nikon tc2.0 III

good evening.

is anybody here using the Nikon  tc 2.0x III version ?

i would be interested in hearing about how this tc performs, especially with the 300 2.8 vr2 lens ....

i am not mcuh into 2,0tcs but with the 300 2,8 lens maybe....


thks in advance

andre.

Every time this question comes up you get almost violent disagreement.  I am of the opinion that the Nikon 2x III (or any other Nikon 2x and to a lesser degree the 1.7x) is worth about as much as a rock - in other words a good paper weight. Others love it.  Having done many calibrations and resolution tests with it, the loss in acuity is completely unacceptable to me and is drastically worse than the image quality loss with the Canon 2x III.

hi EJ !
interesting point of view. i think your observations are Always important and i will keep them in mind.

i read brad hills review , however he tested only the tc with 12megapix câmeras i think.... with the d800 things could be diferent. with the d4 however still maybe a chance ?

i guess violent disagreement probably results from  what each one considers as acceptable usually i personally consider acceptable something that can be printed well at least to a3 ( not just web presentations )...

Yes, reproduction size makes a big difference. I usually use a 16x24 standard for waht is acceptable and what isn't but I don't think the 2x III is good enough even for A3 if there is any fine detail.

Maybe it will work better on the 300mm but I sold my 2X III after using it unsuccessfully on my 400mm f/2.8. If I couldn't have sold it I would have given it away! On a close object (10'-15'), I would get a good image but overall it was a disappointment and the results left me wishing I had used my 1.4X instead. And I was using 12MP cameras. I owned Canon with the same set up and expected Nikon to be the equal. It's not even close IMHO. I've never AF fine tuned anything so maybe that would work and perhaps But as you point out there are others with good results.

With exception, Nikon's TC20E works really well with AF-S 300/2.8 speaking from my own experience.

The TC 20 II and III seem to perform best with the 300 2.8 lenses. Quality does fall off quite a bit with any other lens.

I think there are at least two parts to the answer to this question.  The first is the degradation in quality of the image itself.  And the second is the decreased ability of your camera to focus in low light since the focusing with a tc 2.0 will now be done at f 5.6 instead of the f 2.8 for the lens alone.  When I did a test with my 500mm f4 lens
for even the tc 1.4 at dusk I found that the decreased focusing ability and degradation in quality of the image was not worth the increased reach with the tc 1.4.

I tried the TC 20 on both a 400mm F/2.8 and a 500mm F/4. This was with a D2X. I was completely disappointed with it. I could not produce a critically sharp image with either lens + the TC 20. It's possible the results may satisfy some people, and what is considered acceptable does vary. However it was way out of my limits. I agree with EJ. It is nothing but an expensive paperweight.

jgunning wrote:I tried the TC 20 on both a 400mm F/2.8 and a 500mm F/4. This was with a D2X. I was completely disappointed with it. I could not produce a critically sharp image with either lens + the TC 20. It's possible the results may satisfy some people, and what is considered acceptable does vary. However it was way out of my limits. I agree with EJ.

And what are your limits if I may ask?

Given that many of you agreed that what is considered acceptable does vary from one individual to another, wouldn't it be better to state what your limits are (pixel level, 16 x 20 prints or larger, etc) so that those who are considering getting the TC 2.0 III would have a better reference point and thus be able to make a more appropriate decision for their own situations?

Since you asked. I considered a non up-ressed file prepared to print on an Epson printer at 360 DPI to not be sufficiently sharp to meet my standards. IOW an image about 8x12 inches. I used all types of sharpening methods to see if the images could be used. None could bring the image to an acceptable level.

I'm pretty sure I deleted all the test images, but if I did archive one and I can find it, I'll post. I do recall the final subject I shot before giving up on the TC20 was a Kingfisher on a tree branch. The tests were shot on a sunny day from a sandbag on a car window.

Is it great, no..... is it OK for posting, etc, see what you think;

ISO 3200, F11, D4, 600VR, TC2EIII
ISO 6400, F11, D4, 600VR, TC2EIII
These were taken in back yard & low light.Agree with EJ mostly but for show and tell images works fine..Maybe a little better with lower MPX cameras like D4 vs D800? By the way works much better on D4 then it did on D3 with same lens.

D4 with a 300 f2.8? Good for subjects up to 50-70 feet.

Trying to replicate the reach of a 600 on stuff 100-125 feet? Start losing acuity fast.

I like to use it on my backyard birding setup to get some more detail in little warblers and the pair of Ruby Crowned Kinglets that live in my yard. But a few weeks ago trying to pull in a Bald Eagle perched about 300 feet out against a bright background it was depressing. I am trying to convince the wife I need a 800 more than we need a new roof.

Tombenson wrote:D4 with a 300 f2.8? Good for subjects up to 50-70 feet.

I'd say not if the subject is a chickadee or other small birds of similar size. The size of the subject does matter sometimes in determining what focal length to use.

DChan wrote:

Tombenson wrote:D4 with a 300 f2.8? Good for subjects up to 50-70 feet.

I'd say not if the subject is a chickadee or other small birds of similar size. The size of the subject does matter sometimes in determining what focal length to use.

Really? One should consider the subject when choosing the lens? Never would have thought of that.

Do you have experience with the the equipment being discussed?

george, thanks for posting images.

notice that i would have no intention using the 2.0tc with 500 or 600 mm lenses.

it probably works better with the 200mm f2 and 300mm 2.8 from what i have seen, but even then i am not sure.

i might stick with the 1,7tc that i already have.... together with my 300 f2.8.

after observing the images from greg oaks, i think i still have do do some work with this combo !!!!

Whatever you do, make sure you do an AF fine tune before using! That is absolutely critical. In most cases significant adjustment is required to get optimal performance with any Nikon TC.

yes.

i fine tuned my 500f4 with the 1,4tc following your parameters, and it did work .

do you have any parameters for the 300 2,8 and 1,7 tc ?

Tombenson wrote:

DChan wrote:

Tombenson wrote:D4 with a 300 f2.8? Good for subjects up to 50-70 feet.

I'd say not if the subject is a chickadee or other small birds of similar size. The size of the subject does matter sometimes in determining what focal length to use.

Really? One should consider the subject when choosing the lens? Never would have thought of that.

Go try using a fish-eye lens to photo your wife or girl friend and see what happens.

Yes, sometimes it pays to think.

DChan wrote:

Tombenson wrote:

DChan wrote:

Tombenson wrote:D4 with a 300 f2.8? Good for subjects up to 50-70 feet.

I'd say not if the subject is a chickadee or other small birds of similar size. The size of the subject does matter sometimes in determining what focal length to use.

Really? One should consider the subject when choosing the lens? Never would have thought of that.

Go try using a fish-eye lens to photo your wife or girl friend and see what happens.

Yes, sometimes it pays to think.

You did realize I was being sarcastic there.....right?