AF-S Teleconverter TC-20E II "who uses it and on what?"

I have searched around a little and can not find any positive feedback unless you are using a 2.8 prime at high noon.

I would be interested in your coments if you own one and what you match it up with.
Thanks

Great with the 300 f2.8 primes (I use an AF-I). It's all in the technique and it certainly doesn't need to be "high noon" (which is usually lousy for shooting anyway). If you search a bit more thoroughly you'll find an abundance of work done with this combo (don't limit yourself to this website). I can't speak for the 400, 500, and 600 users. With any superT/tc combination poor images are almost always a result of technique/support issues and not the actual gear.

I have a 400 2.8 afi and 70-200 afs, and had a 300 AFS when I had the tc20e

I found I had to stop down from 5.6 to 11 for best results, and that indeed limited it's usefulness. I used the tc14 much much more.

If you're in a situation where you can use a really good sturdy tripod and/or have great light this could be a useful TC

It's just I found the 14 and 17 much more useable
--
http://www.sportsshooter.com/cyadmark
Ann Arbor, MI USA

Equipment in profile

There is feedback, and there is reality.

A 1.4x works by discarding 50% of the information coming out of the back of a lens, and magnifying what remains by 50%.

The important point is this is achieved without discarded 50% of your pixels, which is what happens if you crop the image instead of using a 1.4x converter.

A 2x works by discarding 75% of the information captured by a lens and magnifying what remains by 75%.

The important point is this is achieved without discarded 75% of your pixels, which is what happens if you crop the image instead of using a 2x converter.

Using any converter reduces screen brightness, AF speed, AF accuracy, the shutter speed, increases camera shake in proportion to the magnification, increases the effect of any lens aberrations in the central cropped zone (aberrations are close to nil with primes of 300mm and longer), and interestingly increases depth of field compare to using a longer focal length to achieve the same viewfinder crop.

Generally the greater the power of your converter the better your technique needs to be and the less suitable the combination becomes for focus tracking, but with good technique (which may require a tripod) sharp images using a good 2x and a pro grade lens can be achieved.
Sharp images are difficult to achieve cropping 12 MP to 3 MP
A longer f2.8 lens is the ideal solution, but not everyone can afford one.
--
Leonard Shepherd

Practicing and thinking can do more for good photography than buying or consuming.

Sorry - in my previous reply I forgot to mention when I use one.

I have always had high quality primes to 500mm but switched to the 200-400 for distance work, now coupled with the D300 for when I need maximum reach.

I have for a decade had the Nikon 1.4x and 2x and got the 1.7x as soon as it came out.

I have used the 2x on the 500 (on bean bags) very successfully in Africa, and with reasonable success on the 200-400 - bearing in mind 1600mm effective is a severe challenge with any equipment.

Generally I can get enough reach for my needs with the 200-400 and 1.4 or 1.7x where (mainly because of less magnification) decent results are easier to get than with a 2x. I still do not hesitate to use the 2x when it is the best option - with the knowledge it is not going to crop as well to A3 equivalent as using no converter.
A 600 f4 with a 1.4 on DX would be better - but I cannot afford a 600
--
Leonard Shepherd

Practicing and thinking can do more for good photography than buying or consuming.

BigD69 said:

I have searched around a little and can not find any positive feedback unless you are using a 2.8 prime at high noon.

I would be interested in your coments if you own one and what you match it up with.
Thanks

Click to expand...

I had been advised by various dealers and also several other bird photographers I know not to bother with this TC as allegedly it is supposedly not very good, especially supposedly not advised for use with the 300 F4 AFS nor the 500mm F4 AFS. As I have been using a 2x TC (Nikon TC301) for years with my old 500mm F4 P lens with very good (publishable) results I was curious to find out for myself - so I recently picked up a mint used one from a well known UK Nikon dealer on approval.

Let's put it this way - I kept it!

It works well with my 300mm F4 AFS and is really very good with my 500mm F4 AFS. The TC14EII and TC17EII are both technically sharper (very slightly) and of course faster - but the TC20EII gives you more magnification and is still really very sharp and I find no sign of aberrations. So I can get usable shots at full aperture (although stopping down a little gives sharper results). Is the extra magnification significant - as far as I am concerned yes definitely.

The downside of course (as Leonard has already pointed out) is that you lose 2 full stops of light. SO my 500mm F4 becomes a 1000mm F8 lens. The viewfinder is 2 stops darker and also the auto-focus slows right down (becomes very slow with the 300) and is much less likely to be accurate. In fact I bet most of the poor reputation this converter has is due to missed focus. I have found that in most cases with my D200 I am better off switching the AF off and using manual focus (no sweat for me as I have been using MF lenses for years). The lens is now double the focal length so of course any tremors or vibrations are magnified twice as much so therefore really you should need a faster shutter speed - but instead you get 2 stops slower. No wonder many people don't get this to work very well.

Getting critically sharp results with this TC demands the highest attention be paid to getting everything just right including:

• use a really solid tripod (legs preferably as low as poss and set at 45 degrees angle)
• if not using a VR lens then preferably use a 2nd support on the camera also
• use a cable release
• focus carefully preferably manually
• use Mirror-up mode, allow several seconds between mirror-up and shutter release

It takes a little practise to be able to work proficiently with such a setup but it can be done.

Having said all the above it is not impossible to get sharp results without doing all that, even flight shots are possible, but then the success rate is likely to be low.

Frank

Some 500mm F4 AFS + TC20EII samples (with my D200). These are all crops from the original photos, all processed in Capture NX 2.2 and all with some usm applied (usm amounts detailed below):

Black-tailed Godwit (wing stretching); 1/320th at F14, ISO500; usm 100-3-0:



Mute Swan cygnet; 1/400th at F8 (ie full aperture), ISO200; usm 100-3-0:



Juvenile Black-headed Gull; 1/350th at F11, ISO400; usm 100-1-0:



As you can see, stopping down to F14 (in the first example) gave enough DOF to get the bird in focus. The other 2 examples have narrower DOF. In the case of the Mute Swan cygnet at F8 the DOF of true focus is really very tight requiring very careful focussing to get the eye in focus.

All those shots were manually focussed (although I used the auto-focus to initially get the focus I then tweaked the focus manually).

Frank

I use it on my 600/4 when I need a little more reach then using the 17E. It's very rare for me to use the 20E but works alright when I need it.
This is a sample of the 600 w the 20E with a 60% crop using a D2H.
Shot wide open at f8@1/320 sec, iso 200



Regards

http://slopoki1.smugmug.com/Nature

BigD69 said:

I have searched around a little and can not find any positive feedback unless you are using a 2.8 prime at high noon.

I would be interested in your coments if you own one and what you match it up with.

Click to expand...

The 300/2.8 and 400/2.8, as far as I'm concerned, are the reasons for the existence of the TC-20. Excellent results can be obtained with good technique, and AF remains available.

I do not recommend the TC-20 at focal lengths shorter than 300mm; it's not optimized for shorter lenses and results can be disappointing, even on exotic lenses such as the 200 f/2 VR.

If you have the very best long-lens technique and are comfortable with manual focus, you can obtain very good results with the 500mm and 600mm supertelephotos. Lack of experience, though, often results in disappointment with these long lenses.

Most has been said however one thing to remember is that the 12 mp FX sensor is more forgiving for tc's....

It's harder to get excellent results on DX but can be done : look at the excellent work from R. Gaubert in the D300 forum... (he shoots D200 with 500VR + several tc's)
--

'Il semble que la perfection soit atteinte non quand il n'y a plus rien à ajouter, mais quand il n'y a plus rien à retrancher.'(A. de Saint-Exupéry)

200 f2 VR, D70s, f4, JPEG Fine, sRGB III, Auto Sharpening, yada, yada, yada...

The Komodo was shot through glass; thank God the glass was there! LOL

Regards,
RangerJoe

Here's a small gallery of the TC20E on the 70-200VR:
http://images.nikonians.org/galleries/showgallery.php/cat/9564

You MUST sharpen and add contrast in post-processing...



--
http://images.nikonians.org/galleries/showgallery.php/cat/500/ppuser/119002

KnightPhoto2 said:

Here's a small gallery of the TC20E on the 70-200VR:
http://images.nikonians.org/galleries/showgallery.php/cat/9564

You MUST sharpen and add contrast in post-processing...

Click to expand...

I don't like the TC-20E on the 70-200 VR. IQ is pretty mediocre - soft wide open and only gets usable around f/11, which is too slow for most lighting conditions. AF slows down considerably, too.

The TC-17E gives better results and is very usable from f/6.7 down, with very little loss of contrast and good AF speed. In most cases, a cropped shot with the TC-17E will beat a shot taken with the TC-20E.

I only use the TC-20E on my 300/2.8 AF-S, and only in good light.

Cheers

Mike

I found the points raised by Leaonard and Frank succinct and helpful.

These together with some real world examples did a lot to dispel some of the usual "1.4x good, 2.0x bad" views that often get trotted out.

I'm in the middle with a TC-17EII, but now realise that some of the variable results I've been getting with that and my 300mm F4 have been down to (lack of) technique and not optical performance of the various bits of glass.

--
Colin
-------------------
http://www.pbase.com/celidh

RangerJoe said:

200 f2 VR, D70s, f4, JPEG Fine, sRGB III, Auto Sharpening, yada, yada, yada...

The Komodo was shot through glass; thank God the glass was there! LOL

Click to expand...

Even at the low resolution of your posted samples, I can see problems. To make them clearer, here is how the D3x sees the 200-400VR at f/4, 400mm (left) versus the 200/2 VR + TC-20 at f/4 (right). Center crop:



Corner crop:



The 200/2 + TC20 combination has obvious softness and contrast problems, even in the center, and you can add lateral CA to the list in the corner. This is why I always recommend against using the TC-20 on 200mm or shorter lenses. Performance of the TC20 on a 300/2.8 or 400/2.8 is significantly better.

I use mine on my 300mm f/2.8 ... I have a great shot with this combo (and monopod) blown up in my living room.

You can use it on the 70-200VR as well.

I also use it for moon shots (sometimes combining two TCs).

--
'Let my heart be broken by the things that break the heart of God.'
===============
Nikon D300 - MB-D10 - SB800 - TC-14EII TC-17EII TC-20EII
Nikon 24-70(2.8), 105VR(2.8), 70-200 VR(2.8), 300VR(2.8)
http://wretchedradio.com

Marianne Oelund wrote:

Marianne Oelund said:

The 200/2 + TC20 combination has obvious softness and contrast problems, even in the center, and you can add lateral CA to the list in the corner. This is why I always recommend against using the TC-20 on 200mm or shorter lenses. Performance of the TC20 on a 300/2.8 or 400/2.8 is significantly better.

Click to expand...

Your shot clearly demonstrates the 200-400 superiority in this situation. But for someone who owns the 200 f2 I think the question is whether the 200 f2 + 2TC is his best way to get to 400. So depending on your lens collection 200 f2 + TC may be better than any other TC combination + cropping.

Has anyone tried any of the Nikon or third party tele converters with the 70-300VR? I think I read somewhere that Nikon says you cannot use their TCs with that lens, but I don't know if it is just a recommendation or if they actually fail to work with that lens.
--
Steve

jbear said:

Great with the 300 f2.8 primes (I use an AF-I). It's all in the technique and it certainly doesn't need to be "high noon" (which is usually lousy for shooting anyway).

Click to expand...

I have the 300 2.8 af-i.
thinking about the tc-20e.
can you mail me some nef's?

flycaster11 said:

Has anyone tried any of the Nikon or third party tele converters with the 70-300VR? I think I read somewhere that Nikon says you cannot use their TCs with that lens, but I don't know if it is just a recommendation or if they actually fail to work with that lens.

Click to expand...

There is a metal tab on the Nikon TCs that prevents you from mounting them on the 70-300 VR (and other lenses that Nikon does not deem TC worthy).

You can file off the tab and you may be able to mount the TC then. I say "may", because on some lenses the rear element will collide with the front element of the TC, so you need to check on an individual basis...

Apart from that, I see no point in mounting a TC on the 70-300 VR. The lens becomes at least f/8 and AF won't work properly; and sharpness would be severely compromised to the point where you are better off just cropping the image from the naked lens. Do a search, there are a few folks here who tried this! BTW, the Kenko Pro 300 DG 1.4 TC mounts on the 70-300 without modification, so you can see for yourself - but I really wouldn't bother

Cheers

Mike