arbitrage wrote:
Now I've gone and borrowed a Nikon 2xTC II (not the III) and tried it out today on the 300PF....
These are much better than I would have expected!
I am guessing that your relative proximity to the subjects allowed you to maximize the capabilities of the combination. I would be curious to hear about your perception of the combination if your subjects were 30 to 50 meters away. I think that the TC's really have a negative impact when you are trying to close the gap between you and a distant objects.
OwlsEyes wrote:
These are much better than I would have expected!
I am guessing that your relative proximity to the subjects allowed you to maximize the capabilities of the combination. I would be curious to hear about your perception of the combination if your subjects were 30 to 50 meters away. I think that the TC's really have a negative impact when you are trying to close the gap between you and a distant objects.
bruce
Yes, you are correct that these were fairly close to the subjects. The biggest mistake people make (myself included) is using 2xTCs to reach out to distant subjects. I prefer to reach out to get to a frame filling shot. These shots are still cropped but they were within reasonable distances to subject like 20-30 ft or so. I'm not sold yet on this 2xTC. I think a 1.4 or 1.7 shot might be just as good even with extra cropping. I plan to do a bit more experimenting with it. The guy I'm borrowing from is willing to sell it fairly cheap if I find any use for it. I was impressed though that the image wasn't just falling apart like other people say it does with the 2xTC.
arbitrage wrote:
Yes, you are correct that these were fairly close to the subjects. The biggest mistake people make (myself included) is using 2xTCs to reach out to distant subjects. I prefer to reach out to get to a frame filling shot. These shots are still cropped but they were within reasonable distances to subject like 20-30 ft or so. I'm not sold yet on this 2xTC. I think a 1.4 or 1.7 shot might be just as good even with extra cropping. I plan to do a bit more experimenting with it. The guy I'm borrowing from is willing to sell it fairly cheap if I find any use for it. I was impressed though that the image wasn't just falling apart like other people say it does with the 2xTC....Show more →
I have struggled to like (let alone love) converters.. Having moved from Nikon to Canon in 2004 bc Nikon could not get beyond the 6MP D100/D1x, I got into Canon w/ a 300mm f/2.8 w/ 1.4x & 2x converters. The lens alone was brilliant, but the converter always seemed to obliterate the bokeh and crush the contrast. In 2014 I moved back to Nikon and purchased the 200-400VR because I found that I needed 400mm more than 300mm. My lens has equal image quality to my former 300mm f/2,8 + 1.4x at 400mm, but much better bokeh. Since going this route, I did buy the Nikon 300mm f/2.8 and used it for a year w/ my zoom... I added a TC14eII because "everyone" said it was better than my lens at 420mm... The reality of this statement is subjective... thus, I have learned the following about converters of all stripes:
1. In good light a converter can produce a brilliant contrasty image that matches the lens without a converter.
2. When shooting a subject that is relatively close (20M), where the lens + converter causes the subject to fill a large proportion of the frame, a converter can be a useful tool.
3. When the light is poor and lacks contrast, keep the converter in your bag.
4. Do not use a converter to take photos of poorly lit distant subjects... you just end up with mush.
For the record... w my current ownership of a 300mm pf, 200-400VR, and 200-500VR, I have sold my converters and prefer to crop my D500 to a 14-15MP file. I have preferred the output of a crop to that of a 20MP file with the converter... but that is my preference.
Those samples appear somewhat smeared/mushy in the details to my eyes.
(Geoff's posts w/o TC's are usually stupid sharp) Tho I have better ways to
500mm (200-500/500 f4) I'll be giving the 1.7 a try with the 300 PF...but the
2.0 is a no go for me. I only use it with the 200 f2 where it's a brilliant 400 f4.
trenchmonkey wrote:
Those samples appear somewhat smeared/mushy in the details to my eyes.
(Geoff's posts w/o TC's are usually stupid sharp) Tho I have better ways to
500mm (200-500/500 f4) I'll be giving the 1.7 a try with the 300 PF...but the
2.0 is a no go for me. I only use it with the 200 f2 where it's a brilliant 400 f4.
The 1.7 really impressed me. I was hoping my friend would sell me the copy I borrowed because it seemed to work so well with my copy of the 300PF even wide open. I will be looking for a 1.7 to purchase soon. I will test this 2x a little bit more but the thing is even though these images I posted are fairly sharp, I had many shots in a burst that were soft. AF takes a bit hit I think and consistency is very low with the 2xTC. I'm used to sharp shot after sharp shot with my lenses on the D500. This combo took a significant hit in consistency.
The Monkey is quite accurate. The 2.0 works quite well with the 200/2.8 but is a non-starter with the 300/4 or, for that matter, with any lens greater than 2.8. Either the 1.4 or the 1.7 is typically attached to my 300/4 since the time that lens was introduced several years ago.
ariel777 wrote:
The Monkey is quite accurate. The 2.0 works quite well with the 200/2.8 but is a non-starter with the 300/4 or, for that matter, with any lens greater than 2.8. Either the 1.4 or the 1.7 is typically attached to my 300/4 since the time that lens was introduced several years ago.
I think my posting of the herons and grosbeaks earlier show that the 2.0 is not a "non-starter" on the 300/4. I still have issues with the AF consistency with that combo and I'm still evaluating it but IQ wise it holds up fairly well when it does focus properly. If you go to my Flickr page (link below my user avatar) you can see those 600mm images at much better quality than the usual FM degradation.
technic wrote:
In many of your shots with the 300mmPF and 2xTC I see what looks like a lack of contrast, as if there is a thin grayish veil over the picture. They are sharp but most 1.4x and 1.7x TC shots look much better, crisper to me. I can imagine it is difficult to decide, I have compared my own moon shots with 100-400mm and one 1.4xTC or two stacked TC's and although the two TC's provide more detail I'm not sure those shots are 'better'.
Anyway, these are still nice shots and extremely impressive to get 600mm reach from such a small/light package ...Show more →
Yes, lack of contrast, especially micro contrast between each feather is what stands out to me when I view the RAW files. Sharpness is good but microcontrast affects that sharpness. The other issue is AF consistency is lower and in a burst I am down to 7D2 levels sometimes...of course the 7D2 got those results with $10K f/4 primes so this ain't all that bad for a $3K lens and a old version of the 2xTC
I've bought a used 1.7x off the B&S (its in the mail). My friend only wants $100 CDN for the 2x so I might just get it anyways at that price (~$70USD).
