I just shot my first serious event this past weekend with my 70-200 VR2 and the TC2iii.
Here is one pic of it in action. I did not notice any degradation of image quality, even wide open at f/5.6. Though I still stopped down some to f/7.1 for some shots as I had enough light. I love the combo.

The rest of the photos are in a gallery at my site.

scoobysmak said:
The DX crop shouldn't affect AF performance, its just a bonus if your looking for more reach. I do not expect zippy but just telling what I found, I just tried to help.

I had the same experience.

I'm not sure what the technical reasons are, but TC's do seem to perform a bit slower on DX than with FX. Not much though. I notice it, but it has to be a very fast moving object like birds, animals, etc. It could just be tracking an object at (w TC1.7 & 70-200mm -bright light- f8 @1/1000) 300 vs 510 is going to be more difficult at the 510 that DX creates with a TC1.7. The TC20 seemed much slower and that is why I choose the 1.7 as well.

I spoke to others that experienced that with DX as well but that was before the new AF motor/design in the D7000 which seems to be about the same as the D300/D700 (shared AF design) and much better than the D200, D5xxx series. I also thought the D700 was faster compared to the D300 even though they shared the same AF design.

Either way, I think there it says something more about the AF designs than the TCs performance or particular glass you attach it too.

connie64 said:
I was looking more for the "median" of the lens i guess

I have no idea what is meant by that statement.

Well I know that, but I was not worried about testing a TC. I was more worried about learning a new camera that I had not used before. The DX crop shouldn't affect AF performance, its just a bonus if your looking for more reach. I do not expect zippy but just telling what I found, I just tried to help.

So far the need for a TC-20 III has not come up again for me to test one out. If I ever do again I will test all aspects.

I will do a FF and DX test with the 70-200 and 400mm with both TC's along with some day and night testing on both. Both would have the same subject(s), one close and one distant, the only draw back is a possible sunrise/sunset shot may not have the exact same lighting if I am not fast enough changing out gear.

scoobysmak

you should have tested the lens combos on the same camera, for testing purposes.

both combinations on the D700 and then on the D7000 for camera test puroses and lens test.

test of the lenses on different cameras are not valid for lens evaluations.

also, on the D7000 a 400mm f2.8 X TC20 will give you 800mm @ 5.6 x 1.5 =1200mm @5.6

and you expect zippy AF performance?

Well my experince with the TC-17 is I have one, I rented the TC-20 III once.

This was not a fair test but here is my set up and results:

Camera 1: D700, TC-17II, 70-200mm VR2
Camera 2: D7000, TC-20III, 400mm VR (2)-I think this is the only 400mm with VR

The D700 locked on to the subject right away, the D7000 hunted for a moment. The cameras were less than 10 ft apart. This was done at the same time of day, aprox 8 am in June, location FL coast, extreme overcast.

I had not used either the D7000 or the 400mm before that point so a learning curve occurred. I have used the D7000 and the 400mm/TC-17 combo since then and still think the TC-20 III would hunt more than my TC-17 does in low light but with either I dont really see a difference in quality so long as you have good technique.

If I ever have the need to use the TC-20 III again I will test it a little better, but at the moment I was still learning other things so a TC wasn't my primary problem.

hmmm interesting thoughts... I was looking more for the "median" of the lens i guess

I do not have a TC-17 to compare and I try to avoid using the TC-20E III as much as possible but there are cases when 200 mm is just not enough and adding a 7 pound 200-400 mm to my already overweight setup is not an option. In those cases, being able to go 400 mm for a little weight and portability cost becomes a true savior and I rarely endup shooting at or below 340 mm, to the contrary, I often whish to be able to go beyond 400mm.

I also use the TC-20 a lot with the 105mm macro.

Another vote for the TC-20E III but if posible, for best IQ, stop down to f8

I have the TC-17E and love it. I used the older 2x I & II and I thought they worked well and never saw any issues and everyone seems to love the III.

The only thing with 1.7 and much more so with the 2.0 converters is when light drops and you are stopped down, AF starts to hunt and hand shake comes into play quickly. No big surprise, but many claim to have soft TCs when actually they are trying to handhold below 1/300 & 1/450 on DX and think every image will be sharp.

sevencrossing said:
I would start by getting a trial version of LR3 . . .

Yeah, I was just reading the other thread ("Alternative RAW Converters"), and LR3 seems to be pretty popular, and is likely the best end-to-end solution, requiring the use of other applications only infrequently. Also, apparently Capture One has upped their game in their current release, and has some notable features, according to other members here. Although LR3 provides an attractive end-to-end solution, for RAW conversion, I'm still wanting to go with either NX 2 for both its native Nikon color profile support and comprehensive Nikkor lens correction database, or DxO for its excellent perspective control. Then use the plug-in versions of both Noise Ninja (also available in stand-alone, and Aperture plug-in versions) and BlowUp 2 (only available as a Photoshop plug-in) for CS5, for final output files. Since I'm only processing selected files for Durst Lambda output and/or digital pre-press, this workflow shouldn't be too cumbersome.

So my revised list of new OS X software may be:

1. Nikon Capture NX 2
2. DxO Optics Pro
3. Noise Ninja plug-in for Photoshop
4. BlowUp 2 plug-in for Photoshop
5. Adobe CS5 Design Premium

I am in the same boat. Looking to find the right TC for my 70 - 200 VR2 2.8. I have a D90. The combo makes very sharp pics as is.

Thank You

I would start by getting a trial version of LR3
other than CS5 I have not used any of the other programs you mention
Once your presets and preferences are sorted in LR3, it combined with CS5 does the business for me

sevencrossing said:
search for "adobe lens profiler" this seems to be a data base of profiles created by other photographers but not yet "certified" by adobe
(I use it in LR3 not CS5)

Thanks. There are just so many options, I'm getting a bit overwhelmed. I would like to opt for NX 2, but I would also like to use DxO and Noise Ninja. Of course, I eventually need to buy an OS X version of CS5 to replace my aging Windows licenses, but damnit, I need the "Design Premium" suite, because I also need InDesign and Illustrator. So, this is all adding up to quite a bit of coin. I'm also not completely clear on my intended workflow, using multiple apps.

I almost forgot. I still need a cataloging application! Now where does this fit into my workflow? I'm currently using the previous version of Aperture, but I think Lightroom may have more powerful features.

So, I'm probably going to get the following:

1. DxO Optics Pro for its powerful perspective features.
2. Noise Ninja for its leading noise reduction algorithms.
3. Alien Skin's Blow Up 2 for making gallery-sized enlargements from my 12MP D3s files.
4. Either the new version of Aperture or Lightroom.
5. Adobe CS5 Design Premium.

However, I do like the fact that NX 2 already has the Nikon profiles (or whatever they're called) already built in, so your colors look "right" as soon as you first open the NEFs. Anyone here who owns NX 2 able to make any additional arguments for getting it? Also, some have commented that NX 2's noise reduction is superior to CS5's, so that may be another rwason to go Nikon. Can anyone comment on NX 2's noise reduction capability vs. Noise Ninja's?

i've been using TC-20E III for a while and can say that it's amazing. there's no IQ losswhich is really important.

studio460 said:
Old thread, I know, but it seemed the most appropriate place to post this:

...... What I found frustrating with CS5, was that none of the lens correction data seemed to be up to date.

search for "adobe lens profiler" this seems to be a data base of profiles created by other photographers but not yet "certified" by adobe
(I use it in LR3 not CS5)

@studio460: I guess Capture NX 2 was not included due to the fact that the tool is not a general purpose RAW converter, but one tailored to Nikon RAW files.
(If I'm not wrong).

Old thread, I know, but it seemed the most appropriate place to post this:

I just downloaded Nikon Capture NX 2 this evening, since my stupid CS5 trial period has finally ended (all of my Adobe licenses are for Windows machines, which I don't use anymore, since I switched to OS X). I really like many of NX 2's features. What I found frustrating with CS5, was that none of the lens correction data seemed to be up to date. For example, there was no preset for the AF Nikkor 14mm f/2.8. I know I can plug values in, but I'd rather everything just be there already. So I installed the OS X version Capture NX 2, and of course, all of the lens correction actions just "happened," without a hitch. This got me wondering . . . there must be other image applications out there beside NX 2 and CS5 that I'm not even aware of.

So I did a quick seach and found twinpixel's "RAW Deathmatch" article. Basically, a review of Lightroom, Bibble, Capture One, and DxO. All of the reviewed versions have been updated since the time of that writing, but I was very interested to learn of DxO Optics Pro's amazing perspective correction features. Okay, so I finally listened to you guys, and I'm starting to shoot RAW + JPG now. I just got two 16GB CF cards from B+H today, so I could shoot with both 16GB and 4GB CF cards in my D3s' dual card slots, for simultaneous RAW + JPG capture.

Anywho, I read the twinpixels' review, and it really was an eye-opener. Again, I really had no idea these types of programs even existed. Bibble scored high marks for noise reduction, but that's thanks to its integrated Noise Ninja plug-in, which I suppose I could buy separately (but then I would have to apply it in CS5, after RAW conversion?). Both LR and Bibble scored high marks for colorimetry as well. As I said, the lens correction and perspective control features in DxO really seemed worth the price of Optics Pro alone. But Capture NX 2 wasn't included in the review, and there seems to be some general thinking that software from Nikon, made for RAW conversion from files by cameras made by Nikon, has some benefits.

maybe I'll just rent one a TC 1.7 or 2.0 to try'em out before I plunk it down.

Was hoping a 'redo' of the TC 1.4 would've been out by now. . .

TC17 will make Your 70-200 effectively 119-340/4.8, and it wasn't redesigned for the new one, only the TC20III was

the TC 17 makes the 70-200 effectively what? 140-340 and a flat f/4.8?

I'm considering getting the TC17 as well. . .wasn't one of them recently re-designed for the 70-200 VR2?

I have both TC20II and TC17II on my 70-200 and both perform very well, although I prefer the TC17II as it offers better f-stop, or should I rather say - it's fully usable when You shot wide open with it. With TC20II You have to close at least one f-stop.

Bob, how is the auto focus at various apertures? I have been considering the tc20e-III also for my 70-200vr.

Yeah, that is kind of where I find myself to be...right between the two. I am kind of leaning more towards the 17...but who knows. :)

I just purchased the 20E III for my 70-200 and just love it.... no apparent IQ loss with the TC and the double focal lenght is terrific. My only sorrow is that it doesn't -ork with some of my other Nikon lenses but I did get it for the 70-200 and couldn't be happier....bob

Most people are more then happy with TC-17E, it seams to be the best balance between then gain, aperture loss and IQ.