Nikon TC-20E III vs. other Nikon TC Test

I just got done extensively testing the new Nikon TC-20E III vs. other current Nikon Teleconverters.My summary findings are that while the new TC-20E-III is a significant improvement of the horrible TC-20E II, it does not match the perfomance of the TC-14E II or the TC-17E II.

For this test I set up a resolution target at 50 feet for the TC-20E II, 500 f/4 VR, D300 illuminated by flash to remove camera shake from the equation. After quite a bit of thought on how to deal with this, I decided that I would move the camera closer with the smaller converters to maintain equal image size of the target. I shot the test samples at ISO 200 in RAW and then converted the files with equivalent settings in ACR with all sharpening turned off. I checked the converter for focus calibration using the moire pattern interference method and found that no adjustment was needed. I used the D300 because this is the body I would use it with 95% of the time.

Here are the results in order from highest resolution to lowest resolution - the dashed line separator indicates that items between each set of dashed lines are very close to each other in performance and significantly different than those in other groupings:

Outstanding image quality:
1. 1.4x @ f/11
--------------------
Excellent image quality
2. 1.4x @ f/8
3. 1.4x @ f/16
--------------------
Good image quality:
4. 1.7x @ f/16
5. 1.7x @ f/11
--------------------
Average Image quality:
6. 2.0x @ f/16
7. 1.7x @ f/8
--------------------
Below Average image quality:
8. 1.4x @ f/5.6
9. 1.7x @ f/6.7
10. 2x @ f/11
--------------------
Poor image quality
11. 2x @ f/8

Note that the lens without TC beats all combination at any aperture. The older TC-20E II in no aperture regime is as good as any of the samples above. It would be a 7th grouping. I simply do not think the older Nikon TC-20E II is even worth mounting on a camera given the other alternatives including the TC-20E III or simply using the 1.7x and cropping..

So we have 6 performance groupings. (I would classify the older TC-20E II as extremely poor and in a 7th classification). The 2x wide open should be considered emergency use only and you would almost always do better by upping the ISO over shooting it a f/8 for the combo.

The first three groups certainly give more than acceptable image quality in tightly controlled situations and with good long lens technique but in my experience, great care and high precision is required to get laser sharp results anytime you use the 1.7x especially at infinity focus. This will be even more true with the 2x. On a higher MP camera, you may be better off cropping to get the image size but this will be very subjective and each photographer will have to determine at what point it is simply better for him/her to crop rather than use a bigger TC. Another conclusion that can be drawn is that, as expected, shooting with a TC wide open is always the worst that the TC/lens combination can produce and again it may just be better to up the ISO and live with a touch more noise.

I have opted not to post the samples as there is simply too many of them and I really don't have the time to composite it all. But rest assured the results are accurate and repeatable with my equipment. Your mileage may vary.

Final note. Autofocus worked fine, certainly a slow down from no TC but perfectly useable even in fairly low light as long as there is adequate contrast.

EJ,

I read somewhere that the new Nikon 2X wasn't designed for the 500 f4 but was desigtned for f2.8 lenses. Have you heard anything on this?

Bill

It certainly doesn't say that in the press release or the specs or the manual:
http://www.dpreview.com/news/0912/09121 ... tceiii.asp

It also lists the lens as compatible in the manual.

Here is the compatibility chart

http://www.nikonusa.com/Find-Your-Nikon ... E-III.html

Thanks E.J., you just saved me $500.00!

One other thing I forgot to mention is that in every case, the best performance with a TC was when the lens/TC combination was stopped down 2 full stops.

How is it that Nikon just can't figure out the teleconverter thing? Just boggles the mind. Thanks to EJ for the nice effort here.
Tom Keenan

tkeenan wrote:How is it that Nikon just can't figure out the teleconverter thing? Just boggles the mind. Thanks to EJ for the nice effort here.
Tom Keenan

I wouldn't say it's worse than the canon TC at this point! The 2x II on the Canon side performs similarly in comparison to the 1.4x and also needs to be stopped down to look good. However this merely levels the playing field with an 8 year old design on the Canon side.

What Nikon can't seem to figure out is sharp telephoto lenses at infinity focus. Every single Nikon long tele that I have or have used is a tiny bit softer at infinity focus compared to anywhere else in the focus range - with and without TC's.

Yes, I hear you but I was hoping for more from a $500 teleconverter than simply catching up to Canon's 8 year old product.
Tom Keenan

I can't believe that there are people around that seems to think that one can throw a teleconverter onto a lens and expect outstanding image quality out of it. Nikon does do a good job in provided a temporary solution to extend a lens focal length and so does Canon but seriously....any teleconverter will only degrade the image quality from just the lens itself.

There wouldn't be any reason to spend the money on buying a 600mm f4 if you can get the same quality with a $500 teleconverter on a 300 f2.8.

Thanks much for the info, EJ!!!

Does this mean the performance of the Canon's 800mm gun should be reassessed?
Does it provide better image quality than a 600 + 1.4x TC of any of the two brands? OK, I know this is a bit out of topic but when I think about bird photography the need of at least the 1.4x TC is a must especially when using an FX body of Nikon. So when planning to make a switch from one to another system those factors should be taken into account.

Szimi

Agree completely with your findings EJ.

Pretty much the same with my new 600VR all the way around with one exception...I find that the 600VR doesn't suffer the same acuity loss at distances over 200' that I found the 500 to have.

Gyorgy Szimuly wrote:Does this mean the performance of the Canon's 800mm gun should be reassessed?
Does it provide better image quality than a 600 + 1.4x TC of any of the two brands?

The-Digital-Picture Canon 800mm vs 600mm+1.4X lens test. Pick your favorite aperture. Results also available for 800mm with 1.4X and 2X as well as 600 with 2X. The usual caveats apply: test results are for only one lens sample, focal lengths are not quite identical, etc. Click on the question mark near the top center of the page for a description of the test method.

Got It wrote:I can't believe that there are people around that seems to think that one can throw a teleconverter onto a lens and expect outstanding image quality out of it....any teleconverter will only degrade the image quality from just the lens itself.

I think you'll find that everyone here realizes that "Got It". It's simply a test to see if the teleconverter is good enough to be usable for the quality of image they're looking for. No one here would think that adding a teleconverter doesn't decrease image quality.

Thanks EJ for the test! I've been waiting for this. What I'm really interested in is if Nikon makes a version III for the 1.4 or 1.7

Gray Fox wrote:

Gyorgy Szimuly wrote:Does this mean the performance of the Canon's 800mm gun should be reassessed?
Does it provide better image quality than a 600 + 1.4x TC of any of the two brands?

The-Digital-Picture Canon 800mm vs 600mm+1.4X lens test. Pick your favorite aperture. Results also available for 800mm with 1.4X and 2X as well as 600 with 2X. The usual caveats apply: test results are for only one lens sample, focal lengths are not quite identical, etc. Click on the question mark near the top center of the page for a description of the test method.

That is a really cool website. Is there anything like for nikon glass?

tkeenan wrote:Yes, I hear you but I was hoping for more from a $500 teleconverter than simply catching up to Canon's 8 year old product.
Tom Keenan

Doesn't sound to me like it's caught up at all. I routinely shoot both my TCs with my wide open 500 IS and get terrific image quality. The 1.4 produces no degradation at all. The 2.0 produces a small amount that can be seen only at large magnifications.

Got It wrote:I can't believe that there are people around that seems to think that one can throw a teleconverter onto a lens and expect outstanding image quality out of it.

Of course you can. My 500is/1.4/2.0 combinations work great. Perhaps in your experience cheaters can't be made to work satisfactorily, but in my experience they're the bees knees. What I see going on with many Canon shooters is that they turn off IS when they shoot on a tripod. They then blame the resulting blurring at 700mm or 1000mm on the cheater. I don't know how Nikon's VR works on a tripod, but Canon's is great and the only time you want to think about turning it off is when you're panning.

John Mikes wrote:Doesn't sound to me like it's caught up at all. I routinely shoot both my TCs with my wide open 500 IS and get terrific image quality. The 1.4 produces no degradation at all. The 2.0 produces a small amount that can be seen only at large magnifications.

With all do respect, the Canon TC's most definitely cause image degradation and the laws of physics dictate that they must. It is VERY visible. It's just that it isn't enough for you to be bothered by it

It is very easy to test this by using the same procedure that I used here. I have done this with the Canon TC's by the way and they approximately equal in performance with the Nikons now that Nikon has the new 2x.

I have never found any lens acceptable wide open with a 2x on either system. The Canon 300/2.8IS is the only lens that I would even dream of using wide open with any TC and then just in a pinch.

E.J. Peiker wrote:

John Mikes wrote:Doesn't sound to me like it's caught up at all. I routinely shoot both my TCs with my wide open 500 IS and get terrific image quality. The 1.4 produces no degradation at all. The 2.0 produces a small amount that can be seen only at large magnifications.

With all do respect, the Canon TC's most definitely cause image degradation and the laws of physics dictate that they must. It is VERY visible. It's just that it isn't enough for you to be bothered by it

It is very easy to test this by using the same procedure that I used here. I have done this with the Canon TC's by the way and they approximately equal in performance with the Nikons now that Nikon has the new 2x.

I have never found any lens acceptable wide open with a 2x on either system. The Canon 300/2.8IS is the only lens that I would even dream of using wide open with any TC and then just in a pinch.

Then you're missing a lot of great shots. Massive cropping aside, if the 500 and TCs are properly calibrated, you will see no degradation in prints at normal viewing distances. I don't care what anything looks like at 100 percent on a computer screen, only how the print appears. And on paper and on a wall, the TCs work beautifully.

You can't simply throw `em on and expect good results. Like anything in photography, you need to work at it. But if you do, use good technique, and take advantage of IS, you will be rewarded. Now, if you routinely look at what would be 4-foot wide printed images from 18 inches away on a computer screen you'll always be able to find something you don't like. But if your goal is great image quality on a print at normal viewing distances, the TCs are your friend.

EDIT: Did I misread your post? Are you talking only about the 2.0x?