Any opinions on the Nikon AF-S Teleconverter TC-20E III?

I usually rent a lens from Borrow Lenses to shoot airshows, but this time when I tried to rent a lens it was OK, but when I input a discount coupon code it wouldn’t let me rent the lens

So I’m thinking of buying the Nikon AF-S Teleconverter TC-20E III to use with my Nikon 70-200 lens instead

I wanted the 2x magnification for the reach, but I’ve seen mixed reviews about this setup, the main problems being slow autofocus and soft images

Any feedback on real world use of the Nikon AF-S Teleconverter TC-20E III?

K e n n e t h said:

I usually rent a lens from Borrow Lenses to shoot airshows, but this time when I tried to rent a lens it was OK, but when I input a discount coupon code it wouldn’t let me rent the lens

So I’m thinking of buying the Nikon AF-S Teleconverter TC-20E III to use with my Nikon 70-200 lens instead

I wanted the 2x magnification for the reach, but I’ve seen mixed reviews about this setup, the main problems being slow autofocus and soft images

Any feedback on real world use of the Nikon AF-S Teleconverter TC-20E III?

Click to expand...

I wouldn’t do it unless you must frame something for documentation purposes - I wouldn’t expect a top quality image or satisfying action autofocus. I've paired it with my 70-200 VR II and I recently paired it with a D500, Z 6 and a 600 F/4 and the quality left a bit to be desired.

But.. to each his own - I’ve seen examples that I thought were decent so I guess it depends on focal length used, conditions, user, luck, etc,

K e n n e t h said:

So I’m thinking of buying the Nikon AF-S Teleconverter TC-20E III to use with my Nikon 70-200 lens instead

Any feedback on real world use of the Nikon AF-S Teleconverter TC-20E III?

Click to expand...

I have a TC-20E III sitting here in front of me as well as an old Tamron 2x BBAR MC7. Although the Tamron is a definite no go for you because I can't find a single lens with a built in AF motor that it will autofocus, it's frustrating that there isn't much difference in image quality between the two....neither are anything to get excited about. You'd really have to have no choice to even consider a 2X TC.

The good news is that depending on your location compared to the sun and the planes you'll be shooting, you will most likely have more than enough light to stop down to around f8 to get some image quality back. This might yield acceptable results.

--
If you're experimenting with new camera bodies but you've never experimented with light, you're definitely getting bad advice.

I have never gotten satisfactory results from a TC20.

I'd rather have the longer lens (and I do). I realize there's always a money issue.

A TC14 would be much more usable. Maybe a 17. But I paid 400 dollars for a Sigma 100-400 which is nicer than any result I've gotten from a TC and about the same price.

--
Ann Arbor, MI USA
www.sportsshooter.com/cyadmark

Trying to keep it simple - with good long lens technique I get higher resolution with a 2x then by cropping the image by a similar amount.

It is always better to get it closer if you can but this is not always possible.

Cropping a Z9 or Z7 by the equivalent of a 2x is going back to the D3 limited resolution standard of around 12 megapixels.

Cropping from 24 megapixels to a 2x equivalent takes you back to 6MP resolution – with a limited chance for many photographic purposes of a critically detailed image that is possible when getting closer.

Even so the resultant images either with a 2x or cropping can be good enough for many needs.

It works reasonably well with my Nikon 500mm 4.0 D II ED IF AF-S, would say the results probably depend on the lens it’s used with. By logic, a zoom isn’t the best option for the TC-20e III. AF depends much on the camera, but 5.6 should work with most.

I have compared the Canon 70-200mm 2.8L IS II and the EF 2X II with the Canon 100-400mm 4.5-5.6L IS II and the IQ, balance, as well as the AF are much better with the 100-400.

My personal experience is that tc/lens combos are subject to the individual units being paired. One 70-200/tc combo may be subpar, while a different lens with the same tc or vice versa will be outstanding. I've experienced this on enough occasions to conclude that generalizations are not applicable. A few examples...300PF...I've had two. TC17e...I've had three. Out of the preceding...my first PF was awful with the three different 17e's. The one I have now is ridiculously good with the 17e I have currently left (even at 6.7). Same with my 70-200VRII and tc20eIII. Three different 20eIII's...one is brilliant...at 5.6...and the others were uninspiring.

Anyway...I now accept that I can't go by what any other shooter is seeing with their particular rig. Gotta try it myself and go from there.

I wrote a reply and at the end of it, got sent to an Amazon Prime ad.

So short version

D500 grip removed, TC2.0III, 70-200VRII, Daytona 500 2019 - no issue with AF or images.

Typically don't use the 2.0, and never with 70-200

EDIT: Link from 2019

I’ll try BL again

Just a little peeved, because they had not been honoring the discount codes every time I tried to use one

K e n n e t h said:

I usually rent a lens from Borrow Lenses to shoot airshows, but this time when I tried to rent a lens it was OK, but when I input a discount coupon code it wouldn’t let me rent the lens

So I’m thinking of buying the Nikon AF-S Teleconverter TC-20E III to use with my Nikon 70-200 lens instead

I wanted the 2x magnification for the reach, but I’ve seen mixed reviews about this setup, the main problems being slow autofocus and soft images

Any feedback on real world use of the Nikon AF-S Teleconverter TC-20E III?

Click to expand...

Hi!

Some TC 20 E III examples (excerpted from prior posts:

Of course, it's true that TC's will degrade image quality.

However, although it might seem paradoxical, but with the right lens and under the right conditions TC's can bring out detail that cropping won't.

Also, when shooting far away subjects at a 1000 mm focal length, other factors such as technique and atmospheric conditions can come into play.

One of the reasons that the plant 1000 mm image examples below look so sharp, is that the plant was close to the minimum focusing distance (negligible atmospheric degradation), and the lighting and other technical factors were favorable.

All of that said, among the lenses that I currently have, the 200 f/2 VR is the best at taking the TC 20E III;



View: original size (external website)



View: original size (external website)



View: original size (external website)

Crop ("wide open" @ f/4; upper right edge of image):



View: original size (external website)



MakeNIKON CORPORATIONModelNIKON D4Focal length400mmShutter speed1/5000 secAperturef/4.0ISO3200Capture date2014/05/12 19:31:40

View: original size (external website)

With 500 PF:

Example of the 500 PF and TC 20 E III :



View attachment 2626999

View: original size

MakeNIKON CORPORATIONModelNIKON D4Focal length1000mmShutter speed1/1600 secAperturef/11ISO1600Exposure comp.-0.67 EVCapture dateSun, 26 Apr 2020 14:10:49 GMT

View: original size

Crops (Click on images for High res):

View attachment 2627000

View: original size

View: original size

View attachment 2627001

View: original size

ize

View: original size

View attachment 2627002

MakeNIKON CORPORATIONModelNIKON D4Focal length1000mmShutter speed1/1600 secAperturef/11ISO1600Exposure comp.-0.67 EVCapture dateSun, 26 Apr 2020 14:10:49 GMT

View: original size

I haven't used the 70-200 f/2.8E VR very much with the TC 20 E III, but here are a few from a trip where I had left my longer lenses behind and unexpectedly needed some reach:







Best Regards,

RB

http://www.dpreview.com/members/2305099006/challenges
https://www.nikonimages.com/member-photos/532

I will be shooting an air show, so fast focus acquisition is important

Thank you

I've never had much success shooting with TCs on zooms. Even on primes, for example a TC 14E III on my 500 PF, I've been a little disappointed and I prefer to crop.

If Borrow Lenses isn't working for you have you tried https://www.lensrentals.com/

yeah that's not going to work out so well

K e n n e t h said:

I will be shooting an air show, so fast focus acquisition is important

Click to expand...

The issue is not so much acquisition, as actual focus tracking speed - that slows with a 2x.

If an aircraft is crossing from left to right (or vice versa) and you pan with the movement you can still get well focussed shots.

The planes will be flying in all directions, sometimes directly overhead

Leonard Shepherd said:

Leonard Shepherd said:

The issue is not so much acquisition, as actual focus tracking speed - that slows with a 2x.

Click to expand...

If an aircraft is crossing from left to right (or vice versa) and you pan with the movement you can still get well focussed shots.

Click to expand...

Blufftonian said:

I've never had much success shooting with TCs on zooms. Even on primes, for example a TC 14E III on my 500 PF,

Click to expand...

HI!

Really?

Not much success in what ways?

I find the 500PF TC 14E III to be very useful

TC 14E III 500PF pics:

Uncropped out of Camera JPEG:



Processed but not cropped



Cropped and post processed



Uncropped:

Blufftonian said:

I've been a little disappointed and I prefer to crop.

Click to expand...

Cropping can't increase detail. A TC can.

Best Regards,

RB

http://www.dpreview.com/members/2305099006/challenges
https://www.nikonimages.com/member-photos/532

RBFresno said:

Blufftonian said:

I've never had much success shooting with TCs on zooms. Even on primes, for example a TC 14E III on my 500 PF,

Click to expand...

HI!

Really?

Not much success in what ways?

Click to expand...

IQ is poorer, AF is slower.

Blufftonian said:

RBFresno said:

Blufftonian said:

I've never had much success shooting with TCs on zooms. Even on primes, for example a TC 14E III on my 500 PF,

Click to expand...

HI!

Really?

Not much success in what ways?

Click to expand...

IQ is poorer, AF is slower.

Click to expand...

Hi

Of course TC's always degrade IQ.

But by how much, and what can be the benefits?

If I'm close enough, I also prefer using the 500 PF without a TC:

View attachment 3199098

View attachment 3199099

But If I can't fill the frame adequately, I have little hesitation using the TC over cropping.

A TC can add detail. Cropping can't.

Under some circumstances (and not uncommon circumstances) one can get better results with a TC than cropping, including use with the 500 PF even when autofocus is important.

The following 500PF images using a TC might not meet everyone's standards, but I've not been disappointed using this combination.

View: gallery page



View: gallery page







I'm getting images that I'm finding satisfactory with the 500 PF plus TC 14E III



View: original size (external website)



View: original size (external website)



View: original size (external website)

(Click on Image for Higher Rez and use the "Loupe" to zero in on the beak detail))



View: original size



View: original size

OOC JPEG:



View: original size (external website)

Cropped and Post Processed:

View attachment 3056045

View: original size

Example that using 500 PF and TC 20 E III can be acceptable

View attachment 2626999

View: original size

NIKON D4

Focal length1000mm

Shutter speed1/1600 sec

Aperturef /11

ISO1600

Exposure comp.-0.67

View: original size

Crops (Click on images for High res):

View attachment 2627000

View: original size

View attachment 2627001

View: original size

View attachment 2627002

View: original size

"IQ is poorer" than what?

The IQ of the 500PF is also worse than that of the 500 f/4E VR, but that doesn't mean one can't get acceptable results with the 500PF and take advantage of its smaller size and weight.

How much have you used the 500 PF with the TC 14E III, with what body, and under what conditions, using what technique?

Pretty much everything in photography involves on type of trade-off for another.

But I wouldn't toss out using TC's any more than I would toss out the use of the 500 PF over the faster focusing/better IQ 500 f/4E VR.

Best Regards,

RB

--
http://www.dpreview.com/members/2305099006/challenges
https://www.nikonimages.com/member-photos/532

K e n n e t h said:

I usually rent a lens from Borrow Lenses to shoot airshows, but this time when I tried to rent a lens it was OK, but when I input a discount coupon code it wouldn’t let me rent the lens

So I’m thinking of buying the Nikon AF-S Teleconverter TC-20E III to use with my Nikon 70-200 lens instead

I wanted the 2x magnification for the reach, but I’ve seen mixed reviews about this setup, the main problems being slow autofocus and soft images

Any feedback on real world use of the Nikon AF-S Teleconverter TC-20E III?

Click to expand...

I have never seen a 1.4x converter I didn't like or a 2x converter I didn't hate. I would stick with 1.4x.

yray said:

K e n n e t h said:

I usually rent a lens from Borrow Lenses to shoot airshows, but this time when I tried to rent a lens it was OK, but when I input a discount coupon code it wouldn’t let me rent the lens

So I’m thinking of buying the Nikon AF-S Teleconverter TC-20E III to use with my Nikon 70-200 lens instead

I wanted the 2x magnification for the reach, but I’ve seen mixed reviews about this setup, the main problems being slow autofocus and soft images

Any feedback on real world use of the Nikon AF-S Teleconverter TC-20E III?

Click to expand...

I have never seen a 1.4x converter I didn't like or a 2x converter I didn't hate. I would stick with 1.4x.

Click to expand...

Hi!



Makes some sense.



The lenses/technique/conditions where a TC 1.4 can be used well are much more common than the TC 20 E III



I've gotten the best results using the TC 20E III on a 200 f/2VR.

















If fact, I and others have noted that the IQ of the 200 f/2VR + TC 20E III was better than shooting at 400mm with the 200-400 f/4 VR. And the 200VR/TC combination balanced better for hand holding



Best Regards,



RB

--