which nikon TC? 1.4 or the 1.7?


Status
Not open for further replies.

erictan8888

Senior Member
Nov 9, 2004
2,883
1
0
Singapore
#1
hi,

i know this question has been discussed a lot of times already, and i have read all the old threads....

just that i am taking the plunge now and going to get one in next couple of days....

i am using the TC for the 70-200mm VR, so wondering which would be a more value buy.

understand that the1.4 preserves all the image sharpness of the lens while 1.7 might be just tat tab bit softer.... haven't really got a chance to see the difference in actual field shots from a lot of people....

can someone share their experience with either TC ?
i want the reach of the 1.7TC but the sharpness of the 1.4 ...
will i get whacked for typing something like tat :sweat:
hai, never the best of both worlds right? :cry:

pls advise... thanks
 

jeanie

Senior Member
May 19, 2005
4,466
0
0
#2
why isnt the 2.0x in your consideration?

image way too soft?

a good alternative is to wait for the 75-300 vr afs in december which cost less than 1k?:dunno:
 

erictan8888

Senior Member
Nov 9, 2004
2,883
1
0
Singapore
#3
hsve been reading and found only bad reviews for the 2.0
almost everyone is advising to stay away from the 2.0, so narrow my choice to between the 1.4 and the 1.7

not really considering the 70-300mm, cause alrady have the 70-200mm.
the bokeh of this lens is just superb, and i dun think the 70-300mm can hold a candle to it in the 70-200mm range.
so i want the versatility of plugging in the TC when i need taht extra reach.

you got any advice?
seems like you are on a buying spree lately....
 

jeanie

Senior Member
May 19, 2005
4,466
0
0
#4
hsve been reading and found only bad reviews for the 2.0
almost everyone is advising to stay away from the 2.0, so narrow my choice to between the 1.4 and the 1.7

not really considering the 70-300mm, cause alrady have the 70-200mm.
the bokeh of this lens is just superb, and i dun think the 70-300mm can hold a candle to it in the 70-200mm range.
so i want the versatility of plugging in the TC when i need taht extra reach.

you got any advice?
seems like you are on a buying spree lately....

i cant advice u as i myself didnt get the TC.
i will wait for the 75-300 and then see which is more worth it.
the tc is already 500+, if the 75-300 is about 800-900, then it's worth considering.but u are right aobut the bokeh.so i'll wait for ken to review the lens and decide.

buying spree?no.buy b4 7% GST?yes.
 

Mendis

New Member
Oct 9, 2004
1,042
0
0
45
Hougang
www.flickr.com
#6
From looking at my good friend's pictures, I will say the TC17E II makes a great combo with the 70-200f2.8 VR. Very sharp and full VR, AFS functionality.
 

Nov 14, 2004
125
0
16
#7
IMO,
current tech is such
1.4 for absolute quality priority (eg. 85mm 1.4 -> 120 ?)
1.7 for Zooms
2.0 for Primes

Primes have enough resolution power to withstand the image deterioration of the 2.0. Your tolerance may vary :)
 

jnet6

Senior Member
Apr 21, 2004
8,179
0
36
not here often anymore
#8
hi,

i know this question has been discussed a lot of times already, and i have read all the old threads....

just that i am taking the plunge now and going to get one in next couple of days....

i am using the TC for the 70-200mm VR, so wondering which would be a more value buy.

understand that the1.4 preserves all the image sharpness of the lens while 1.7 might be just tat tab bit softer.... haven't really got a chance to see the difference in actual field shots from a lot of people....

can someone share their experience with either TC ?
i want the reach of the 1.7TC but the sharpness of the 1.4 ...
will i get whacked for typing something like tat :sweat:
hai, never the best of both worlds right? :cry:

pls advise... thanks
May i know why do you want a teleconverter for in the first place???
to extend range right...
so nikon have 3 ranges for you to choose from, 1.4/1.7/2.0 .
As most people said 2.0 will give you 50% soft images in some situation, next 1 to consider is 1.7 .
As you are using with your telezoom lens 70-200 you do not have much restriction on zooming, so unless you are using primes (eg. 300mm/400mm/500mm/600mm) you can't zoom other then with your legs with tripod which is quite a heavy load.
 

erictan8888

Senior Member
Nov 9, 2004
2,883
1
0
Singapore
#9
As most people said 2.0 will give you 50% soft images in some situation, next 1 to consider is 1.7 .
As you are using with your telezoom lens 70-200 you do not have much restriction on zooming, so unless you are using primes (eg. 300mm/400mm/500mm/600mm) you can't zoom other then with your legs with tripod which is quite a heavy load.
so your view is that 1.7 is better ? :confused:
can share your views on the sharpness issue with 1.7 ?

thanks
 

jeanie

Senior Member
May 19, 2005
4,466
0
0
#10
ok, was feeling bored and need to clear leave.went ahead to buy the 1.7xtcII.

this pic shot at 340mm(after TC1.7).

IMHO, i really feel the sharpness has deterioted.but weather aint very good resulting in slow shutter speed.will do more test on sunny days.
NO PS at all other than adding border and resizing.
shot in jpeg not raw.

 

#11

erictan8888

Senior Member
Nov 9, 2004
2,883
1
0
Singapore
#12
ok, was feeling bored and need to clear leave.went ahead to buy the 1.7xtcII.

this pic shot at 340mm(after TC1.7).

IMHO, i really feel the sharpness has deterioted.

wow... you so fast buy liao ah......
i think you are right.... the pic is really very soft... xian :)
but what's the exif ? did you step down aperture a lot?
it was taken handheld?

might just buy the 1.4 then....
thanks for sharing....
 

erictan8888

Senior Member
Nov 9, 2004
2,883
1
0
Singapore
#13
I will say that with the 1.7TC it is still reasonably sharp
thanks for sharing....
hope you dun mind my opinions....
considering that the shot was taken at f5.6, should it have been sharper?
i was under the impression that with TC, if you step down one stop, it will be as sharp as without using tc.... that's what a couple of sites have recommended...


ps: btw saw in the nikon price list that you bought the SP AF 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di LD Aspherical (IF)
can share your opinion on this lens? cause i considering it too....
thanks again....
 

jeanie

Senior Member
May 19, 2005
4,466
0
0
#14
wow... you so fast buy liao ah......
i think you are right.... the pic is really very soft... xian :)
but what's the exif ? did you step down aperture a lot?
it was taken handheld?

might just buy the 1.4 then....
thanks for sharing....
weather was bad.in fact, it rained cats and dogs.was using my timberland jacket to cover my equipment.
then came home realised those pics in rain all sucked.

waited till rain passed, then shot the pics i posted.
super slow shutter speed.mostly 1/50 at f4.8(after putting the TC), ISO800.

i also invested in a GITZO monopod which cost me a damn bomb:cry:
but if i didnt had the monopod, i would have made an empty trip to the zoo.
my thread is here.
http://forums.clubsnap.org/showthread.php?t=238536
i reckon if it's super sunny, maybe the pic wont be that soft.that's what i was told.
will try again on super sunny days.
 

jeanie

Senior Member
May 19, 2005
4,466
0
0
#15
btw, IMHO,TC are just a 'budget' way of going long.

if you can afford it, nothing beats a REAL lens at 400mm.
i'm saving for the 200-400mm f4 nikkor.but at 9.5k, erm...:cry:

1.4x to me not here not there, it aint really long enough to extend anything IMHO.
 

#16
thanks for sharing....
hope you dun mind my opinions....
considering that the shot was taken at f5.6, should it have been sharper?
i was under the impression that with TC, if you step down one stop, it will be as sharp as without using tc.... that's what a couple of sites have recommended...


ps: btw saw in the nikon price list that you bought the SP AF 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di LD Aspherical (IF)
can share your opinion on this lens? cause i considering it too....
thanks again....
No problem. Not actually a stop.. half as with the 1.7TC, it should be around f/4.8.
Maybe could be due to my handshake also ? :dunno:
Yes I have the Tamron 28-75, but sold it away already, not that it is not good but just found that for that focus length, it is neither there or here. When I need the wider angle, I do not have it. So sold it and got the 18-70 instead for a better walkaround lens. The tamron 28-75 should be a good potrait lens but not a walkaround lens.
 

finn

New Member
Sep 3, 2005
84
0
0
43
Bukit Tima
#17
I had the Nikon TC 1.7 and rented the 1.4 ... and finally given up on TC for the 70-200Vr.
As I can't get what I normally get from the 70 200 hand held.
I'm Still thinking of getting the Nikon 200 400 F4 $$$$ ...but for now just move closer to the birds (which is free). Forget about using TC if you are looking for IQ and speed on the 70 200VR. :angel:

Those pics are taken with no TC hand held on bad lighting day.



 

kcuf2

Senior Member
Dec 29, 2005
1,777
1
0
KFC
#18
I had the Nikon TC 1.7 and rented the 1.4 ... and finally given up on TC for the 70-200Vr.
As I can't get what I normally get from the 70 200 hand held.
I'm Still thinking of getting the Nikon 200 400 F4 $$$$ ...but for now just move closer to the birds (which is free). Forget about using TC if you are looking for IQ and speed on the 70 200VR. :angel:

Those pics are taken with no TC hand held on bad lighting day.
The bird pics are taken with the 70-200vr alone without the teleconverter??

which camera body did u use to get such big sized birds?? i cant get such a big bird on a D70s with decent resolution with 70-200vr (no teleconverter)
 

finn

New Member
Sep 3, 2005
84
0
0
43
Bukit Tima
#19
Those are taken without TC with the D200 and 70 200VR. The original pics is much bigger.
 

jeanie

Senior Member
May 19, 2005
4,466
0
0
#20
holy holy!how the hell did u get so close to the birdies?:eek:
 

Status
Not open for further replies.