TC-20E-II v's Kenko Pro 300 2x DG

[robboh]

Hi Guys,

My new-but-old 70-200VR should be arriving tomorrow (Happy Birthday to Me! Yes, sad I know, but its my birthday pressie to myself; well, its a good excuse)

Anyway, I currently have a Tamron MC-7 for my 80-200, which is AF-D only, so I will be in the market for a new TC, Just after some thoughts from you guys on TC options.

Now, I know that the TC-17E-II gets some rave reviews around here and I will probably get one in the future, possibly in preference to the 14E??

I often find that I dont have the quite the reach I want at the zoo with the 2x, let alone losing the 90mm (effective) I would by going with the 1.7x. Therefore, has anyone done any head-to-head comparisions between the latest Kenko 2x DG and the Nikon TC-20E-II??

Hope someone can help.

Cheers
Rob.

[Glen]

Rob, don't know of a comparison between those TC's, but most reviews of the Nikon's rate them: 1.4 almost indistiguishable from no TC, 1.7 slight degredation and 2X noticable degredation if that helps. Maybe a better quality shot on a tripod or monopod blown up maybe better than a poor image?

[Glen]

 PS Congrats on the new lens, I am sure you will love it

[robboh]

Rob, don't know of a comparison between those TC's, but most reviews of the Nikon's rate them: 1.4 almost indistiguishable from no TC, 1.7 slight degredation and 2X noticable degredation if that helps. Maybe a better quality shot on a tripod or monopod blown up maybe better than a poor image?

Glen, thanks for the comment. I meant to ask about that option (1.7 + cropping v's 2x + less cropping) in my post, but forgot

I might do a couple of quick tests on my current lens tonight to see just how much difference there is between 340mm and 400mm. I often seem to be cropping a good 1/4 of the long side with the 2x as it is

[Glen]

Rob, rather than have an item I was hesitant to use (the 2X) I chose to get the 1.7 which is a handy compromise, then got at a later date a 300 f4 to use with it giving 510mm at F6.8. Might be a way to go rather than buying something which you may hesitate to use in important situations.


Rob, you can see how my post count got up, using three posts instead of one!

[MCWB]

I have the same TC as Glen (TC17E-II), for the same reasons. I'd like the extra reach of the Nikkor 20 too, but it seems this comes at a cost of significant optical quality. If you need 400 mm effective, it seems that you're better off cropping the 200 mm + 1.7X image rather than going with the 200 mm + 2.0X. I don't know about the kenko though; I haven't read anything about it.

[birddog114]

The Nikon TC 2.0 or Tamron 2x on the 70-200VR is not a good ideal.
I have 3 TCs: 1.4/ 1.7/ 2.0. The first two are the good combination with the 70-200VR.
The TC2.0 will bring you lack of sharpness and suffering with clarity.

[kipper]

Ditto. I love my 70-200VR + TC1.7 combo. Worked really well at the F1GP capturing cars, bikes and the odd plane that flew over. However the extra 60MM that the 2x gives you over loss in quality isn't worth it. You're probably looking at 100% fill of frame to 80-90% fill in frame (rough stab). So you're better off cropping imho. If you really need to get that much extra reach, then you're going to have to buy a bigger lens. Which I'm planning on investing in at some time in the future - 500MM F/4 AF-S or something like that (hopefully by Nov).

Having said that, I've seen Canon 300MM F/2.8 IS used with a 2x TC and the shots come up pretty sweet.

[robboh]

Heya Guys,

Thanks for all the comments!! Appreciated!!
Definitely sounds like there should be a 1.7x in my future as opposed to the 2.0x
Birdy, will drop you a PM at some stage soon about the possibility of getting a 1.7x for me. Thats gonna have to be a 'next month' deal though I think. I can swing a Kenko this month, but the Nikon TC's are more than twice the price of the Kenko's
Maybe I should pick up a Kenko 1.4x as a stop-gap measure?

Cheers
Rob

[birddog114]

I'm sure you'll be very pleased with the TC1.7 + 70-200VR and some other AF-S lenses after.
It works well with the 300/AF-S/ f.4 if you want more reach.

[GreyBeard]

My silly question for today: What focal length data is recorded by the camera when using these converters?

[kipper]

Yep the TC1.7IIE worked quite well with Arthurs 300 F/4

[fozzie]

robboh/Rob,

I have the Nikon 70-200VR and also the AF-S 300mm f/4 with the TC-17EII. This is a great combination and I am with it.

[sirhc55]

Taken today with the Sigma 70-200 plus 2x Sigma teleconverter. I am yet to understand how I got the reflection of the girl ahead of herself.

Handheld - shutter priority 1/1000 sec @ f/16 focal length 210mm at a distance to subject of approx 20 metres. Iso 400.

PP - straighten image and some USM (0.6/183)

[trebs]

on the TC theme..
I just bought a used 80-200ED and I'm wondering what TC's I can use and that will maintain full AF and metering. I see Robboh has a Tamron MC-7, does this offer full lens function?

and.. if anyone's selling and the Euro/$aus rate isn't too barmey... I could be interested.

Cheers, Rob.

[robboh]

Chirs, thats a very nice pic. And yes, I agree, how on earth did you manage to catch her reflection

Trebs. MC-7 works fine, but Id go for a Kenko Pro 300 DG if you can get hold of one. I was happy-ish with the MC-7, but I reckon that the kenko would have been better. I just couldnt get my hands on one in NZ. Plus if you get a new one, it will work with AF/S when you upgrade

[robboh]

robboh/Rob,

I have the Nikon 70-200VR and also the AF-S 300mm f/4 with the TC-17EII. This is a great combination and I am with it.

Fozzie. Thanks for the comments. Im trying to avoid buying ANOTHER lens at the moment if I can at all avoid it...

[robboh]

Trebs. The MC-7 works fine, but doesnt do the sexy stuff like the 70-200VR does with the new TCs, like showing actual focal length/aperture. It just shows the original lens aperture/focal length.

[trebs]

thanks chaps,
I've put out my feelers for a Kenko pro300.

[trebs]

kenko pro300 located and bought.
Nice tool.