alan w

<p>A few thoughts come to mind Simon,<br>

You need to use the D2h as a camera that has already cropped the image, and one that leaves you with very little further cropping options. This will often require you to use traditional bird photography methods of 'filling the frame', such as hide photography.<br>

I feel that using my D2h is very similar to shooting slide film {cropping must be done within the camera, where ever possible}, and the d2h is best used in situations/conditions that suit its capabilities.<br>

There is no dought that it is noisier than later camera's, and noise will reduce the amount of fine detail resolved. However, longish shooting distances {requiring further cropping} can reduce resolved detail far more severely than noise. Longish shooting distances will also 'proportionally' increase any camera shake that may be present {compared to shorter shooting distances}, although subject movement will be proportionally reduced.<br>

I personally use 400/500iso for the majority of my bird photography, and rarely crop more than a further 10% from the full frame.<br>

With small 6" birds {such as your examples} you really need to shoot at five or six meters max, with the d2h and your 300mm/tc, to avoid further cropping, and for fully detailed results. This will require you to spend more time on the fieldcraft side {maybe a hide}, than may be required with a more modern/high MP/low noise/croppable camera body.<br>

There is a noticable difference between shooting raw or jpg, with the d2h {regarding noise}, so i would advise raw, and try and keep to 400/500iso as a max.<br>

With regards to the tc-16a, ive found any degredation present to be almost unoticable on the low-resolution d2h, although a higher resolution camera body 'may' show any shortcomings more easily.<br>

I find the tc-16a to be slightly superior to the tc-14, and suspect it to be rated somewhere between the tc-14, and the tc-14b {which apparently has more contrast/improved coating}.<br>

I personally bought my tc-16a to allow me to attempt BIF type shots, with my MF tele. Obviously it is not as effective as the latest AFS types of AF, but it is good enough {and quick enough} for most subjects, in many situations, for most of the time {which is all i personally require}.<br>

Due to the 'band focusing' nature of this tc, is is ONLY suitable for medium to large 'birds-in-flight'. Obviously, for general bird photography, this tc is suitable in almost every situation.<br>

To get the best out of the tc-16a, you need to use it to its strengths {the band focusing especially}, and set-up the d2h to utilise this feature.<br>

You need to think of the 'band focus' function, as a crop prevention feature, and in certain situations, as a wing clipping prevention feature.<br>

The situations that your posted images show {capturing small birds in flight}, is very specialised, and not idealy suited to the d2h {due to its lack of croppability}, or the tc-16a {if you are attempting to use AF}.<br>

Medium and large sized 'birds in flight' are often well within the capability of the d2h/tc-16a though, and usually only two 'pre-set' focusing distances are required to be set on the lens {depending on the general size of the intended bird to be photographed}, and the band-focusing will take care of the rest. You can also attempt 'follow-focus' techniques, although ive found this to give inconsistant results.<br>

Set the d2h to 'focus priority', and preset the lens to an appropriate shooting distance for a full'ish framed result of the bird, and the 'band focus' will then be used to full advantage. The camera will prevent you from tripping the shutter, in situations where the bird is too far away {requiring major cropping}, and also prevent you from tripping the shutter if the bird has flown too close {resulting in possible wing clipping}. The band focusing nature of this tc can also be used to prevent the AF locking on to a nearby BG or foreground, therefore helping to prevent AF 'hunting' in many situations.<br>

When stalking small birds, the lens can be prefocused at an appropriate distance to prevent further cropping, and the band focus will allow you a suitable range around the prefocused area for shooting keepers, and ensuring that you are not firing away at subjects that will probably end up in the bin {due to major cropping}.<br>

Shooting with the d2h/tc16a is very reminisent of shooting during the film days, when it was preferable to attempt to 'pick your shots', rather than machine gun away {due to cost of chemicals/developing etc}, and most people tended to avoid cropping film, far more than we do today, with digital.<br>

I don't know how the IQ of your tokina compares to my nikon {400mm/3.5}, but i suspect you will get many more shots that you are happy with, if you stick to medium iso's {even if it means restricting yourself to shooting certain situations in specific conditions/light-levels} , fill the frame as much as possible, and use the d2h's 'pro's' more than its con's.</p>

<p>Alan</p>

<p> </p>

<p> </p>

<p>I think Steve has it about right.<br>

I paid approx £700 for my 400/3.5, and it is in very decent condition.<br>

Seems to give excellent results on the digital bodies that ive used it on {D70 & D2h}, that are very slightly more crisp than through my previous 400/2.8 ais.<br>

I use my 400/3.5 almost exclusively, so i would probably pay up to £900-£1000 for a mint sample today {if i lost my present one}, but if i only did an occasional amount of long-tele shooting, i would probably opt for a cheaper/moderate condition one {or maybe a lighter/slower/physically shorter 400mm lens}.<br>

Alan</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Ive been using my incident meters for many years, although i do occasionally use the inbuilt meter/histogram. My main gripe with histograms is that they give a readout for the entire frame, which makes it tricky {for me} to accurately judge my prefered exposure, if the prime subject does not cover the majority of the frame {such as with bird photography, quite often}, although possibly i am just stuck in my ways, and prefer to stick with what i am comfortable with.<br>

If my camera had a histogram that was zoomable {to cover smaller areas within the frame}, then maybe i would consider leaving my meter at home {unless the incident meter was the better option for a particular situation}.<br>

Ive recently been trying my hand at landscape photography, and have felt less need to reach for my incident meter though, so maybe the histogram method is more suited to certain subjects, for some people.</p>

<p>Meant to have added..................<br>

I personally would pay about £600-800 for a very good condition body, but 'mainly because' i often rely on it for compatability with my tc-16a, and MF long tele.<br>

If i had a more recent long tele {conventional AF}, then i personally would probably only pay about £400 max for a d2h.<br>

Alan</p>

<p>Ive been using my d2h for a couple of years, and find it to be an ideal match for the tc-16a method of bird photography, and have not felt the need to upgrade my gear.<br>

I personally only require A4 prints, and the d2h does the job very nicely.<br>

Agree with Lex's summary of this camera, so it will depend on your final purpose/max output etc, as to wether this camera will suit.<br>

I 'slightly' disagree with a couple of comments, as the restrictive cropping ability of the d2h does not apply completely, when using the tc-16a. This is because of the 'band-focus' nature of this tc, which can be used to advantage with bird photography, and therefore prevent the user tripping the shutter in situations where serious cropping would normally be required {if setting the d2h to 'focus priority'}. <br>

Agree with Rene, that a camera with a higher usable iso would be useful, but i still consider 400iso to be plenty fast {having grown up with 64 asa film being a general purpose speed, and 125asa film being a faster option, and 400asa being an absolute luxury}. <br>

Yes, some of these cameras had a meter fault {mine did}, although it is a free fix by nikon {not sure this service will be available indefinately though}.<br>

I tend to shoot exclusively at 400iso, although i have used 800iso, and found it to be similar to the 400iso of my previous d70 {with regards to noise}, and therefore usable {sometimes with a touch of Noise Ninja}.<br>

I view all my A4 prints at 'reading' distance, and feel A4 to be the ideal max enlargement from the d2h, for that viewing distance. I have occasionally printed at A3, but feel that 'arms length' viewing distance to be preferable { ideal for wall hanging though}. Obviously the files from the d2h can be blown up as large as a house {if viewed from the appropriate distance}, but i am very sceptible of d2h user's who insist that huge enlargements are of high enough quality to view from 'nose-distance'. Much will depend on the subject matter though.<br>

For me personally, the d2h is almost my perfect camera, and when it finally dies, i hope to be able to replace it with another one.<br>

Alan</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Larry,<br>

Dan's link gives a great summary of this tc, but you need to bear in mind that it was written before digital was in full swing.<br>

The main two digital bodies that allow this tc to fully function, are the d2h/d2x {and the 's' versions of both}, although the tc can be modified to work on other digital bodies {a tricky job}.<br>

There is no reason why the 600mm/5.6 shouldn't function with this tc {on an appropriate body}, although good light will be needed, and stopping down may be a problem {if fast shutter speeds are required, bearing in mind that the effective aperture will be slightly slower than f8 with the 600mm/5.6}.<br>

Dan could be right, regarding possible vignetting, although that is more likely on a full-frame body.<br>

Although in theory, the width of focus band decreases as FL increases, this is a bit miss-leading, and does not always apply, and is dependant on the type of photography that this tc is to be used for {wildlife, sports etc}.<br>

Its a very useful gadget for someone who already owns an appropriate body, and high quality MF tele, although it is no substitute for a modern AFS lens {but still miles better than being restricted to MF only}.<br>

Alan </p>

<p>I pretty sure you could get the combo to AF, in decent light.<br>

I use this tc with my d2h and 400mm/3.5 ai {and previously with a 400mm/2.8 ais}.<br>

If there is a problem, you could probably overide it by entering a 5.6 max aperture into the non-cpu lens data, and compensate manually via the shutter speed/aperture ring etc, for the true aperture.</p>

<p>Alan</p>

Bruce,

I used the tc-14 and tc-300 on my 400mm/2.8, and found them both to give fine results.

When i got my 400/3.5, i got myself a tc16a , as this allowed me to gain a resricted type of AF, when using my d2h body {turning my 400mm/3.5 into a semi AF 640mm F5.6}.

I found my tc-16a to give 'very slightly' more punchy results than my tc-14, and ended up selling both my tc-14 and tc-300 with my 400mm/2.8.

Alan

Meant to have added:

With regards to focusing, i found the 2.8 to be slightly easier for critical focusing than the 3.5, as the barrel/focus ring is much larger, although both lenses are extremely easy to MF.

With regards to the green confirmation dot, ive found it can be useful, if pheripal vision is used, although i generally find it quicker to just trust my eyesight.

Alan

Ive recently replaced my 400mm f2.8 ais, for a 400mm f3.5 ai.

Coming from 35mm bird photography {and also 645}, i found the 400mm range to be ideal for bird photography with a dx body {fov= 600mm on 35mm}.

The 400/2.8 effectively gave me three high quality 'fast' long teles, with the addition of tc's, but the weight eventually took its toll, and i am glad to have switched to the 3.5 version {which is hand-holdable, and therefore more versatile all-round}.

Both lenses gave fine results, with tc's attatched, and although both lenses exhibited CA in certain conditions, Capture NX will almost {or completely} remove the fringing.

I consider both lenses to be usable wide open, although i rarely used them wide open {due to dof requirements}.

I do have regrets selling my 400mm/2.8, but it made sense for me, as the weight did restrict my bird photography in some circumstances.

A very useful bonus i found {with regards to bird photography} with both these lenses, was the pre-set focus ring {don't know if the 500mm f4 P has this}.

Ive only used these lenses on a D70 and D2h, so possibly the medium/low resolution of these cameras will not tax the IQ as much as a higher resolution body.

Alan

Just an afterthought Jeremy...........if you decide to look at a software solution.

Although Capture NX would probably not recognise your Canon raw files, the CA reduction function does work on tiff's, and therefore you could likely use NX that way.

Let me know, if you decide you may go the software route, and i will happily send you a 'before and after' sample if you like.

Alan

Hello Jeremy,

Is there not a software option that would reduce the CA with your present Canon/sigma set-up.

You may remember i suffered the same problem with my nikon gear, and it was solved perfectly adequately with capture NX {usually completely disappears, or is massively reduced}.

My old pentax 500/4.5 was notorious for CA { on both film & digital}, and my previous nikon 400/2.8, and present 400/3.5 both suffered occasionally. However, the files from all three lenses are now as clean as a whistle {after a run through the software}.

Maybe there is a free sofware-download that will do the trick for your gear. Worth a try, and cheaper than a new lens {especially if you are happy with your present lens, apart from only the CA}

Alan

As you mention you mainly use MF lens's John, and manage fine with medium speed iso's, another plus point in favour of the d2x is its ability to turn your MF collection of ais lenses into screw drive af lenses {via the tc-16a}.

Much will depend on your specific area of photography {sport/wildlife etc}, as to whether band-focusing is suitable for your purpose {which is mainly only a consideration with long tele's, with this tc}.

I also own the ais 400mm/2.8 {and the 3.5}, and those particular lenses + tc-16a perform extremely well for my bird photography {using my D2h} with excellent quality IMO, but i can't be absolutely certain regarding quality on the higher resolution d2x if you were to pixel peep {i only 'suspect' it will give very decent results, as there is no noticable deterioration on my 4mp files at 100%}.

If you do get a d2x, it is definately worth a try {although possibly it is less practicle for sports versus bird photography}.

Alan

Kari,

I also researched the tc-16a extensively, about a 18 months ago, in the hope i could gain AF with my D70 body and my MF 400/2.8 ais.

I had seen a 'link' regarding repositioning of the contact pins {on a previous thread}, and after fiddling/practicing on an old kenko ext tube, i gave up in despair {as it seemed a bit fiddly for me}.

As you have mentioned, i also noticed that there is a variation of length of the contact pins mounting segment on various lenses, compared to the tc-16a, and didn't pursue the idea of canabilising the rear mount/chips from an AF lens etc.

In the end, i decided to simply by a digital body that allowed the tc-16a to fully function on {D2h}, as this made life easier {and cheaper than purchasing an AF 400mm/2.8}.

Alan

Ive not used either of your mentioned flashguns, but one thing springs to mind, regarding Metz..........full power flash duration.

I previously owned a metz 60-ct4, and the full power flash duration was 1/200 sec. 'If' your camera has a fast sync speed of up to 1/500 sec {d70 etc}, and you often use this shutter speed, you will lose power/reach in those circumstances. Effectively, the high GN metz 'may' result in a less powerful flashgun than a lesser model low GN flashgun {with a 1/000 sec full power duration} in certain circumstances.

Possibly the metz units you refer to do not have the same full power duration as my old 60-ct4 though {worth checking out}.

I pretty sure ive read that it doesn't work with the S5.

You can add the D2h to Walt's list on bodies that this tc WILL work fully on.

A small caveat to the above {which you may be aware of anyway},

This particular tc only functions 'fully' {AF, metering etc} on a limited number of digital bodies {although it can be used as a purely manual tc on a number of other bodies}.

I don't kown for certain, but i suspect not.

Your best hope would be a future replacement for the d2xs {maybe a d3x}, although i would guess that compatability with this tc will eventually be phased out completely, which is a pity for those of us with high quality MF lenses, and who value the option of semi-af.

'If' this tc 'did' af with the D3, the 'relatively' poor edge quality may be a drawback with the d3's full frame sensor, although on a dx format body the IQ is actually extremely good {better than my nikon tc-14}.

Of course this tc CAN allow focus to infinity, AND be used with AF lenses {although the AF function will be peformed by the tc, and not the prime lens}.

Todd,

Yes, you should enter the effective FL/ aperture, as you are effectively using a 420mm lens {with tc attatched}, as far as your camera is concerned.

I use my non-cpu 400mm +tc on my d2h this way, as the aperture readout in the viewfinder then gives you the effective aperture you are using with the lens/tc combination you are using.

On my camera, the aperture is only displayed in full stops, although the exif data will give the true aperture used, if your aperture ring is set between stops.

Hello Norman,

I own the 400mm f2.8 ais, and would guess this f3.5 lens to be of similar high optical quality.

As you are considering a future digital camera, i would suggest you fork out an extra fifty UK pounds on ebay at the same time {or dollar eqiv}, and compliment this lens with a tc-16a for future 'digital' use. This will turn this excellent MF lens into a semi AF lens with the D2h/D2x bodies, and will become a very usable combo for wildlife photography {obviously not as versatile as a true/modern afs long tele, but well suited to bird photography etc, and a cheap way to get a 'form' of AF}.

Having used the tc16a with my 400mm 2.8/D2h for a while now, i am now contemplating selling my tc14 & tc 300 converters, as i consider that gaining autofocus with my MF combo to be more of an overall advantage than the extra reach gained with a x2tc {and light loss drawback}. The crop effect of the DX sensors remove any possible vignetting with this tc, and the high torque of the D2h/D2x motors give a very reasonable AF speed, with the option of manually over-riding the AF if required {with a lens that is designed for MF}. I also find the optical quality of the tc16a to be noticably superior to my tc-300 {which i consider to be pretty good through my lens}, and fractionally better than my tc-14 {with slightly more reach}.

If you come from a MF background {as i do}, you will find the tc16a extremely easy to use, and a great aid for wildlife shooting {although if you are used to using modern AF lenses, you may find it to be a step backwards}.

If you do get the 400/3.5, then i would throw the tc16a into the equation {rather than the tc-301}, unless you personally feel that 'reach' will be more important for your purposes than AF.

Anyway, the above is just a thought, as this is certainly a cheap route to gaining a 'last generation' version of AF, and i am only mentioning it as the intended 400mm prime lens is well capable of high quality results through tc's.

Alan

Hello Justin,

With regards to the pentax smc 500mm f4.5, i owned one for many years.

My opinion on this lens is similar to Douglas, as i also found it to give pretty decent results, although i did have to have an ext tube permanently attatched {due to the long close focus}.

Fringing was a problem in high contrast situations, and the design was relatively clumsey to use {compared to a modern day tele}.

During the film era this 35mm format lens had a special 'extra' ability over other long teles, as it could also be used on Medium Format bodies {via an adaption of the rear section of the lens}.

I used my old lens on my mamiya 645 for many years {with no vignetting}, and considered this to be its main plus point.

However, i tend to agree with Lauren, and personally i would try and raise the funds for a more recent long tele {with an auto diaphram at the very least}.

Maybe keep an eye on Ebay!!

Hello Jeff,

I have gone a similar route to your way of thinking.

500mm and 600mm have long been the choice of FL for bird photography with the 35mm format.

When i switched to digital i traded my old 500mm for a 400mm f2.8 {due to the crop factor}, and have been able to continue pretty seamlessly.

The hugest drawback is the weight of these things, and tripod/monopod/beanbag are the only options for most people i would guess {i certainly couldn't hand-hold my lens}. This drawback can not be understated, as you may find it too restrictive, resulting in a less versatile set-up.

FWIW, the 1.4 and x2 tc's give great results with my 400/2.8 on my set-up {nikon}, and 'on balance' this is the best lens FL/tc combo that ive ever had for avian stuff {although i tend to do a fair amount of hide photography}.

There is a Black version available in the UK {at Aperture Photographic}, at the price of 8900 UK pounds {rated as exc+++}.

I seriously dought that that anyone would pay that sort of money for a relatively less versatile lens than the modern 2.8 AF lenses.

I suspect the tc-16a WOULD work with this lens on the D2h or D2x {it certainly AF's on my D2h/400mm f2.8 ais}, and I don't get any vignetting problems {probably due to the sensor crop}. Although AF speed is not exceptional, it is usable, and gives very decent quality {slightly better than my nikon tc-14}.

Just another thought Darius!

As you are able to accurately focus manually, i am wondering if you are hand-holding when shooting in AF, on 'static subjects'.

Ive encounterd a similar problem when i got my first AF lens, and finally realised my body movement had triggered the 'predictive focus' of my D70 {which is always active in Af modes, and seems to be sensitive to the slightest movement}, and shifted my intended focus a few inches in front of the subject {sometimes the back}. I never had any problems with MF, and after realising what was happening, i found that i didn't get the focus shift when shooting from a tripod with static subjects with AF.

If you are getting this problem using a tripod, then disregard the above.

Alan

Definately worth throwing the 200-400 into the equation Wendy!

It has quickly become a big favourite for all-round wildlife photography.

There is no dought that a 500mm prime is a worthy choice though, as it has been a well proven focal length for decades. Teamed up with a 300mm f4 and tc's for the 500mm, you will cover the vast majority of your options and have a very versatile set-up.

I fully agree that weight is a essential factor, and my 400mm is no fun for lugging around on foot when stalking. Although the 400mm + tc's gives a fine range of FL's, the weight can be relatively prohibative when 'on the move'.

I would definately put some research into the 200-400 + tc's before taking the final plunge, as it does have a useful range/max aperture, and weight.

With all the very fine lenses mentioned, its worth bearing in mind that the D70 is likely to be the weakest link in the chain {although a very fine camera}, so maybe thinking ahead to your next future camera body may have some bearing on your choice of expensive lens's.

'Off the top of my head', the 3fps of the D70 is not mind-blowingly quick by todays standards, although this may only hold you back regarding flight photography. The relatively dim viewfinder of the D70 'may' become a difficulty with an F4 lens + tc's if you need to manual focus, although this thought seems to vary amoung various users.

Anyway, its a nice problem to have, and i'm sure you will make the right choice for you.

Alan