Nikon tele converters

[Dave Richards]

I have a Nikkor AF-S 24-70 f/2.8 E-ED VR that I am thinking of using with Nikon tele converters. Does anyone have any experience with this set up and whether there are any serious effects on image quality?

[Sultanpepa]

The x1.4 should work reasonably well but i'd be wary of the x1.7 producing noise or soft images. I've struggled to get anything worthwhile using a x2 with any of my zoom lenses. Coupling with prime lenses should produce better results I would think as is the case with my 105 macro. 

[Chuck Nacke]

My experience with converters has never been good,  that is why I have an old 600 f4, which I have not carried in years.

If I needed more than a 300mm equivalent I would just switch my D800's to DX and still get a 18MP file with a reach to

450mm. 

[TeeCee]

There's always some degredation of the image Dave, but I've got several images on here using Canon 1.4X and 2.0X converters.

The images are certainly good enough for Alamy, the question is - are they good enough to satisfy your own sensibilities?

[DHill]

Heré's Nikon's compatibility list for their 1.4x converter. The lens you mention isn't on it. 

 

http://imaging.nikon.com/lineup/lens/teleconverters/af-s_tc-14e_3/spec.htm

 

Generally, I understand that teleconverters are intended for use with telephoto lenses, not standard zooms (i.e. those going from wide to short tele). I would imagine things would get a bit messed up interesting* optically if you tried to use a teleconverter with a lens that covers wide angle. 

 

* Edit: thinking about it, perhaps 'ínteresting' is a better word than 'messed up' here. it would be interesting to hear if anyone has experimented with a teleconverter on a non-telephoto!  

[Matt Limb]

I have a Nikkor AF-S 24-70 f/2.8 E-ED VR that I am thinking of using with Nikon tele converters. Does anyone have any experience with this set up and whether there are any serious effects on image quality?

 

I would have to ask why on this lens, sorry.

 

At best you will get a poor quality 140 mm f4 with the 2x converter!

 

Why use a Nikon 70 -200 2.8 which is a stunning lens ........ or am I missing something?

[Ed Rooney]

That link has gone dead, David.

 

All the advice above seems spot-on to me, Dave. It would be helpful to say what camera you are using, however. 

 

In the real world, after you get through the new-gear excitement period, you may reach for a very long tele once every two years . . . if that. For more practical reach, if you have a Nikon DX body, you might want to buy 55-200 zoom. That should run you under $200, and my sample is amazingly sharp.  

[DHill]

That link has gone dead, David.

 

....

Strange - it works on my laptop, but not on my desktop! 

 

This one works on my desktop: http://imaging.nikon.com/lineup/lens/teleconverters/af-s_tc-14e_3/spec.htm 

 

Edit: it seems you can't just copy and paste links here; you have to use the button showing the chainlink and a tiny green plus sign! I'll edit the link in the other post, too. 

[Ed Rooney]

Nope, David. Still no good. Maybe a Great White swallowed the signal on the way over? 

[DHill]

Is it working for you after my edits, Edo? It's is for me! 

[spacecadet]

 

I have a Nikkor AF-S 24-70 f/2.8 E-ED VR that I am thinking of using with Nikon tele converters. Does anyone have any experience with this set up and whether there are any serious effects on image quality?

 

Why use a Nikon 70 -200 2.8 which is a stunning lens ........ or am I missing something?

 

Assuming you mean why not use, perhaps the OP is missing the £1500-odd to buy it?

[Ed Rooney]

Link is working now, David -- thanks.

[Phil Robinson]

With pixel counts as they are, I suspect cropping an image would nearly always give equal/better quality than using a converter. And it's a lot cheaper.

I have a huge 150-500 zoom but I haven't used it for ages - a cropped image from my much lighter 70-300 gives much better quality.

In fact my standard kit these days is a 10-24mm on one body and the 70-300 on another. That leaves a big gap in between but I just crop the wide-angle where necessary.

[Allan Bell]

Personally I would not touch a converter ever again after a lot of problems with them a few years ago.

 

Allan

[Bill Brooks]

I have a Canon 1.4 teleconverter. Bad boken and some softness when used on a Canon 70-200 F4L. Same when used with a Canon 100mm macro prime. Both are very sharp lenses, with good boken. Nikon would be the same.

 

I get much better results, over the 1.4 teleconverter, by cropping into a Canon 5Ds 50 megapixel file and then enlarging the file back up to 50 megapixels. In practice, I leave it as cropped, but as a test to compare apples with apples. I even can get good results up to a 2X crop zoom without a teleconverter.

 

This is a good argument for prime lenses on a 50 megapixel camera. I zoom by cropping my 18mm, 28mm, 50mm, 100mm, and 400mm, primes to intermediate settings, with excellent results. Keep subject centred so you are only using the sweet spot of the lens.

 

Teleconverters were useful in the age of film and lower resolution digital cameras. I would not buy one today.

 

I have experimented with a 2X converter on an 28mm lens. Soft flare good for special effects portraiture, landscapes, fog, but you can get the same effect, and better controlled, using negative clarity in Lightroom.

 

Here is a shot of the rising sun taken using 2- 2X convertors ganged onto a 500mm lens. Useful because the sun subject does not have to be sharp. The sharper aircraft was inserted in photoshop later.

[John Richmond]

I use a Sigma 1.4x teleconverter in combination with my Sigma 105mm OS and 180mm macro lenses (Canon 600D and 80D bodies).  Image degradation is minimal with these very sharp lenses and it does give me more flexibility for framing in restricted shooting areas.  I've got a good few images on Alamy using these combinations.  Autofocus sucks - but I'm usually using manual focus in live view for those subjects where I need the extra reach (the touch screen live view autofocus on the 80D does work effectively).  I wouldn't like to use a higher power teleconverter nor use it on a zoom but the combinations work for me.  

 

And you get a 1.4:1 macro ratio at closest focusing.  Add an extension tube or two and it's easy to get down to 2:1.

[Matt Limb]

That link has gone dead, David.

 

All the advice above seems spot-on to me, Dave. It would be helpful to say what camera you are using, however. 

 

In the real world, after you get through the new-gear excitement period, you may reach for a very long tele once every two years . . . if that. For more practical reach, if you have a Nikon DX body, you might want to buy 55-200 zoom. That should run you under $200, and my sample is amazingly sharp.  

 

 

' ... In the real world, after you get through the new-gear excitement period, you may reach for a very long tele once every two years ...'

 

 

Ed, ​depends on you definition of a long lens - I use my 300 and a 200-400 weekly, or are you thinking more of a 600?

[Matt Limb]

Personally I would not touch a converter ever again after a lot of problems with them a few years ago.

 

Allan

 

Would not argue with that, but I am not a never say never guy - may be not on a zoom but a fixed focal?

[Allan Bell]

 

Personally I would not touch a converter ever again after a lot of problems with them a few years ago.

 

Allan

 

Would not argue with that, but I am not a never say never guy - may be not on a zoom but a fixed focal?

 

 

 

I have never tried them on prime lenses Matt.

 

Allan

[Matt Limb]

I picked up on here recently that the Nikon 1.4 was OK and acceptable with the Nikon 200 - 400 zoom 

 

But given the nature of zooms and their moving optics it would be logical that a prime lens would give better quality with a tele converter - unless I am barking up the wrong tree

[Dave Richards]

Having just read your response I see the error in my post. I have referred to the wrong lens; should have been in respect of the 70-200 f/2.8.

Apologies to everyone, seems I had a 'dipstick' moment.

[Dave Richards]

Heré's Nikon's compatibility list for their 1.4x converter. The lens you mention isn't on it. 

 

http://imaging.nikon.com/lineup/lens/teleconverters/af-s_tc-14e_3/spec.htm

 

Generally, I understand that teleconverters are intended for use with telephoto lenses, not standard zooms (i.e. those going from wide to short tele). I would imagine things would get a bit messed up interesting* optically if you tried to use a teleconverter with a lens that covers wide angle. 

 

* Edit: thinking about it, perhaps 'ínteresting' is a better word than 'messed up' here. it would be interesting to hear if anyone has experimented with a teleconverter on a non-telephoto!  

 

 

 

I have a Nikkor AF-S 24-70 f/2.8 E-ED VR that I am thinking of using with Nikon tele converters. Does anyone have any experience with this set up and whether there are any serious effects on image quality?

 

I would have to ask why on this lens, sorry.

 

At best you will get a poor quality 140 mm f4 with the 2x converter!

 

Why use a Nikon 70 -200 2.8 which is a stunning lens ........ or am I missing something?

 

 

 

That link has gone dead, David.

 

All the advice above seems spot-on to me, Dave. It would be helpful to say what camera you are using, however. 

 

In the real world, after you get through the new-gear excitement period, you may reach for a very long tele once every two years . . . if that. For more practical reach, if you have a Nikon DX body, you might want to buy 55-200 zoom. That should run you under $200, and my sample is amazingly sharp.  

 

 

With pixel counts as they are, I suspect cropping an image would nearly always give equal/better quality than using a converter. And it's a lot cheaper.

I have a huge 150-500 zoom but I haven't used it for ages - a cropped image from my much lighter 70-300 gives much better quality.

In fact my standard kit these days is a 10-24mm on one body and the 70-300 on another. That leaves a big gap in between but I just crop the wide-angle where necessary.

 

 

Ha, just about to press post when I re-read the question and saw you weren;t talking about the 70-200mm.

 

Practical problem. My Nikon TC-14EII converter in combination with AF-S nikkor 24-70mm 1:2,8G ED.

 

I dont use the combination because quite simply they dont fit together. In that respect it has pretty appaulling effect on image quality.

 

Apologies all, I should have been talking about the 70-200 f/2.8, not the 24-70. I use a D610 full frame body, but I guess I could just use the lens on my old D90 which would give me a 300mm at maximum zoom but maybe not the quality of the full frame sensor. Or, maybe if there is some image degradation using tele converters then the D90 option might not be that far off quality-wise? I still like and use the D90.

 

[Orange Elephant]

Sorry coming late to this, I am also considering a t/c for my Nikon 70-200mm f2.8G.

 

Some useful testing from Nasim Mansurov from Photography Life, produced some IQ figures as follows:

 

No t/c = 100%

1.4 t/c = 95%

1.7 t/c = 83%

2.0 t/c = 74%

 

I read this to be that a 1.4 t/c results in no noticeable degradation.

 

https://photographylife.com/image-degradation-with-nikon-teleconverters

[Allan Bell]

Sorry coming late to this, I am also considering a t/c for my Nikon 70-200mm f2.8G.

 

Some useful testing from Nasim Mansurov from Photography Life, produced some IQ figures as follows:

 

No t/c = 100%

1.4 t/c = 95%

1.7 t/c = 83%

2.0 t/c = 74%

 

I read this to be that a 1.4 t/c results in no noticeable degradation.

 

https://photographylife.com/image-degradation-with-nikon-teleconverters

 

 

even a 5% degradation is too much IMO.

 

Allan

[MDM]

Sorry coming late to this, I am also considering a t/c for my Nikon 70-200mm f2.8G.

 

Some useful testing from Nasim Mansurov from Photography Life, produced some IQ figures as follows:

 

No t/c = 100%

1.4 t/c = 95%

1.7 t/c = 83%

2.0 t/c = 74%

 

I read this to be that a 1.4 t/c results in no noticeable degradation.

 

https://photographylife.com/image-degradation-with-nikon-teleconverters

 

You say in another thread that you are using a D810. I would bet (figuratively speaking) that you would get better results cropping using the 70-200 without any converter than full frame with any one of these 3 attached and still have an image that could be used for almost any general purpose including printing large.