Even though we ARE Nikon lovers,we are NOT affiliated with Nikon Corp. in any way.

English German French

Sign up Login
Home Forums Articles Galleries Recent Photos Contest Help Search News Workshops Shop Upgrade Membership Recommended
members
All members Wiki Contests Vouchers Apps Newsletter THE NIKONIAN™ Magazines Podcasts Fundraising

Long lens decision

blw

Richmond, US
28713 posts

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to send message via AOL IM

"RE: Long lens decision"

blw Moderator Awarded for his high level of expertise in various areas Nikonian since 18th Jun 2004
Wed 26-Sep-12 09:34 AM

> Nothing wrong with Nikon D3 and D3s.

You can say that again (So has my CFO! LOL )

Seriously, WRT 400/f2.8 you're right, nothing wrong. However, for the focal-length starved, the D4/D800 offer superior capability in that they apparently do AF reliably with the TC-20eIII and f/4 lenses - meaning the 500/f4 and 600/f4. Particularly with the 600, that's a significant difference. Vic and I have tried several times to get the TC-20eIII to AF on our D3/D300 bodies with his 600/f4 and it just does not work well enough to even contemplate at a race. But with a D4/800, maybe that's now a reality. I know I could certainly have used the 1200/f8 combo a fair number of times.

> I ... still prefer the TC14E

From an outright IQ perspective, I agree. I have both the TC-14eII and TC-20eIII. But for my purposes - mainly motorsport or birding - the additional focal length greatly outweighs the marginal difference in IQ. Sure the 14 resolves more lpm - there is no question about that. On the other hand, as demonstrated above, the 20eIII is resolving eyelashes at 290 feet - is it really necessary to resolve the driver's retina patterns from only 225 feet? (Can I even get within 225 feet, even if I want to steal his retina patterns? )

> My TC20E isn't recommended.Its an earlier version.

More precisely you don't have the aspherical formulation. I agree: the earlier TC-20eI or 20eII are NOT recommended. The III is a LOT better, and especially so on the 400/f2.8. (Bear in mind that I have the 400/f2.8 AFS-II. The 400/f2.8 AFS VR-II is said to be both better in the first place and also better matched to the TC-20eIII.)

> Nikon isn't getting it right first time... I get tired of spending money on a product that isn't ready.

In their defense, 2x TCs have never been a great idea until the TC-20eIII, at least nothing that could be used in F mount. I guess the viability of manufacturing a TC with an aspheric element made all the difference - in an earlier age the 28/f1.4 AFD cost almost 10x the 28/f2.8, mostly due to a couple of hand-ground, super-expensive aspheric elements. I doubt many folks would have laid down $1000 in 1980 dollars for a hypothetical TC-301aspheric, even if it mated with the 400/f3.5 AIS very well.

> trade my TC17E and TC20E in?

I'd guess that if you sold them, you'd get enough between the two to mostly finance a TC-20eIII. Would you really use all three? I sure don't. I barely use the TC-14 - I don't even put it in the bag most of the time. (I usually use it with the 70-200.) I am pretty certain that I'd almost never use a TC-17e even if I had it.

_____
Brian... a bicoastal Nikonian and Team Member

My gallery is online. Comments and critique welcomed any time!

A topic tagged as having a question Long lens decision [View all] , jmascharka Silver Member , Tue 25-Sep-12 09:59 AM
Subject
ID
Reply message RE: Long lens decision
1
Reply message RE: Long lens decision
2
Reply message RE: Long lens decision
3
Reply message RE: Long lens decision
4
Reply message RE: Long lens decision
5
Reply message RE: Long lens decision
6
     Reply message RE: Long lens decision
7
          Reply message RE: Long lens decision
8
               Reply message RE: Long lens decision
9
               Reply message RE: Long lens decision
14
Reply message RE: Long lens decision
10
     Reply message RE: Long lens decision
11
Reply message RE: Long lens decision
12
Reply message RE: Long lens decision
13
Reply message RE: Long lens decision
15
Reply message RE: Long lens decision
16