned and having sold my 70-300VR to help fund it).<br>

<br /> I was hoping for the 300mm f4 (£950) and later a TC-14 (£300) but due to a change of cirumstances I couldn't justify getting it.<br>

<br /> To cut a long story short with a vastly reduced budget I tried the Kenko pro 1.4, It was OK but I did see issues around black/white parts I didn't see on other set ups I tried. Maybe a very sharp 200 f4 digitally upscaled to 280mm would match it so I wasn't convinced it was worth it. <br /> <br /> <br /> The local shop had a new TC-20III and I tried that. I thought better than the Kenko and obviously a significant magnification. For comparison I tried the Sigma 150-500 Sigma and though it on par with that at 400mm. So I bought the TC. The plan now is to use this if I have to go beyond 300mm while I spend the next 12+ months saving for a 300 prime to match it. If I keep saving until the 300/4VR comes out maybe I'll reach the cost of a 300/2.8! I think anything else will be another compromise.<br>

<br /> So once I got it home was it really any good? It seeems on par with telephotos in that price range just above the TC cost. If I didn't already have the 70-200/2.8 then obviously I would have to have spent more on a whole new lens. I can read "lego" on a lego pip at 20feet and my set up has VR that helps a lot as at 5.6 or above for sharper images it isn't exactly fast.<br>

<br /> So below are example pictures. Only had overcast daylight available at my lunch breaks so I struggled to find much to snap. Nikon D90, jpeg straight from camera. VR on & mono pod for aimals, VR off tripod/flash for lego.<br /> <br /> <br /> Jon</p><div></div>

[jon_savage]

<p>That image at f2.8, 200mm 100% crop</p><div></div>

[jon_savage]

<p>with the TC-20III</p><div></div>

[jon_savage]

<p>stopped down a bit...</p><div></div>

[jon_savage]

<p>Real world image. Overcast day.<br mce_bogus="1"></p><div></div>

[jon_savage]

<p>100% crop of above (f5.6, 400mm, 1/160th, ISO 400)</p><div></div>

[hans_janssen]

<p>I've seen tests combined with the 70-200 VRII and the results were better than the 80-400 VR.</p>

[jon_savage]

<p>One in the sun...</p><div></div>

[jon_savage]

<p>and the corrisponding 100% crop...</p><div></div>

[elliot1]

<p>What is your conclusion? Do you have a link to the site showing the comparison between the 70-200 VRII/TCIII and the 80-400 VR?</p>

<p>And are those your Legos?</p>

[jon_savage]

<p>Elliot,<br>

I've had the TC a week. It's been cloudy most days and it showed up you do need a fast lens or VR (with a stationary subject) or bright conditions to use 400mm. My hit rate was a bit low, 1 in 3, but the I was shooting very slow most of the time.</p>

<p>Unfortunately I've nothing else to try at the same time to juge it against. I have a couple of photo trips planned this month to play with it some more. If it performs as well as my old 70-300VR at the long end I'll be happy.</p>

<p>Hans mentioned the 80-400VR but I do have some links to other reports:</p>

<p>http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1030&message=34314981<br>

and<br>

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1030&message=34309392&changemode=1<br>

with more pics from others.</p>

<p>And the lego is my sons. Got in trouble for moving them. Mixed up Clones with Alliance troops from Hoth. Apparently that wouldn't happen. I thought it a more interesting subject than the usual DVD cover.</p>

[Two23]

<p>Did you use a tripod for all shots here? All in all I'm not that impressed with anything less than f8.<br>

Kent in SD</p>

[robert_hooper1]

<p>I'm not a fan of tele-extenders in general, let alone a 2x extender, but your results look better than I would have imagined, Jon. Certainly a compromise, but acceptable results for non-critical work. Too bad you had to sell your Nikon 70-300mm VR. That would have made for an interesting comparison.</p>

[elliot1]

<p>Towards the bottom of Jon's link, there are links to comparison shots of the TCII and TCIII (using a 300mm lens). There is a noticeable difference in favor of the TCIII even without a crop to examine. </p>

<p>Jon, please update us on your impressions with the combo as you use it a bit more. Also if you have the time to post a cropped image of identical comparison shot using your 70-200mm lens with and without the TCIII (upsizing the 200mm shot to be the same size as the 400mm shot) it would be appreciated. </p>

[jimmckinnon]

<p>Not to repeat Robert, but I've been leery of teleconverters, also. Your results look pretty good.</p>

<p>What's your trick for getting all your models to smile so nice?</p>

[jon_savage]

<p>Kent, I used a monopod with VR on for the animals. With the Lego I had a remote flash bouncing of the walls that end of the room. I used TTL flash, shutter at 1/60th. It was a quick test on the night I bought it.<br /> <br /> Elliot, I will certainly get back with an update once I’ve used it in anger. <br /> <br /> Still keen to try it some more I managed to spend 1/2hr in the garden trying to catch a few birds but not much visiting while I was present. A fat wood pigeon thought about it and I managed to get a couple of snaps at different apertures before he went. A long tail tit also had a visit. Once I got back and looked at the photos I noticed my in focus hit rate was poor. <br /> <br /> If I looked up the depth of field correctly at 10m it’s only +/-7cm at f5.6 up to +/- 10cm at F8. That probably explains why the wood pigeon’s head was OOF while the chest was OK.<br /> <br /> So my initial thoughts are as Robert commented certainly a compromise but for me maybe acceptable results for critical work. My “critical” work is 8.5x11 to 11x14 inch prints or 1400x1050px projections (Local photo club entries). <br /> <br /> If viewed as a 140-400VR for the price of a TC to fill a 300-400mm gap in you lens collection it’s OK for the money. If you want to judge it against alternatives at the cost of the 70-200/2.8VR + TC then I guess it’s not good enough for the price.<br /> <br /> Jim, to get a smile out of the Lego I used The Force.<br /> <br /> Here are today’s in and out of focus shots…</p><div></div>

[jon_savage]

<p>Close up of the in focus bit</p><div></div>

[jon_savage]

<p>Managed to get one at f7.1 before he flew away...</p><div></div>

[jon_savage]

<p>I did notice I was more often than not getting the wrong bit in focus. Here's the full shot...</p><div></div>

[jon_savage]

<p>Comparison of successive shots (AF on AF-S). Note crop not 100%</p><div></div>

[jon_savage]

<p>Another example...</p><div></div>

[jon_savage]

<p>Forgot to mention I was using single point focus on the birds.</p><div></div>

[andy a.]

<p>The buzz over on dpreview is that the tc-20EIII is very very good. People might re-think their use of teleconverters. For example, the 200/2 plus tc-20 is testing sharper than the bare 200-400/4 with both at f/4 (i.e. both wide open). As a person who owns both of those lenses, that is a pretty incredible finding.</p>

[ilkka_nissila]

<p>Andy, could you post your test images (side by side 200+TC-20EIII vs. 200-400/4 at f/4, 400mm FL)? TCs tend to produce "hazy" images because of the additional reflecting surfaces, plus fine detail doesn't exist. I have seen a test showing how the 200-400/4 at 400mm, f/4 seems better than the 300/2.8+TC-14E here:</p>

<p>http://www.hickingbotham.com/reviews/nikon300200400.htm</p>

<p>(second set of images).</p>

<p>At f/5.6 the difference is even greater. I'm very reluctant to believe that the 200+TC-20EIII would be even close to the zoom but I'd be happy to be proven wrong.</p>

<p> </p>

[andy a.]

<p>Ilkka, I own the lenses but not the tc-20EIII yet. It's on my list. I was referring to testing by Marianne Oelund over on dpreview. She's about as methodical and reputable as they get.</p>

<p>I did my own testing with the 1.4 tc and each lens and things were close, but my test was very specific. I was shooting indoor with a chart and controlled lighting, but that meant the focus distance was about 3m, where the 200-400 really shines (it was on par with or beating my 400/2.8).</p>