Nikon 200-400 + tc-17e or alternatives

[tele_tele]

<p>Hi,<br>

Currently I am using a lot of tc-17e with 300mm f/4.0 lens, usually stopped 1 stop (f/9.0) for wildlife & birds. Now I am looking for a longer reach/speed with autofocus.<br>

What do you think, would 300/2.8 with tc-20 (600mm) be better choice than 200-400 with tc-17 (680mm), perhaps stopped to f/8.0?<br>

Any users who use 200-400 with tc-17 frequently and could post some samples and opinions?<br>

I guess such good lens would be much better than 300/4 with tc-17? Or not?<br>

Thanks</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>I wouldn't use any TC on the 200-400mm/f4 AF-S VR, especially not anything greater than 1.4x.</p>

<p>From my experience, the only Nikon zoom that works well with TC is version 2 of the 70-200mm/f2.8 AF-S VR; even version 1 does not.</p>

<p>Additionally, a 1.7x TC will make the 200-400mm/f4 a max f6.3 lens, which is too slow for Nikon AF to work. AF will hunt a lot unless you have a sunny 16 situation.</p>

<p>You are much better off using the TC-17e II on the 300mm/f4 AF-S. AF is still an issue but at least optically it can be decent. Of course it is even better if you can add the TC onto a 300mm/f2.8 AF-S.</p>

[tele_tele]

<p>Is 300/2.8+tc20 much better optically than 300/4+tc17 then?</p>

[senthil1]

<p>As Shun says, try to avoid using any TC with 200-400mm. Loss of optical quality is not insignificant. I was thinking that it wasn't bad until I compared that combo with a prime 600mm. In addition, there's a significant loss is AF speed and accuracy, esp. for fast moving subjects.</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>The main advantage for the 300mm/f2.8 is the fact that it is f2.8. Even though you add a 2x TC, it is still a 600mm/f5.6. f5.6 is the magic number (actually magic aperture) that Nikon AF can work with.</p>

<p>My 300mm/f2.8 AF-S is the earliest AF-S version from 1996; it is still an excellent lens today. I also have the 200-400mm/f4 AF-S VR version 1 (but version 2 is the same optically other than nano coating), and I have tried different TCs with it; none of them produces good results.</p>

[John Crowe]

<p>Another more expensive, but superb, option would be the 400/2.8 with 1.4x. A 300/2.8 with a 2x is pushing your luck.</p>

[curt wiler]

<p>I agree with everything Shun has said, but I have often used the 200-400 with TC-14e. The results are OK, but not as good as I would like. Recently I tried the same 300 f/2.8 AF-S model (Mk.I) he mentions with the new TC-20e and the results are stunning, almost as good as my 500P. I would use this combination anytime over the 200-400/TC-14e, everything else being equal. The new TC-20e Mk.III is in a league by itself.</p>