New Paperweight Sample

[benhasajeep]

First shot is reduced size from camera .jpg from D800. 400mm f/2.8 af-s lens with TC-e 1.7x ii converter. Lens is wide open at f/4.8 with the extender on. ISO 100 1/800 shutter. Very windy. Almost took the shade off as I could see the wind effecting the big sail that this lens is. Used a MC-30 remote release. This is a truck in neighbors yard probably 200' away from the camera.

Extreme crop from original .jpg from the camera. Nothing added. Just looked up wind at the airport (5 miles away). 13mph gusting to 22.

 

[tirediron]

I'd say that's liveable-with!

 

[Derrel]

I bet it's better without the 1.7x TC added to it!

 

[snowbear]

I've seen prettier welds. Nice lens, though.

 

[benhasajeep]

I bet it's better without the 1.7x TC added to it!

I took shots without the TC as well. I actually took pics with the 400, Sigma 150-500 at 400mm, and my 70-200 AF-s with and without the teleconverter.

It was amazing how much more the wind affected the 400 over the others.

 

[Derrel]

In heavy wind, I would imaghine that it feels like a bleach jug, with the end cut off, and 9 pounds of weight added, right?

 

[benhasajeep]

In heavy wind, I would imaghine that it feels like a bleach jug, with the end cut off, and 9 pounds of weight added, right?

14 pounds. Specs says 13.9 pounds. I read the new one with the FL elements is only 9 pounds. That's a huge change!

Also I had the QR plate in the middle hole on the handle. It was a little rear heavy with the camera / grip on it. I have AA's in the grip so it adds a bit of weight to the whole camera package.

 

[fmw]

Your crop is definitely soft. I would blame the TC. I have great faith in Nikon's high end lenses and it should be sharper than that.

 

[benhasajeep]

Your crop is definitely soft. I would blame the TC. I have great faith in Nikon's high end lenses and it should be sharper than that.

I found my BIG Manfrotto ball head (rated for 28#'s). Already switched over the plate to the RC4. I didn't have time to take it out today. But in the house the lens is much sturdier on the big ball head and larger plate.

I have not checked all the shots yet. But I did take pictures without the TC on. Also shot same scene with my 70-200 AF-s vr 2, with and without the same TC. Still have to go through and look at them. But would like to try again with the wind down and the sturdier head. Also have a sturdier tripod to be here on Tue.

 

[fmw]

I doubt you will get truly sharp results with a TC.

 

[benhasajeep]

I doubt you will get truly sharp results with a TC.

Actually 1.4x's have been very very good, I have a Kenko 1.5x that worked well with my 300 f/2.8. I have some MF and older AF-D 2x's that I rarely use just for that reason though. In some cases they are more than acceptable. But pixel peeping they do bring out the softness. The 1.7x is new and checking it as well. I was going to try it on the Sigma, just to see if I could get it to AF. But the design of the Sigma prevent it's mounting.

Also on the new to me 400. I may have to do some fine tuning of the AF. I was just playing around while I had a chance. Considering the lack of true effort I was putting in. I was actually quite happy even with the softness. It was more or less seeing if the 400 was working properly. Still have not tested if the focus lock buttons on the lens works or not.

 

[Derrel]

Perhaps some AF fine tuning could help overall performance. The crop you show above has what I call that "video-y look" to it...but it also appears from the lower, ojuter periphery of the overall image; perhaps the central core area is better, and the edges are a bit less-than-great.

Also...perhaps at f/3.5 or so on the maion lens, or f/4 perhaps, the converter will do better? On the 70-200 AF-S VR, people like raved about the TC14-e II and how well it did, but I felt that with the main lens wide-open, and f/2.8 being an effective f/4 that the corners of the frame area looked BAD, until a full f/stop down on the main lens (f/4 for effectively f/5.6), and that was on the D2x and 12.2MP APS-C.

Secondly: APS-C versus FX...the 400 + TC combo might be fine on APS-C's smaller, central-area-only image capture zone.

 

[benhasajeep]

Perhaps some AF fine tuning could help overall performance. The crop you show above has what I call that "video-y look" to it...but it also appears from the lower, ojuter periphery of the overall image; perhaps the central core area is better, and the edges are a bit less-than-great.

Also...perhaps at f/3.5 or so on the maion lens, or f/4 perhaps, the converter will do better? On the 70-200 AF-S VR, people like raved about the TC14-e II and how well it did, but I felt that with the main lens wide-open, and f/2.8 being an effective f/4 that the corners of the frame area looked BAD, until a full f/stop down on the main lens (f/4 for effectively f/5.6), and that was on the D2x and 12.2MP APS-C.

Secondly: APS-C versus FX...the 400 + TC combo might be fine on APS-C's smaller, central-area-only image capture zone.

Well I purposely used the lower center for the crop. And posted the wide open pictures. I took a whole series with 1 stop aperture changed through the whole range. I was using most center AF point. And that was on that same left rear edge of the dump truck but probably 1'-2' from the top. I had meant to try a crop body with the lens, and lens + TC but ran out of time.

I also read the reviews on the 1.4 and the 70-200vr's. I thought I could cheat a little and go with the 1.7. Until now didn't have a TC for the AF-s lenses.

 

[fmw]

I doubt you will get truly sharp results with a TC.

Actually 1.4x's have been very very good, I have a Kenko 1.5x that worked well with my 300 f/2.8. .

That involves defining "very very good." If "worked well" excuses softness then I agree. There are subjects for which some softness is desirable. These are not normally subjects one would address with a 400mm lens. It is a great lens. Shoot without the TC and crop the result. You will have better results. Try it. You will see.

 

[coastalconn]

I doubt you will get truly sharp results with a TC.

Actually 1.4x's have been very very good, I have a Kenko 1.5x that worked well with my 300 f/2.8. .

That involves defining "very very good." If "worked well" excuses softness then I agree. There are subjects for which some softness is desirable. These are not normally subjects one would address with a 400mm lens. It is a great lens. Shoot without the TC and crop the result. You will have better results. Try it. You will see.

Oh I don't know, my 300 F2.8 DII is pretty good with the 1.7x
Cormorant Portrait 7_3
I suspect the sample picture has more to do with heat haze from the looks of it to me..
Oh and my 300 very good with the 1.4x.. I would expect the 400 to be just as good...
Juvi Red Tail 7_6