teleconverter

[joe_cormier]

<p>I want to be sure I am correct. I have Nikon's AF-S 28-300mm VR 3.5 to 5.6 lens. Can I or can't I use Nikon's 1.7 TC-17E 11 teleconverter on this lens. As always, thanks in advance. Joe</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>The 28-300 AF-S VR does not have sufficient rear clearance for those Nikon TC-nnE telecoverters.</p>

<p>And even if you could mount it, I kind of doubt that you would be happy with the quality anyway.</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>Neither the 28-300 nor the TC-17E manual seems to say (unless I've missed it), but I'd be very surprised if they worked. If they mate at all (I don't know whether the tab on the E-series teleconverters stops them attaching - but then I've filed the one on my TC-14E off so that I can fit it to a 500 f/4 AI-P), I'd expect the rear element of the 28-300 to risk hitting the front element of the teleconverter, at least at some focal lengths. Even if it works, you've got an f/6-f/9.5 zoom that is only supported by the autofocus sensors on the D4 and D800, and even then not at the long end. I'd doubt the optical quality would be all that marvellous either - the 28-300 isn't magic, especially at the long end.<br />

<br />

I'd suggest one of the -500mm zooms as a better option, although I've not been blown away by my Sigma 150-500 once it gets past the 400mm end. Then again, if stopping down to f/9.5 was an option for you anyway, you might get away with it. That said, they're all f/6.3 at the long end, and the autofocus sort of seems to work. Otherwise, you're looking at a 300 f/2.8 if you want a TC-17E to work properly and give you the reach you're talking about. Sorry.<br />

<br />

But I don't have a TC-17E (although I do have a TC-16A), so I could be wrong. I assume you're looking at an FX camera for this?<br />

<br />

Edit: Cross over with Shun, because I was typing too much again.</p>

[elliot1]

<p>A good 300mm lens including the 28-300mm, shot at 300mm and then cropped and upsized to 500mm equivalent will beat out the image quality of the Sigma 50-500mm at 500mm. I have not used the 150-500mm so I cannot comment on in.</p>

<p>Which body are you using?</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>Elliot - depending on the body, I'm not going to disagree that the same would be true with my 150-500. It didn't appear acceptably sharp at the 500mm end, to me, until at around f/11 - by which point it'd be getting diffraction limited if the camera I started using it on wasn't a D700. I got a 500 f/4 AI-P as a work-around, though I've yet to try it on my D800. There does not seem to be a <i>good</i>, cheap, 500mm lens out there (though there are a lot whose performance many can live with, and there are others who seem happy with their 150-500s).<br />

<br />

I would not be surprised if a 28-300 at the 300mm end with a TC-17 (if it actually doesn't foul an element when extended) behaved nearly as poorly as my 150-500 - I'm not aware of it being able to work miracles at the 300mm end. Digital enlargement of a crop from 300mm may well do just as well. The same might not be said of a TC-17 combined with a 300 f/4, or certainly a TC-14E combined with a 300 f/4 and a bit of digital enlargement for the difference - if you want a good, cheap, >400mm, that's not a bad option, and one by which I'm vaguely tempted should I ever have the money to spend on something more portable to fill my 200 f/2 to 500 f/4 gap. But it's not a superzoom.</p>

[mike_halliwell]

<p>Andrew,<em> 'Otherwise, you're looking at a 300 <strong>f/2.8</strong> if you want a TC-17E to work properly....'</em><br>

<em> </em><br>

Is the TC-17E borderline on AF with the 300mm <strong>f/4</strong> AF-S? Indeed, the 2.8 would be preferred, but my pockets aren't deep enough!</p>

[ariel_s1]

<p>Mike, Nikon's DSLRs systems are only rated to work as small as f/5.6. Therefore, the 300mm f/4 AF-S with tc-14e is about as far as you can <strong>reliably</strong> go. You'll still have autofocus, but you'll need bright sunshine for it to function well enough to what many would call "usable."</p>

[danny_weber]

<p>From the NikonUSA website support page:</p>

<p><strong>The following common lenses cannot be used with an autofocus teleconverter, this is not a complete list. Please check your lens manual for a listing of incompatible accessories.</strong></p>

<ul>

<li>17-55 mm f/2.8G ED-IF AF-S DX</li>

<li>18-70 mm f/3.5-5.6G ED-IF AF-S DX</li>

<li><em >28</em>-<em >300</em> mm f/3.5-5.6 ED VR</li>

<li>Any 18-55 mm</li>

<li>Any 18-105 mm</li>

<li>Any 18-135 mm</li>

<li>Any 18-200 mm</li>

<li>Any 55-200 mm</li>

<li>Any 70-<em >300</em> mm</li>

<li>Any 24-120 mm</li>

<li>Any 80-400 mm</li>

<li>200-400 mm f/4G IF-ED * - will only autofocus with the <em >TC</em>-14E II</li>

</ul>

<p>In general, TCs don't work well with variable aperture zooms, and especially superzooms.</p>

<p>Danny W.</p>

[elliot1]

<p><em>"</em><em>Nikon's DSLRs systems are only rated to work as small as f/5.6."</em> With the release of the D800 and D4, this is no longer true.</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<blockquote>Is the TC-17E borderline on AF with the 300mm f/4 AF-S? Indeed, the 2.8 would be preferred, but my pockets aren't deep enough!</blockquote>

 

<p>It's only the f/5.6 constraint that was bothering me. I've had reasonable success with Nikon's autofocus below that (e.g. with a 500 f/4/TC-16A combination on a D700), and obviously there are a number of f/6.3 zooms which seem to autofocus adequately, so take the official f/5.6 line with a pinch of salt (the same applies to Canon) - though the D800 and D4 may well be better. I've heard good reports on this forum of the 300 f/4 + TC14E combination, but I don't recall either way about the TC-17 (photozone found it okay stopped down a bit at 1.7x, but their teleconverter was off-brand). I've no personal experience with either a TC-17 or a 300 f/4, so I'm only relating reviews here.<br />

<br />

Sigma's 300 f/2.8 designs (the prime and the 120-300) are much cheaper than Nikon's, especially used. They're probably not as good, though - up to you whether you want to spend that much money on a compromise!</p>