« Previous topic | Next topic »  
Reply to topic  
 First unread post  | 43 posts | 
by Richard B. on Wed Sep 03, 2014 9:33 pm
Richard B.
Lifetime Member
Posts: 283
Joined: 14 Feb 2004
Location: Central Massachusetts
Member #:01199
I wonder if this tc is intended to be used primarily with the newer nano-coated lenses? That might be the reason for the redesign.

Dick B.
 

by Markus Jais on Thu Sep 04, 2014 3:19 am
User avatar
Markus Jais
Lifetime Member
Posts: 2888
Joined: 5 Sep 2005
Location: Germany, near Munich
Member #:01791
E.J. Peiker wrote:
SantaFeJoe wrote:Would be nice if there was a notable difference. Then maybe they could work on a viable 2X, unlike the one's they have sold in the past that only serve as expensive paperweights!

Joe
Yes, the 1.4 III was probably not needed but a 2x IV is desperately needed - Somebody at Nikon, please reverse engineer the Canon one and figure out why they can make an excellent 2x while Nikon is unable to.  Heck,  a Canon 2x Mk I from 15 years ago is still better than a Nikon 2x III.
A great 2x is one of the reasons I chose Canon. The 2x III delivers very sharp results with a 4/600 II if the shutter speed is short enough for subject movement and proper long-lens technique is used (as discussed in one of your articles, videos by Moose Peterson, etc).
If an animal doesn't move I can get sharp shots with 1/60s using proper technique, a sturdy tripod and a wimberley II.

I can even get sharp flight shots with that combo but it requires a 1DX as it has a more powerful battery than a 5D III.

I hope Nikon will release a new 2x that equals the Canon. It shouldn't be too hard. I am not an optical engineer but would assume that constructing a good 2.8/400 or 2.8/14-24 should be harder than a 2x. Nikon has done great with those lenses, so I would assume they should be able to make a great 2x.

How is the 1.7x? I actually miss that one a bit for Canon.

I also would like long lenses like 4/600 or 4/500 with a built-in extender. We often loose shots because we have to add or remove an extender. With the 200-400 1.4x it is so easy and I get a lot more keepers when I need more or less focal length. And an extender made for one specific lens should yield the best results. The one in the 200-400 is excellent in my opinion.


Markus


Last edited by Markus Jais on Fri Sep 05, 2014 12:39 pm, edited 2 times in total.
 

by E.J. Peiker on Thu Sep 04, 2014 8:13 am
User avatar
E.J. Peiker
Senior Technical Editor
Posts: 86761
Joined: 16 Aug 2003
Location: Arizona
Member #:00002
The 1.7x falls between the two in optical quality which isn't that great. If you calibrate it really well and stop way down (at least two stops) you can get usable results but for those of us that are resolution hounds, it's nowhere near good enough. You can almost always do better by using the 1.4x and cropping then resizing than you can do with the 1.7x.
 

by E.J. Peiker on Fri Sep 05, 2014 12:03 pm
User avatar
E.J. Peiker
Senior Technical Editor
Posts: 86761
Joined: 16 Aug 2003
Location: Arizona
Member #:00002
It has arrived. I have some computer issues to resolve before fully engaging with it but will keep you posted on my findings.
 

by E.J. Peiker on Fri Sep 05, 2014 2:46 pm
User avatar
E.J. Peiker
Senior Technical Editor
Posts: 86761
Joined: 16 Aug 2003
Location: Arizona
Member #:00002
OK, just a few tidbits:

1.  As to the question of whether or not it works with the 300mm f/4 lens, it does not.  The new model does not have the moving tab at the edge of the TC barrel on the lens side that couples the manual aperture ring to the camera (see picture below).  As a result, the camera returns an FE error on the top LCD just as if you had the lens aperture ring set at some aperture other than minimum aperture.  I then proceeded to actually read the manual for the TC and it is not listed as a compatible lens.  This TC is not compatible with manual aperture ring lenses.

2.  I have done a resolution test on the D7100 in the center of the frame only. There is a very small increase in resolution and a very slight decrease in Chromatic aberration.  Both are very near the limit of sample to sample measurement error but it is repeatable so there is a very minor resolution increase between my old and new 1.4x.

3. On my D7100, the AF Fine Tune calibration offset is less than it is with the old TC.  The old TC is notorious for requiring extreme amounts of offset specifically with the AF-S 500mm f/4 VR lens, in many cases not within the user adjustable range.  In my case, the old TC requires a +15 offset (which is on the low end of the range for this combination) and the new TC a +9 offset.

4. This seems like a nit, but Nikon has moved the TC to lens alignment dot from the lens side edge of the TC to the middle of the barrel which is a very odd place since visual alignment is not as precise when placed a small distance away than it is when placed right next to where the lens is going to mount (see picture below).  While this is something that a user will quickly get used to, it is odd at first and the last thing the Nikon mount needs is making it harder to mount things.  it already is by far the hardest mount to repeatably engage, especially in low light where visibility is poor....

New on left, Old on right - note location of dot and missing tab on the new one:
Image
 

by Richard B. on Fri Sep 05, 2014 8:21 pm
Richard B.
Lifetime Member
Posts: 283
Joined: 14 Feb 2004
Location: Central Massachusetts
Member #:01199
OK, observations, not measurements. I shot the new TC today with the D4 and the new 80/400 zoom just to see if there would be any noticeable difference between the new TC and the old one. The zoom is my only nano coated lens and I know some people are shooting this combination.

The short answer is that I could not observe any difference between shots with the two teleconverters. The need for focus adjustment appears to be about the same for both converters on this lens / body combination.

With EJ's determination that the new TC will not work with the 300 f/4 and minimal image improvement that I can see, I am leaning to returning the converter back to B&H for credit.

Dick B.
 

by E.J. Peiker on Fri Sep 05, 2014 8:27 pm
User avatar
E.J. Peiker
Senior Technical Editor
Posts: 86761
Joined: 16 Aug 2003
Location: Arizona
Member #:00002
Richard B. wrote:With EJ's determination that the new TC will not work with the 300 f/4 and minimal image improvement that I can see, I am leaning to returning the converter back to B&H for credit.
I haven't done any corner contrast or resolution tests yet since I don't have my D810 back yet.  There might be a bigger difference there.  I didn't expect much difference in the center since the center is already excellent on the TC14E II.  Also, I do not think the 80-400 is a good lens to base a return decision on unless that's the only thing you will use it with since that lens, despite being an exceptional zoom lens, has nowhere near the resolution of the super tele f/4 primes.
 

by Tim Zurowski on Fri Sep 05, 2014 8:55 pm
User avatar
Tim Zurowski
Forum Contributor
Posts: 18881
Joined: 4 Apr 2006
Location: Victoria BC, Canada
E.J. Peiker wrote: 1.  As to the question of whether or not it works with the 300mm f/4 lens, it does not. 
Thanks EJ. That eliminates any need for me to consider the new converter then, since a lot of my intended use would be with my 300 f/4.
 

by Richard B. on Fri Sep 05, 2014 9:43 pm
Richard B.
Lifetime Member
Posts: 283
Joined: 14 Feb 2004
Location: Central Massachusetts
Member #:01199
Thanks EJ. I'll wait for your tests before deciding. I know a zoom with a tc is not a recommended combination, but I was curious if I would see any improvement between the old and the new. But you bring up a good point, in that I was only looking at the center 1/3 of the image when I shot my first test shots with my 500 f/4 and I saw very little enhancement in the center.
 

by E.J. Peiker on Mon Sep 08, 2014 2:10 pm
User avatar
E.J. Peiker
Senior Technical Editor
Posts: 86761
Joined: 16 Aug 2003
Location: Arizona
Member #:00002
I got my D810 back today and immediately did the full frame resolution test in the corners using the new vs. old 1.4x and my 500mm f/4.  There is a significant difference between these two samples in corner resolution.  On a full frame camera, using the new TC, the corners resolve almost 1000 more lines per frame than the old TC does wide open.  You have to stop the old TC down 1 2/3 stops before getting the same corner resolution on the old TC that you get on the new.  Of course stopping the new one down also increases it's resolution but even at equivalent f/8 apertures, the new TC resolves about 500 more lines per frame.

So my conclusion is that if you are shooting a DX body, don't upgrade as you will see very little difference.  If you are shooting an FX body and want corner to corner sharpness even wide open, then this is an excellent upgrade.

I noticed no difference in AF speed but these sorts of things, unless there is a gross difference, usually don't revel themselves until one has done extensive shooting in various conditions.

I will have no hesitation using this TC wide open when needed which is something I never did with the old one.
 

by Alan Murphy on Mon Sep 08, 2014 3:46 pm
User avatar
Alan Murphy
Lifetime Member
Posts: 27330
Joined: 20 Aug 2003
Location: Houston, Texas
Member #:00014
E.J. are you sure you accounted for all that rain moisture in the air over there :-)

Thanks for the report. Mine comes today.
Alan Murphy
NSN 0014
www.alanmurphyphotography.com
 

by E.J. Peiker on Mon Sep 08, 2014 4:16 pm
User avatar
E.J. Peiker
Senior Technical Editor
Posts: 86761
Joined: 16 Aug 2003
Location: Arizona
Member #:00002
LOL, I had the A/C running :)
 

by penghai on Mon Sep 08, 2014 4:28 pm
penghai
Forum Contributor
Posts: 489
Joined: 27 Sep 2005
Location: San Jose, CA
Hi E.J.,

Thanks very much. Did you do the 500+new TC AF fine tune yet? Does that get better?
 

by E.J. Peiker on Mon Sep 08, 2014 4:37 pm
User avatar
E.J. Peiker
Senior Technical Editor
Posts: 86761
Joined: 16 Aug 2003
Location: Arizona
Member #:00002
penghai wrote:Hi E.J.,

Thanks very much. Did you do the 500+new TC AF fine tune yet? Does that get better?
I wrote about that several posts back in this thread - the one with the picture of the two TCs.
 

by ricardo00 on Mon Sep 08, 2014 6:47 pm
ricardo00
Forum Contributor
Posts: 264
Joined: 6 Apr 2014
Thanks EJ,
 Mine comes tomorrow but sounds like a keeper.  Glad to hear that Nikon is still improving
things.  
ricardo
 

by E.J. Peiker on Thu Sep 11, 2014 9:14 am
User avatar
E.J. Peiker
Senior Technical Editor
Posts: 86761
Joined: 16 Aug 2003
Location: Arizona
Member #:00002
I am also measuring alight reduction in CA with the new TC.
 

by Tim Zurowski on Sat Sep 13, 2014 10:35 am
User avatar
Tim Zurowski
Forum Contributor
Posts: 18881
Joined: 4 Apr 2006
Location: Victoria BC, Canada
EJ, based on your initial findings, and even though this TC will not work with my 300 f4, I am now considering it for use only with my 500 f/4. I would really like to hear your comments and review  in "real world" uses with your 500 f/4 (i.e. actually out shooting birds) and if you visually notice any improvement.
 

by E.J. Peiker on Sat Sep 13, 2014 12:23 pm
User avatar
E.J. Peiker
Senior Technical Editor
Posts: 86761
Joined: 16 Aug 2003
Location: Arizona
Member #:00002
Not a whole lot of birds that look worth shooting here in AZ this time of year ;).  I think birds are an exceptionally poor subject for evaluating a TC unless you can get close enough to fill the entire frame with plumage and then you have DOF issues due to the round shape of birds.  To get a full bird in the frame where DOF does not play a factor in evaluating the results, you would have to shoot it very small in the frame which means distance and then you have atmospherics in play.   Alkso not a lot of birds will maintain the identical pose while you switch around teleconverters to test them :mrgreen:

A better test would be to shoot a bird feather and move the camera around so that you photograph it in different parts of the frame including all 4 corners.  This is why test charts or other high frequency things like money where you can eliminate DOF from the equation as well as subject movement, lighting differences, etc are a much better indication of the real optical quality of a teleconverter of long lens.
 

by Tim Zurowski on Sat Sep 13, 2014 2:46 pm
User avatar
Tim Zurowski
Forum Contributor
Posts: 18881
Joined: 4 Apr 2006
Location: Victoria BC, Canada
You know EJ, while you know more about the technical aspects of camera gear than anyone I know, photography is not ALL about techs. If it was, it would not interest me at all. I was simply asking for your "impression" of how well the TC performed in the field once you got a chance to go out and use it. . . . . nothing more - nothing less. I am sorry I asked now. I'll wait until someone locally gets one and try it for myself.
 

by Craig Browne on Sat Sep 13, 2014 3:16 pm
Craig Browne
Forum Contributor
Posts: 173
Joined: 10 Jan 2012
Location: Hudson Que,Canada
Contrary to Tims reply, I would like to thank you for your impressions of the 1.4 tc.. It must take alot of time and effort on your behalf and is much appreciated.
 

Display posts from previous:  Sort by:  
43 posts | 
  

Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group