Home · Register · Join Upload & Sell

Moderated by: Fred Miranda
Username  

  New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site
  New Feature: SMS Notification alert
  New Feature: Buy & Sell Watchlist
  

FM Forums | Nikon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

1
       2       end
  

Archive 2015 · Nikon 200-400mm VR-1 w/ 1.4x or 1.7 converter

  
 
OwlsEyes
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #1 · p.1 #1 · Nikon 200-400mm VR-1 w/ 1.4x or 1.7 converter


We are now entering bird photography season in MN and I am looking to add a little reach with my 200-400mm VR1.
For background, I'm a recent Nikon convert (since 9 / 2014) and have moved from Canon to Nikon where I had a 300mm f2.8 IS + 1.4x, 400mm f5.6, 7D & 6D (among other less relevant gear for wildlife). I now have the 200-400mm VR1, 300 f4.0 AFS 1, D800E, D700 and D300 (and other less relevant gear for wildlife). I have been using the 200-400mm lens with my D700 for its speed but need to get a little tighter when working with birds. Just yesterday I was photographing great horned owls at a nest and needed to use my D800E in crop mode to get in tight. To be honest, I was not wild about the per-pixel performance I was getting. I am almost certain that the poor performance was due to the mirror slap as I was shooting @ 1/200 & continuous high frame rate on a gimbal. The D800E is a landscape photographer's dream, but not what I'd consider a viable wildlife camera... at least it does not meet my needs as shot yesterday.

While I realize that the D7200 is soon to be available, I'm not interested in being a beta-tester for a new camera. I have the opportunity to pick up a used TC1.4E ii for about $250 or a TC1.7E ii for considerably more ($399)... both are oat local shops with a reasonable return policy. I am looking for sample work &/or thoughts from those who have shot with the converters and the 200-400mm VR.

thanks,
bruce



Mar 21, 2015 at 09:16 AM
Christian H
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #2 · p.1 #2 · Nikon 200-400mm VR-1 w/ 1.4x or 1.7 converter


I hated the old converters (CA, slow/inconsistent AF) but the 1.4 III acts like it was made by a different company. No CA, sharp wide open, and no loss in AF speed. It plays well with the 200-400 on my FX bodies. Caveat: I rarely use this lens for long-distance work. The converter helps me get in a little tighter for portraits.

D700, 1/1600, 550 mm, ISO 800

lesser scaup by Christian Hunold, on Flickr



Mar 21, 2015 at 10:40 AM
OwlsEyes
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #3 · p.1 #3 · Nikon 200-400mm VR-1 w/ 1.4x or 1.7 converter


Thanks Christian,
I wouldn't use the converter to shoot at infinity, but I would need to use it as a way to isolate my subjects at a distance. It is good hear that the version iii converter is performing better than the version ii. I think that I am going to wait until I have the dollars to by the newest converter. The only issue with this for me is that the version iii converter is not compatible with my 300 f4 AFS (v1). BTW, nice shot!



Mar 21, 2015 at 10:56 AM
rovin47
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #4 · p.1 #4 · Nikon 200-400mm VR-1 w/ 1.4x or 1.7 converter


I have used the 1.4 teleconverter on my 200-400F4 VR1 coupled to a D300 and found that the results were acceptable as long as I wasn't cropping to much or at all.


Mar 21, 2015 at 03:13 PM
4mpx
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #5 · p.1 #5 · Nikon 200-400mm VR-1 w/ 1.4x or 1.7 converter


@Bruce, the TC-14EII will work fine on your D700 and D300 with good IQ. Your D800E will handle the TC-17EII better than the other two cameras.
You will need to check if all your bodies require AF fine-tune with TCs (most of time, they do). You will have to work with higher shutter and ISO. I have no problem to use the 3 Nikon TCs on my 200-400 VRI for birding, especially with the D4s. Under 10 metres, the results can be stunning.
Here are a few samples :

#1 : D800, 200-400 VRI+TC-14EII, hand held.
http://i.imgur.com/wKV4xXC.jpg





#2 : D800, 200-400 VRI+TC-17EII, hand held.
http://i.imgur.com/kWDtbE5.jpg



#3 : D800, 200-400 VRI+TC-17EII, hand held.
http://i.imgur.com/r73BL7G.jpg



#4 : D800, 200-400 VRI+TC-17EII, hand held.
http://i.imgur.com/XG1I7La.jpg



#5 : D4s, 200-400 VRI+TC-20EIII, hand held.
http://i.imgur.com/WqFWjuH.jpg



Mar 21, 2015 at 09:37 PM
Christian H
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #6 · p.1 #6 · Nikon 200-400mm VR-1 w/ 1.4x or 1.7 converter


OwlsEyes wrote:
Thanks Christian,
I wouldn't use the converter to shoot at infinity, but I would need to use it as a way to isolate my subjects at a distance. It is good hear that the version iii converter is performing better than the version ii. I think that I am going to wait until I have the dollars to by the newest converter. The only issue with this for me is that the version iii converter is not compatible with my 300 f4 AFS (v1). BTW, nice shot!


I'm not sure what you mean by "at a distance" but 30 ft is about it for this lens with a converter and on a full-frame body. Beyond that you lose so much fine detail (I think) that a 500 or 600 prime would be more appropriate.



Mar 21, 2015 at 09:53 PM
OwlsEyes
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #7 · p.1 #7 · Nikon 200-400mm VR-1 w/ 1.4x or 1.7 converter


Thanks for your thoughts Christain H and 4mpx. I spent the better part of the last two decades shooting a 300mm f2.8 w/ a 1.4x converter and know that in good light and reasonable subject distance, the converter could give prime-like results. Within 30m, the my 200-400mm VR beats my prior Canon IS 300 f2.8 w/ 1.4x converter but not by so much that I have confidence that it will be a stellar performer with a converter. I have accepted the loss of f stop and marginal reduction of detail at infinity to gain the flexibility I now have.

RE Christian H's statement "... a 500 or 600 prime would be more appropriate."
While I have no doubt that this is true, I also have no interest in owning a longer lens. I travel internationally with my gear (at least 2x per year if not more) and I like to hike with my gear for miles at a time. In addition, the cost of acquiring a 500mm or 600mm Nikkor is prohibitive. The only way I could see myself lusting for something like this is if Nikon introduced a 500mm or 600mm f5.6 PF VRII lens like they did with the 300mm f4 PF. The weight reduction of such an optic would likely persuade me to be an investor in it

bruce



Mar 22, 2015 at 06:15 AM
John Skinner
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #8 · p.1 #8 · Nikon 200-400mm VR-1 w/ 1.4x or 1.7 converter


I use the 2-400 f/4 with both teles.. I use it indoors for sports, and outdoors for birding and sports.

This is an image with the 1.7 (650 mm) shot wide open (f/5.6 w/ tele). I'll enable EXIF. And despite the rumblings of the few that don't own the lens or, have ever used it. It's not really soft on the long end (as you can see here). This was max's out at both focus point and focal length. The real truth about it is -- most people need to fine tune this lens with their body.







Mar 22, 2015 at 01:44 PM
architect7
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #9 · p.1 #9 · Nikon 200-400mm VR-1 w/ 1.4x or 1.7 converter


4mpx wrote:

@Bruce, the TC-14EII will work fine on your D700 and D300 with good IQ. Your D800E will handle the TC-17EII better than the other two cameras.
You will need to check if all your bodies require AF fine-tune with TCs (most of time, they do). You will have to work with higher shutter and ISO. I have no problem to use the 3 Nikon TCs on my 200-400 VRI for birding, especially with the D4s. Under 10 metres, the results can be stunning.
Here are a few samples :

#1 : D800, 200-400 VRI+TC-14EII, hand held.
http://i.imgur.com/wKV4xXC.jpg





#2 : D800, 200-400 VRI+TC-17EII, hand held.
http://i.imgur.com/kWDtbE5.jpg



#3
...Show more

Wow, even with the TC-20E III it is razor sharp. How do you find the AF with the 2x TC? I just bought a 200-400mm VR1 and D810 and I am contemplating the 1.7x or 2x when I need more reach.



Apr 25, 2015 at 02:45 AM
4mpx
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #10 · p.1 #10 · Nikon 200-400mm VR-1 w/ 1.4x or 1.7 converter


architect7 wrote:
Wow, even with the TC-20E III it is razor sharp. How do you find the AF with the 2x TC? I just bought a 200-400mm VR1 and D810 and I am contemplating the 1.7x or 2x when I need more reach.


On the D800, the AF is quite/very slow with the TCx1.7 and TCx2.0. But with the right light and the right setting in the camera, I can manage some action shots by using the centre AF-Point. However, I won't recommend the TC-20EIII on the D800 (except at close focus distance).

On the D4s, the AF is very usable for both TCs with a wider range of AF-points around the centre one.



Apr 25, 2015 at 03:19 AM
OwlsEyes
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #11 · p.1 #11 · Nikon 200-400mm VR-1 w/ 1.4x or 1.7 converter


I did not find that this lens took well to the TC17eII especially in low light and high iso. The 200-400mm lens is an amazingly flexible lens for wildlife photography but it does not have the contrast that my a fixed super-tele has. I have accepted this as a limitation of the lens and will continue to use it as my primary wildlife optic because it is so darn flexible.

I have found that the lens performs well with the TC14eII on a full-frame or crop body, so this is how I will steal a bit more focal length from the optic. However, the addition of the 1.4x also robs the lens of a bit of contrast... the general rule of a 10% drop in image quality w/ a 1.4x might be a 15% drop with the 200-400mm. All of this really only applies if you care to print your work. If all you do is post jogs to the web, then you could add a 2x and get acceptable images.

bruce



Apr 25, 2015 at 06:49 AM
John Skinner
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #12 · p.1 #12 · Nikon 200-400mm VR-1 w/ 1.4x or 1.7 converter


That's odd Bruce.

As I frequently use this combo in the vomit area inside Joe Louis and the Palace of Auburn Hills that are not known for the light required for low ISO. In point of fact, working within the rule of 1/1000th for the sports images, I HAVE had AT TIMES images with low contrast but -- at times. But this is the exception and not the rule.

As I stated in my previous post on this thread, fine tuning this lens and it's combinations goes a long way in tackling that MAX focus distance softness people are always clamoring on about, and, reduces some of these odd artifacts seen.



Apr 25, 2015 at 11:08 AM
architect7
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #13 · p.1 #13 · Nikon 200-400mm VR-1 w/ 1.4x or 1.7 converter


John Skinner wrote:
As I stated in my previous post on this thread, fine tuning this lens and it's combinations goes a long way in tackling that MAX focus distance softness people are always clamoring on about, and, reduces some of these odd artifacts seen.


100% agreed, this seems to be true for any lens and any body. Coming from Canon I always benefitted from a quick MFA via dot-tune and the results were always spectacular. When people claim better image quality from stopping down, it is usually due to greater DOF and not just using better glass in the middle of the lens.



Apr 25, 2015 at 06:03 PM
pokemanyz
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #14 · p.1 #14 · Nikon 200-400mm VR-1 w/ 1.4x or 1.7 converter


I use the 1.7 with the 300mm F4 on my D7000 often.
I picked up the 1.7 tele off of the buy/sell board here on FM for $250 and it was in like new shape.







Apr 25, 2015 at 06:19 PM
OwlsEyes
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #15 · p.1 #15 · Nikon 200-400mm VR-1 w/ 1.4x or 1.7 converter


@ John,
I definitely gave my lenses a full workout with and without converter. I used LensAlign to MFA and the results were so inconsistent that I moved back to -0- MFA on all four of my cameras (D700, D800E, D610 and D300). While I don't have a D4(s) or D3(s) and can not benefit from really high ISO shooting, I do have enough choice that I can shoot at ISO 1600 without much of a concern (all but D300... iso 400 is as far as I'll go there).

After calibrating my lens on each body, I found that -0- mfa gave me the most consistent results (saving -1 on the D700). My shots with the 1.7x were simply aweful, while the images with the 1.4x were fine. Maybe my issues are lens related (I shoot a VR1 not VR2 or I had a misaligned converter). Regardless of the reason, I returned the 1.7x.

As for the image posted by pokmanyz... while it is a nice photograph, I would not consider the shot terribly sharp.
Look at this post from images taken last Saturday and you'll see what I expect from my gear: https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1360998/0#12977291

regards,
bruce

Edited on Apr 26, 2015 at 11:42 AM · View previous versions



Apr 26, 2015 at 08:03 AM
davewolfs
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #16 · p.1 #16 · Nikon 200-400mm VR-1 w/ 1.4x or 1.7 converter


7D II + New 200-400 = awesome


Apr 26, 2015 at 08:10 AM
John Skinner
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #17 · p.1 #17 · Nikon 200-400mm VR-1 w/ 1.4x or 1.7 converter


So in saying that all the body combos you have -- none seem to have near stellar results with any of those bodies.. It's looking as though the lens itself might be a tad out of whack.

You have seen images on here produced by this lens (tele or not) that have not shown signs of this. So we'll just play the odds game here and apply Occam's Razor.



Apr 26, 2015 at 09:23 AM
Christian H
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #18 · p.1 #18 · Nikon 200-400mm VR-1 w/ 1.4x or 1.7 converter


With the 1.4 TC III, I find there is no perceptible loss of IQ. This image was shot at nearly 8 m, yet the old 12 mp sensor appears to pick up sufficient contrast and detail with this lens/converter combo.

D700, f/7.1, 1/2000, 550 mm, ISO 800

lesser scaup by Christian Hunold, on Flickr



Apr 26, 2015 at 10:57 AM
OwlsEyes
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #19 · p.1 #19 · Nikon 200-400mm VR-1 w/ 1.4x or 1.7 converter


John Skinner wrote:
So in saying that all the body combos you have -- none seem to have near stellar results with any of those bodies.. It's looking as though the lens itself might be a tad out of whack.

You have seen images on here produced by this lens (tele or not) that have not shown signs of this. So we'll just play the odds game here and apply Occam's Razor.


John,
I'm a fan of Occam's Razor... it's the evolutionary biologist in me , but I can assure you that my lens is plenty sharp. The images in my link were taken with a D300 and that's not the sharpest of my bodies. The D800E produces amazing pics with the lens w/out a converter. With the 1.4x, I managed to produce the two attached images with my D300. But as for the 1.7x that I was using... not so much. The pics posted in this thread were all made in contrasty light. This is evident by the blue skies and specular on water drops. But put that 1.7x on subdued overcast light and shoot without a flash and I'll bet you might have a different impression... at least I did.
cheers,
bruce














Apr 26, 2015 at 03:56 PM
Christian H
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #20 · p.1 #20 · Nikon 200-400mm VR-1 w/ 1.4x or 1.7 converter


That makes sense to me. The 200-400 is terrible on DX, even bare. I'm not surprised you're getting garbage with a converter, especially the old models that barely work to begin with. DX uses only a portion of the glass. Add a converter and you're shooting through a coke bottle, lol.


Apr 26, 2015 at 05:24 PM
1
       2       end




FM Forums | Nikon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

1
       2       end
    
 

You are not logged in. Login or Register

Username       Or Reset password



This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.