Best teleconverter for 70-200 f/4 VR?

nerwin · Feb 10, 2017

I'm going to be buying the 70-200 f/4 VR soon and I'm interested in getting a teleconverter for it when I need the extra zoom but I don't want to hinder the len's awesome sharpness and image quality.

From most reviews people say to avoid 2x TC because that produces the worst image quality, but does make the lens 400mm at f/8.

The second best was the 1.7x TC which would make it a fixed f/6.8 (or is 6.3?) and 340mm which would be fine with me since I shoot around f/8 or smaller at that focal length when shooting birds or small animals. But people have mixed reviews about the image quality, some say it retains the lens beauty and others say it diminishes it.

Now the best one and the one that more people often than not said the 1.4x barely made any difference in image quality. That would be give me a fixed f/5.6 and 280mm. I don't think I'd see a HUGE difference with losing 20mm at the long end.

So I was curious if anyone here had any experiences when using any of these teleconverters mentioned here on the 70-200 f/4 or even a 70-200 2.8 would be kind enough to share their experience and opinions on which would most likely give me the best results?

If I remember correctly, teleconverters do not affect the len's minimum focus distance correct?

Overread · Feb 10, 2017

I would also not recommend a 2*TC on an f4 lens.
In general once the aperture on a lens gets smaller than f5.6 the accuracy of most typical AF systems drops off very fast. The live-view system can sometimes keep up for longer because the sensors are different and get more light (with the viewfinder remember that only part of the light goes to the AF sensors, the rest is being sent up to the mirrorbox to show you the view).

Canon even fixes this problem by disabling af once the lenses is detected to have a maximum aperture smaller than f5.6* (unless its in liveview mode where the limit is smaller) Although some of their newer cameras and their 1D line allow AF up to f8.

That and the image quality hit is noticeable; so its less reliable and less advantageous. It's more practical on the newer f2.8 versions of those 70-200mm lenses.

A 1.4TC is great, hardly any image quality hit and only a modest loss of one stop of aperture. It would certainly be worth it. I've used a 1.4TC on my 70-200mm without any problems. A 1.7 might also be worth considering, but I'll let nikon people weigh in on that one as canon doesn't make a 1.7

astroNikon · Feb 10, 2017

Your Nikon D610, as a bunch of other better Nikons support f/8 AF. I believe Nikon d7100 and newer all support f/8.

But the amount of light becomes more critical as the aperture size is smaller.

You'll also have to refer to your lens manufacturer specifications on TCs and probably would have to get their TC.

bottom of page 287 in the nikon d600 manual

.

I use a 2xTC but on manual lenses .. so it doesn't count.

nerwin · Feb 10, 2017

I don't think I'll get the 2x TC anyways.

I'm just having a hard time deciding between the 1.4x and 1.7x TCs. It honestly sounds like the 1.7x would be more beneficial since it gives me 340mm reach and still retains good autofocus with all focus points and good sharpness. But I'm going to take it there will be some hit to the image quality whereas the 1.4x would probably have little to no impact on the image quality.

Is that extra 60mm worth it over the 1.4x? Or would I just be happy with the 1.4x with maximum reach of 280mm? I don't know!

kap55 · Feb 10, 2017

Just curious - do you think the 70-200 with a 1.4 TC will give you noticeably better IQ than the 70-300 you are currently selling? I know the 70-200 is a very sharp lens but the 70-300 is also very sharp out to 200 mm (and is not that bad from 200 to 300 mm). Also, once you add a TC the 70-200 isn't any faster than the 70-300.

nerwin · Feb 10, 2017

kap55 said:
Just curious - do you think the 70-200 with a 1.4 TC will give you noticeably better IQ than the 70-300 you are currently selling? I know the 70-200 is a very sharp lens but the 70-300 is also very sharp out to 200 mm (and is not that bad from 200 to 300 mm). Also, once you add a TC the 70-200 isn't any faster than the 70-300.

I've done a lot of research and my 70-300 VR is nowhere near as sharp as the 70-200 f/4. Also, the autofocus sluggish, hunts and tired of the purple fringe, chromatic aberration and the 5 feet minimum focus distance. Also haven't been happy with the lens rendering or colors and lack of contrast. The image quality from the 70-200 f/4 + 1.4x TC will totally be better than the 70-300 VR, at least for me.

astroNikon · Feb 10, 2017

Could just also crop some more if your intent is the 1.4xTC
There's articles out there about 1.4TC versus just cropping more.

I agree about the 70-300VR. I had that lens luckily not for long. It didn't fit into what I was trying to use it for. FYI, You can reduce the purple fringe by using a faster shutter speed.

nerwin · Feb 10, 2017

astroNikon said:
Could just also crop some more if your intent is the 1.4xTC
There's articles out there about 1.4TC versus just cropping more.

I agree about the 70-300VR. I had that lens luckily not for long. It didn't fit into what I was trying to use it for. FYI, You can reduce the purple fringe by using a faster shutter speed.

Even then, its still present. After using good glass as of late, I can tell the differences now and the 70-300 VR just isn't cutting it for me anymore.

The 70-200 2.8 is nice and all, but its big and heavy and just not something I need or can afford. Also the minimal focus distance is really good on the 70-200 f/4, I think its one of the closest focusing 70-200 lenses out there and that 5 stops of VR is incredible.

kap55 · Feb 10, 2017

That's a completely different description of the 70-300 than in your Buy&Sell posting for the lens, where you say that it is a sharp copy that focuses pretty quickly on your 610.

Gary A. · Feb 10, 2017

I've had great luck with the 1.4x on a 70-200 F/2.8. No noticeable degradation in IQ or AF on a 1D.

nerwin · Feb 10, 2017

kap55 said:
That's a completely different description of the 70-300 than in your Buy&Sell posting for the lens, where you say that it is a sharp copy that focuses pretty quickly on your 610.

It is, for that lens. Not comparable to the performance 70-200 f4.

There isn't anything wrong with my 70-300...

nerwin · Feb 10, 2017

I would like to clear something up.

There is nothing wrong with my 70-300 VR, it is a swell lens. I was even hesitant on selling it because it's such a decent copy. The performance to price ratio of the 70-300 VR is very good. But it is nowhere near the quality you get from a 70-200 2.8 or f/4. I never said the 70-300 VR was a bad lens, its great for what it is but is no 70-200 2.8/4

Secondly, I created this post to ask about teleconverters and not to discuss my decision to get the 70-200 f/4 VR.

greybeard · Feb 11, 2017

I have the 70-300 and like DxO says, it is descent 70-200 and so so from 200-300. The 70-200 f/4 is about as good as it gets for a zoom lens. It is sharp at all apertures and focal lengths. A TC 1.4 will give you an effective focal length of 280 and f/5.6. That would be your best option IQ wise if you can live with the modest increase in focal length.

nerwin · Feb 11, 2017

Do TC's affect auto focus speed/accuracy? Or is that mostly untouched?

greybeard · Feb 11, 2017

nerwin said:
Do TC's affect auto focus speed/accuracy? Or is that mostly untouched?

They can because of the light loss. With a 1.4 you only give up 1 stop so the loss is minimal. Here is a chart of converters and lenses and their compatibility.

https://www.nikonusa.com/Assets/Common-Assets/Images/Teleconverter-Compatibility/EN_Comp_chart.html