TC-14E II vs TC-14E III with 300mm and 600mm

[Barry Clemmons Photography]

<p>Okay, I was able to do some quick shots outside today comparing the TC-14E II and TC-14E III on both the 300mm f/2.8 G VRII and 600mm f/4 G VR. All are shot at ISO 100 with MUP using a remote shutter release and are cropped at 100%. The 300mm shots are f/4 and 600mm are f/5.6. This is the 300mm using the TC-14E II.</p><div></div>

[Barry Clemmons Photography]

<p>This is the 300mm with the TC-14E III.</p><div></div>

[Barry Clemmons Photography]

<p>This is the 600mm shot using the TC-14E II.</p><div></div>

[Barry Clemmons Photography]

<p>And finally the 600mm using the TC-14E III.</p><div></div>

[ShunCheung]

<p>Thanks Barry. Do you feel that there is any clear improvement from the TC-14e III. So far, I haven't seen any clear-cut advantage. The older TC-14e and TC-14e II are still very good to begin with.</p>

[Barry Clemmons Photography]

<p>Shun, there is a noticeable improvement with the III version that isn't as evident when I post them here for some reason. I don't know if it is enough to warrant replacing the II version or not, but it is a little sharper in my opinion. Color rendition also appears slightly better with the III.</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>For example, the TC-20E III is clearly optically superior to the TC-20E (I and II), although it is still a 2x TC that has a lot of limitations. However, the TC-20E III is compatible with all lenses that the original TC-20E is compatible with.</p>

<p>Unfortunately, the TC-14E III is not compatible with all Nikon AF-S lenses that have an aperture ring. For those of us who have older AF-S lenses as well as newer ones, that means you need to carry two 1.4x TCs. That is very annoying.</p>

[Barry Clemmons Photography]

<p>Is there a reason Nikon couldn't make the TC-14E III compatible with the older lenses? If not it is odd that they would do that, especially since they designed the TC-20E III to be compatible with them.<br>

It is easier for me to see the difference between the II and III version of the 1.4 on my larger desktop monitor as opposed to my laptop. In my opinion though, it is not large enough to have to carry both the II and III to cover the older AF-S lenses. Nikon in most cases tries to be as backward compatible as possible. That is one of the reasons I have stayed with Nikon for so many years. I don't have any of the older AF-S lenses that I would use with the TC, so I will probably be selling my version II.</p>

[ilkka_nissila]

If the number of compatible lenses is very large, and they all have different optics, it may not be possible to get goood

performance using one TC that fits them all. By limiting the number of lenses that the TC fits, it can be optimized for those

and image quality can be a bit better. In the extreme case, TCs fit only one lens and are selected and/or adjusted to give the

best results on a specific lens sample. Examples of this include the 300/2 Nikkor, the VR 800/5.6 and Canon's 200-400/4 with built in extender.

 

Normally when I pack lenses in a bag, the TCs are used only on the longest lens that I have in the bag. So I don't see a

huge problem in the practical use of TCs that only fit specific lenses at least for my own use. I have seen some images

from the 200-400/4 extender and the TC does seem to yield very good results on that lens. Of course all three lenses that

come with lens-specific TCs mentioned above are/were very expensive, which could be the reason why this approach is

not more common.

 

I currently use the D7100 for telephoto photography and it really shines on my 200/2 II, giving excellent quality even at f/2,

and the AF works extremely well also. However due to it having a small buffer, I might in the future prefer to use the TC-

14E III on the D810 if it turns out that my lens works well with the new TC. The D810 has a huge buffer.

 

I see a slight improvement in definition and contrast in Barry's examples with the new TC. I think for testing the TCs, it

would be benefiticial to use EFCS if the camera supports it.

[ilkka_nissila]

<p>Interestingly when I looked at the images above at my work computer, the difference seemed slight but on my calibrated screen at home that has side and top baffles, in the case of the 300/2.8 images, the difference is pronounced. That's quite impressive from a lens + TC used wide open on the D7100. </p>

 

[ShunCheung]

<blockquote>

<p>Is there a reason Nikon couldn't make the TC-14E III compatible with the older lenses? If not it is odd that they would do that, especially since they designed the TC-20E III to be compatible with them.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The TC-14E III is only compatible with AF-S G lenses, i.e. those newer AF-S lenses that have no aperture ring, and those lenses are all VR lenses.</p>

<p>The lenses that are compatible with the TC-14E and TC-14E II (and in fact all other Nikon TC-nnE) but not the TC-14E III are the AF-I and earlier AF-S lenses that have an aperture ring; none of which has VR. My personal problem is that I have three such lenses. In particular, the 300mm/f2.8 AF-S (first version) and to some degree the 300mm/f4 AF-S are good candidates for using a 1.4x TC. I tend to switch VR off on long teles so that I am not very interested in upgrading to the VR versions (if available).</p>

<p>I haven't been able to find an explanation for the incompatibility. However, it looks more like mechanical and electronic related.</p>

<p>Barry, I suppose you don't have any AF-S lens with an aperture ring to try the TC-14E III on. And please keep in mind that if anybody attempts something like that, make sure that it won't damage the lens and the TC.</p>

[ilkka_nissila]

<p>In this discussion</p>

<p>http://www.fotozones.com/live/index.php/topic/56199-anyone-got-the-new-tc14eiii-yet/</p>

<p>it is noted that the TC-14E III can be mounted on the 300/4 AF-S and used in M mode with the aperture set on the lens. However, metering doesn't work reliably. How well the two work together in terms of image quality was not reported. </p>

 

[User_4754088]

<p>For me the TC-14E II works very well with the 300/4 AF-S, even wide open. Not sure what a TC-14 III could offer that would make it worth the upgrade.</p>

[Barry Clemmons Photography]

<p>Shun, unfortunately I do not. Over the years as I upgraded a lens I would sell the older one. I wish like you I had kept some of them, a couple in particular.</p>

[Barry Clemmons Photography]

<p>Shun, I know you like to photograph hummingbirds. I was able to get a shot of one while lit on a feeder. This was made with the TC-14E III, 600mm lens on the D7100 using ISO 2000 and normal processing. There is still plenty of details in the feathers in my opinion.</p><div></div>

[Barry Clemmons Photography]

<p>I forgot to mention that this shot is also a 33% crop. Detail in feathers is not showing up as much when I look at it here.</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>Barry, that is no bad at all. When I use the 600mm/f4 on the D7100, I typically stop it down to f5.6 for more sharpness. ISO 2000 on the D7100 is surprisingly clean, too.</p>

[birdied]

<p>I was never happy with the loss of image quality using the 1.4II on the 500mm f/4.<br>

I am much more pleased with the 1.4III on the 500mm. The autofocus is a bit quicker . <br>

Here are a couple of shots using the 1.4III on the 500.</p><div></div>

[birdied]

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

[ShunCheung]

<blockquote>

<p>I was never happy with the loss of image quality using the 1.4II on the 500mm f/4.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>My 500mm/f4 AF-S is the 1996 first AF-S version. I have occasionally gotten very sharp images from it with the original TC-14E. All you need is one sharp image to demonstrate the optical quality of the combo, and therefore the main issue is vibration and subject movement, which affect most of my images with that combo.</p>

<p>It looks like Nikon has chosen to eliminate the aperture-ring coupling on the TC-14e III. That is why that TC is only compatible with G long telephoto lenses, which are all VR lenses. That seems to be a strange design choice for a company that pays a lot of attention to backward compatibility.</p>

<p>The image below shows a TC-17e II and its spring-loaded aperture coupling lever. That lever is now absent on the TC-14e III.</p><div></div>