DX + TC (1.4) + 200-500

[rwa757]

If my math skills are up to par this would equate to 1050mm +- at the long end. The DX I'm referring to is a D7200 (not yet purchased). Not ever having put this combination to the test, would this translate into any issues with AF, noise, etc.?

[ShunCheung]

I have the 200-500 and two 1.4x TC: TC-14 E and 14 E III, but I never bother to try the TC on that lens.

 

AF on the 200-500 is already on the slow side and so is the f5.6 max aperture. Adding a TC will only make both worse. Additionally, zooms rarely work well with TCs. If you can put the 200-500 on a tripod, add the TC and then stop down a stop to f11 (from f5.6, you lose s stop to the TC and then stop down another stop), you may be able to get decent results on still subjects, but you are dealing with a very long lens and a small aperture, as well as diffraction issues.

 

Previously I had tested a 1.4x TC on the 80-400 AF-S VR with similar limitations. I don’t use TCs on those slow zooms in real life shooting. But that is me and I am admittedly very picky. Your mileage may vary.

Edited April 24, 2018 by ShunCheung

[Dieter Schaefer]

Like Shun, I never bothered to put my TC-14E behind the 200-500 (and only for test purposes behind the 80-400). I rather crop than deal with a TC.

You are correct, the FOV-equivalent of that combo is indeed that of a 1050mm lens on an FX camera.

[ShunCheung]

1050mm equivalent is 21x magnification. It is going to be very difficult to locate a moving target in the viewfinder, anyway.

 

The 200-500mm/f5.6 AF-S VR is a major bargain for a $1400 lens, and at least I find it very much hand holdable. However, it has its share of limitations. By itself AF is definitely on the slow side and takes a moment to acquire focus, even on the D5. Personally f5.6 is the minimum I would accept for a long telephoto lens. Of course any 500mm/f4 is not going to be easily hand holdable. There are always trade offs.

[DavidTriplett]

I find that the loss of IQ from the combination of a TC and a long zoom tends to be about the same as I see when I crop down to a like field of view without the TC. The problems with autofocus and effective aperture simply add to a less than perfect solution, so I've given up on using the TC with long zooms. I still use my TC's selectively with my macro lenses when I need more standoff distance, but that's an entirely different issue.

[Matthew Currie]

Back in film days I recall being told that the loss from a TC was less than that from cropping, and that seemed to be true, but when I got a 24 megapixel digital camera I did some testing with a 400/5.6 lens and a TC-14, a combination that had always been good and sharp on film, and found that the crop came out even, or a tiny bit better most of the time, quite apart from the handling issue. The TC advantage might reappear if one is expecting to crop even the extended shot by much, but for just getting to 1.4 times the original, I'd skip it with that lens.

[pcassity]

I'm quite happy with the TC 1.4 III on my 200-500 and D850. Would love it to be a little faster but have learned that it just need a little more light. The is a recent shot at 700mm.

[ShunCheung]

I'm quite happy with the TC 1.4 III on my 200-500 and D850. Would love it to be a little faster but have learned that it just need a little more light. The is a recent shot at 700mm.[ATTACH=full]1242917[/ATTACH]

pcassity, very interesting. That is far better result than what I would expect. EXIF data show f8 and 1/250 sec. That is a fairly slow shutter speed and can be problematic with so much magnification, but even though you get 1 sharp image out of 10 tries on the average, that maybe acceptable.

[pcassity]

pcassity, very interesting. That is far better result than what I would expect. EXIF data show f8 and 1/250 sec. That is a fairly slow shutter speed and can be problematic with so much magnification, but even though you get 1 sharp image out of 10 tries on the average, that maybe acceptable.

 

Shun, Here is another. This one is at 650mm 1/350 and again f8. I am also using a monopod. I have to tell you that I do much better than 1 out of 10 in regards to sharpness.

[ShunCheung]

pcassity, you have stationary subjects under good light. I would expect that you need to stop down to f11 and use a sturdy tripod to get really good sharpness. If you can get away with wide open at f8, that is a pleasant surprise.

 

The limitation of such a set up will become a lot more obvious when it is overcast or other dimmer situations. Since I already have all the components (including a D7200 the OP is interested in), I'll do some test shots just out of curiosity. To evaluate sharpness, you really need to check the pixel level. If the objective is to post a small to mid-size JPEG to photo.net, FaceBook, etc., it won't be as demanding.

 

Since I shoot a lot of action, e.g. birds in flight, etc., I find AF on the 200-500mm (without any TC) somewhat limiting, but as usual, you get what you pay for a $1400 super tele. To me, adding a 1.4x TC on top of that is totally out of the question.

[pcassity]

Shun, after several tests on a tripod I found the sweet spot of this lens at 500mm to be f7.1. At 5.6 I needed to not go over 400mm to be its sharpest. (without the TC). It really does come down to how one uses the lens though. I would never use the TC on a cloudy day or at dusk. In fact, pushing the ISO over about 1800 even on a bright day creates to much noise for me and although easily correctable in LR, it still reduces the sharpness. By the way, after 2 years of use, this week it started giving me the ERR message anytime I used a f stop other than 5.6 and zoomed past 200.Nikon has it now and it repairing it under warranty.

[Dieter Schaefer]

By the way, after 2 years of use, this week it started giving me the ERR message anytime I used a f stop other than 5.6 and zoomed past 200.Nikon has it now and it repairing it under warranty.

Precisely what I encountered almost a year ago - I hope Nikon knows by now how to fix this and you don't have to go through the same procedure I did: dropped the lens off at Nikon Los Angeles the lens for repair, got it back a few days later only to discover as soon as mounted it on a D7200 that the problem has not been fixed. Thanks to Nikon's inability to get me a prepaid return label for the re-repair, I drove the lens to Nikon in Los Angeles again, showed the technician how to reproduce the "Err" condition (after he couldn't find anything wrong with the lens initially); I also left them one of my cameras to test the lens on. When I picked up the lens a week later, I took all my cameras with me to make sure the repair had been done properly and the lens worked on all my cameras. That's three round-trips to LA - at 4+hrs per round trip; not exactly a "free warranty repair" after all. Bill Ferris posted about his experience with the "same" issue on dpreview (Nikon 200-500 f/5.6E - Aperture Control Failure: Nikon SLR Lens Talk Forum: Digital Photography Review) - as it turned out his lens problem while having the same symptoms as the ones I encountered seemed to have required a more extensive repair (replacing the aperture control mechanism) than mine did (replacing the main PCB). I talked to the repair technician at length and he admitted that they couldn't exactly pinpoint the source of the problem but that after exchanging the main PCB and "extensive testing" the 'Err' didn't show up again.

[pcassity]

I am really concerned that I may have the same experience. My estimate indicated that the lens needed a basic ‘clean and check’.

[rwa757]

pcassity, you have stationary subjects under good light. I would expect that you need to stop down to f11 and use a sturdy tripod to get really good sharpness. If you can get away with wide open at f8, that is a pleasant surprise.

 

The limitation of such a set up will become a lot more obvious when it is overcast or other dimmer situations. Since I already have all the components (including a D7200 the OP is interested in), I'll do some test shots just out of curiosity. To evaluate sharpness, you really need to check the pixel level. If the objective is to post a small to mid-size JPEG to photo.net, FaceBook, etc., it won't be as demanding.

 

Since I shoot a lot of action, e.g. birds in flight, etc., I find AF on the 200-500mm (without any TC) somewhat limiting, but as usual, you get what you pay for a $1400 super tele. To me, adding a 1.4x TC on top of that is totally out of the question.

Shun, I look forward to your test results. Thank you for all of your thoughts.

[Dieter Schaefer]

I am really concerned that I may have the same experience. My estimate indicated that the lens needed a basic ‘clean and check’.

I hope that you don't.

In case you do - send the camera with the lens. One reason the technician at Nikon LA could not reproduce the 'ERR' was quite simple - he didn't have a camera to mount the lens on! I was baffled when I asked why the lens had been sent back to me "unrepaired" when a simple test on a camera revealed the "Err" was still showing up? Or why he cannot reproduce the condition in the lab despite my detailed description on the condition under which it appears? They apparently hook the lens up to their test station but not to an actual camera - unless the customer provides one. Which is why I left one of mine with him. Apparently, he was at one point able to reproduce the error condition on his test station - but having a camera alongside was certainly helpful to him. He even mentioned that they may ask customer to automatically sent the camera with a faulty lens - apparently that has not been implemented though. Some of this can most readily be resolved if one can talk to the service technician in person - which requires to be able to actually visit the facility as there is no way to communicate with him via email or phone. Nikon's phone support is centralized in Melville, NY - and by my own experience utterly useless.

[ShunCheung]

Shun, I look forward to your test results. Thank you for all of your thoughts.

RWA757, it is overcast outside this morning and I am going to work soon. Maybe we need to wait a couple of days. But don't expect the results to be very different from my expectation in the 2nd post on this thread. The 200-500mm/f5.6 has plenty of limitations on its own, but it is relatively light and easy on your wallet. Putting even a 1.4x TC on it will only exaggerate those limitations. It can work out under more ideal situations as PCassity has demonstrated.

 

I own one of the earliest 200-500mm since I had pre-ordered for an up-coming trip in October 2015, on which I also took the 80-400mm AF-S VR. Over on DPReview, Bill Ferris also bought an early 200-500 and I was following his discussion. He clearly got a lemon as his lens went back to Nikon for repair like 3, 4 times. I don't remember the details but I think he might have ended up getting a replacement. I didn't bother to send my back for the firmware upgrade recall. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

[ShunCheung]

As a first test, I found the front of a truck around 7:15pm. The sun light was still quite good. This is the 200-500mm/f5.6 AF-S VR with the TC-14E III, wide open at 500mm, f8 on a D7200 @ ISO 400, 1/500 sec. The lens was mounted on a Wimberley head and a large Gitzo series 5 tripod.

 

The top image is the entire frame scaled to 1000 pixels across. The bottom is pixel peeping a 1000x1000 center crop. The result is better than what I had expected initially.

 

 

 

[William Michael]

Hi Nikon Clan.

 

I have been reading this conversation with interest, basically because a few years ago I did field tests with the Canon 100~400L and the x1.4 Extender MkII, and I (also) was surprised at the results that I could get in hard (good) daylight.

 

I found (with the Canon system) that the edges were not too good, when the lens was wide open, but IQ was noticeably better when the lens was stopped down 1 Stop. Please note that I was testing using a FF camera (5D Series), I understand the OP has an APS-C.

 

Anyway, the point of my comment is, if you do further tests, I would be interested in peeking at the edges, please.

 

Anecdotally, and majorly based on Pat's comments and his photos, this particular Nikon combination seems a tad better than the Canon lens and extender that I tested.

 

WW

[Andrew Garrard]

Belatedly...

 

There's one of mine with a TC14E-II here showing a 1:1 crop at f/11 from a D810. It's not what I'd have liked - diffraction isn't helping, ISO isn't as low as I'd have liked (it was in dim light), and that was with a tripod, but then I also had quite a lot of atmosphere in the way. I put some shots of the 200-500 pointing at the moon with and without a TC14 here. I'm not yet sure how much better it is than digital zooming, if at all, and more pixel density won't help; the mk3 may be a bit better. On the other hand, tracking a subject at 700mm depends on the subject size (I've coped with relatively slow-moving stuff) and I'm a great believer in zooms for being able to zoom out and work out where you're pointing.

 

Generally, I found the 200-500 at the long end to benefit a bit from stopping down (I've gone with f/8, I believe f/7.1...) and probably f/11 with the teleconverter. That obviously doesn't help with diffraction (which at least tools correct a bit, at the cost of noise) and total light capture. I don't have much problem with f/11 in daylight, and got some okay shots from the 200-500 + D500 + TC14 a while back.

 

I'm a bit wary of doing the maths for focal length with DX. Bear in mind this gives you the bounds of the area being captured - it doesn't say so much about detail. A D300, TC14 and 200-500 will get you to "1050mm" - but a D850 will capture more detail even though it's "only" at 700mm. A D7200 does have Nikon's highest pixel density (if I don't count the 1 series), but it's not like you're capturing the detail that a genuine 1050mm lens could from a higher pixel count sensor. That argument may or may not be relevant - I only wheel it out for the "DX for reach" train of thought.

 

Anyhoo... you might do a little better from the Sigma Sport at 600mm, but it's huge - and being f/6.3 at the long end I'm not sure the TC trick works (which affected my choice to go with the 200-500, especially since I already had the TC14). I concluded that next time I go to Yellowstone I'll seriously consider hiring either the 800mm or the 600mm f/4 and put a TC20 on it. But I won't be hand-holding them!

[ShunCheung]

I was out shooting birds this morning, and I captured more samples. This time I used a D500, 20MP, slightly fewer than the 24MP D7200.

 

I can see a slight gain of sharpness stopping down to f11.

 

Entire frame: Nikon 200-500mm/f5.6 AF-S VR with TC-14E III and D500 body, focal length = 500x1.4 = 700mm

 

Top crop: wide open at f8 (f5.6 + 1.4x TC), 1/400 sec, ISO 800

Bottom crop: stop down 1 stop to f11, 1/200 sec, ISO 800

 

 

 

[ShunCheung]

Please keep in mind that I used a Wimberley head on a Series 5 Gitzo tripod to support the 200-500mm lens for all images I posted to this thread. I also used a 2-second exposure delay to give vibration a chance to die down.

 

Therefore, while this lens gives decent optical performance wide open at 500mm with a TC-14E III, you will definitely pay a price for further slow down of the auto focus on a lens whose AF isn't all that great to begin with. Losing a stop also means you are forced to either higher ISO or slower shutter speed; both are problematic. And further stop down to gain sharpness will be even more difficult. I consider the 200-500mm mostly a wildlife lens and perhaps a sports lens for amateur photographers. Usually the subjects are not going to be completely still.

 

I too feel that you are probably better off just cropping instead of adding a TC. The combination of 500mm and a DX (APS-C) body such as the D7200 and D500 is already providing plenty of magnification.

 

Hi William, in order to check edge performance, I need to use a high-pixel full-35mm-frame body and a flat subject such as a wall. If I have time I may try it, but if we take a look at the samples here, for wildlife photography, the edges are frequently out of focus anyway.