3rd party ones may fit, and sort-of work. My experience is that using TCs on variable zooms, although technically work, image quality suffers greatly. These lenses are not designed to TCs nor are TC designed for use with them. TC are designed for use on pro primes or 2.8 zooms.

the lens will be delivered tomorrow , i'll see .thank you for your reply

Your instruction book does not list any compatibility chart for this lens, so I cannot say. But Tamron makes a TC 1.4 which will be marginal in its use as the f/stop is going to be quite small.

is any TC (sigma, nikon, keno...) compatible with my new tamron 70-300 f4-5.6 ? thank you

I think these are looking okay, at least for my purpose. My intention for this post initially is that I am going to India and spending some time in the Western Ghats. Most of the wildlife I will be photographing will be fairly slow. And if they are moving fast, hopefully it will not be towards me:-).

Given the results and that my trip is only 5 weeks away, I will most likely buy the 1.7II now and possibly upgrade to the III later.

Jim

TaoTeJared said:
Have you noticed the change in Bokeh? It's got an extra little swirly in there - you have to up the contrast & structure to see it though. :)

Quick Lens Testing 101: 1. Never go above native ISO of the camera using. 2. Shoot RAW for yourself, Jpeg for others (posted images can not show the difference anyway). 3. Shoot full stops (2.8, 4, 5.6,etc).

.....so I'm not sure if I will have anything that would be of technical help.

Thanks, Tao... maybe someday I will learn this digital stuff...

Of note...something of questionable technical help, but interesting... in the 60's a 300mm f/4.5 Nikkor w' Soligor 3X tele-extender... well the best one could call it would be "artsy" So absolutely fuzzy... but 900mm on full frame film.... a rarity in those days. Even the 300mm was not an everyday lens. Handheld, hand focused, hand cranked. 2 FPS was about the best I could do...I think the motor drive was almost the price of another body.

Oh well..

Have you noticed the change in Bokeh? It's got an extra little swirly in there - you have to up the contrast & structure to see it though. :)

Quick Lens Testing 101: 1. Never go above native ISO of the camera using. 2. Shoot RAW for yourself, Jpeg for others (posted images can not show the difference anyway). 3. Shoot full stops (2.8, 4, 5.6,etc).

I'm working on some Sandhill Crane shots I did last week. I had my 70-200 V1 with the TC-1.7 - I'll see what I can find. I had a Tokina 300mm 2.8 with a Kenko 2x as well. Might be interesting to see the difference between Nikon and that one. It was a really bad day for shooting them and they were really finicky due to a storm front moving in, so I'm not sure if I will have anything that would be of technical help.

So this is the way it all works out... the TC14-EII is sharp, no issues. I did not even show the images as they are sharper than the TC20-EIII. And the TC20-EIII on the 70-200mm f/2.8 VRII Nikkor is what is on Flicker.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/fantinesfotos/

If you go to the photo stream you will see these and by clicking on the image, it should allow a full size image of one... and edge shots of the other f/stops I shot at. Data is included.

Conclusion: F/45 is not so great. Certainly acceptable in a situation (unknown to me) where you may want to shoot at f/45, but I do not like the images. Wide open (f/5,6) to f/22 is quite acceptable. The only images onFlicker are the edges of the photos other than the f/11 full frame which you can look at and wander all over.

If you have questions you may asks here or PM me.

UPDATE.....Or, what I am learning about lens testing...shooting at 1/1000th on a tripod, f/45 with the 70-200 plus 2X teleconverter.... requires an ISO of 12000+

So, the first round of tests I am going to throw out and repeat with varying the shutter speed and using ISO 800 or less. The noise at 12,800 interferes with the resolution at cropping from full size down to only about 800 x 800 pixel piece of the image. That is about 4% of the full size image area. So, I will attempt some more testing, bagging the camera and tripod.

My first conclusion is, however, that at f/45 on the 70-200 and 2x teleconverter, the image is unacceptable. Yet at f/11 the results are very good at f/5.6 wide open just as good.

So, I will attempt another test this afternoon, using the VR in Active and Off so as to obtain the best results. Hopefully, some results will be forthcoming which are acceptable to me.

Another note: The 80-400mm f/4.5-5.6 is not acceptable with either the TC-14EII or TC-20EIII as it appears the rear lens element would crash into the teleconverter element a DISASTER.

I would be interested in a test and the results.

As this is about the non-existent AF-S Teleconverter TC-17EIII, would there be any benefit in seeing the TC-14EII and the TC-20EIII compared on a 70-200mm f/2.8 VR II NIKKOR? Let's say at f/2.8 and at f/8.0 shooting everything at about fifty feet, and 1/1000 sec or faster.

A "real world test" is what I call this. It would be static as moving object tests require extensive test beds to be reliable. So, if this could be helpful for the decision process of "waiting" for a new TC-17EIII, I can certainly do this and post the links to 8MB images on Flicker.

This may be a new thread but it seems to relate to the question of how the current ones I own work. Unfortunately I do not believe I have a lens which is slower which could check out the "f/8" focusing ability of the D4. Unless, the 80-400mm f/4.5-5.6 will now work with the D4 and the TC-14EII?.....mmmm and if it works with the new D400......MMMM.....

But I may getting off topic. So, let me know about the question of a test and maybe it will be a new thread....Tao?

Oh by the way, I had 15 min of solid light left when I got home today do I went ahead and did a quick experiment with my V1 and the 70-200.

Looks plenty sharp to me:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/8980397@N05/7052376909/

TaoTeJared said:
Yep that is what they are talking about. The D4 & D800 can AF to F8. So that is a 200-400VR, 500mm, 600mm with a 2x TC on it. I'm sure it is not fast, but something is better than nothing.

I suspect the advantage in the D4, D800 being able to autofocus at f/8.0 is that at larger openings,i.e., f/5.6, the AF will be faster. And thus much more effective when shooting oncoming vehicles... like cars and bikes at 60-100 mph (100-160 kph). So, back to the question of the 1.7 X (waiting for the updated Version) or going with the 2 X (already a Version III).

As best I can remember, my AF-S TELECONVERTER TC-14EII 1.4X is better with the 70-200mm f/2.8 VR II Nikkor than the AF-S TELECONVERTER TC-20EIII 2X ASPHERICAL. But, not by much. So, maybe the 1.7x will be great as well.

I have the 1.4 and 2. Happy. If you are a worrier... get the 1.7X and you will be happy.

Willis said:
Tao - I've seen reports that the D800 can AF at f8 or better and it always confused me. Is that what they are talking about?

Yep that is what they are talking about. The D4 & D800 can AF to F8. So that is a 200-400VR, 500mm, 600mm with a 2x TC on it. I'm sure it is not fast, but something is better than nothing.

Of course there is a third option. The Nikon V1 (or J1) which would get you a 2.7X increase w/o any loss of aperture. I haven't stuck my 70-200 on the V1 yet, so I have no idea if its possible to get sharp images with it, but it is an option. Probably will take a good tripod though.

Tao - I've seen reports that the D800 can AF at f8 or better and it always confused me. Is that what they are talking about?

fjcvisual said:
That is good to hear. I have heard mixed reports with the tele causing the AF to hunt more than necessary. But could have also been that pair.

Using Teles on 2.8 lenses the AF is for the most part fine. People will try to put them on the variable zooms (i.e. 70-300vr) and they don't work worth a darn on those unless it is really bright out. Basically, the AF works off of the lens wide open (as the lens stops down, just before exposure) and you need at least 5.6 or better for AF to work well. The brighter the better obviously.
2.8 + 1.7TC = F4.7ish = good
2.8 + 2.0TC = F5.6 = good
5.6 + 2x = F11 = bad

TaoTeJared said:
Are you saying Shipping or a newly designed one?

I have not heard of anything in the works on a New 1.7.

I have the 70-200vr + 1.7 combo (on a D300) and I find it works great! Of course it varies on where you are using it. If you are wanting AF in a back ally at 3am - it won't be so hot but for normal shooting it is fast. The key is, if for some reason it is not fast enough, just take it off and plan on cropping. In mid-daylight situations, it looses almost zero of it's speed.

That is good to hear. I have heard mixed reports with the tele causing the AF to hunt more than necessary. But could have also been that pair.

sevencrossing said:
According to the Nikon rep at Focus on Imaging they are "on the way" ( but then so is my D800)

Are you saying Shipping or a newly designed one?

I have not heard of anything in the works on a New 1.7.

I have the 70-200vr + 1.7 combo (on a D300) and I find it works great! Of course it varies on where you are using it. If you are wanting AF in a back ally at 3am - it won't be so hot but for normal shooting it is fast. The key is, if for some reason it is not fast enough, just take it off and plan on cropping. In mid-daylight situations, it looses almost zero of it's speed.

sevencrossing said:

If are concerned about focusing in low light the 200-400 f 4 is the answerer, look at Andy Rouse's work with this lens

Or, the 300mm f/2.8 with the 1.4X... 420mm, f/4.0. Much easier to use than the 200mm-400mm I would guess the combo is about 10 oz lighter and 3" shorter. (283 gm 7.6 cm)

But the 70-200mm VR II is really nice with the 1.4x or 2.0x. And much less expensive. NIKON rarely screws up in this computer designed lens era we are in now. My guess would be the 1.7 x would be a winner. As with most of these toys, you have to buy them to find out if you get a good one.

Yea, I am sure that would be the best solution, but I don't have $7k :-(

According to the Nikon rep at Focus on Imaging they are "on the way" ( but then so is my D800)

I use the x2 type III on a 70-200 2.8 with a D700 and it is OK , but you need to stop down to f8

If are concerned about focusing in low light the 200-400 f 4 is the answerer, look at Andy Rouse's work with this lens

Now that Nikon has a version III with the 2.0 teleconverter I wonder if they will do the same with the 1.7. I just purchased the 70-200 2.8 vrII for my D300s and want to extend the reach. I worry that even the new version of the 2.0 will cause AF problems and take away too much low light capability. For that reason, I think I prefer the 1.7 but would wait if we think a version III will come along any time soon.

What say you all?

Jim

Peppermint, there's no need for this to be complicated. Since you already have an 80-200 that you like and have a budget of $500, look at the Nikon teleconverters. If the idea of lighter weight intrigues you, try the 70-300mm first.

Most stores have 30 day return policies, so buy from one of them and find out which works for you.

I think you'd love the 70-300mm VR on your D700. I used to have one and thought it was a great lens. Despite the lack of 2.8, I always felt the 70-300 was faster than the 80-200! Seriously, but obviously not as fast as the 70-200 lenses. Maybe I had a great sample? It is super light, sharp, a good price, and the VR is really wonderful. I used to have a 70-200mm VR 1 but gave it up for the weight, and eventually traded in my 70-300 for the new 28-300mm VR. For some reason the D700 and the 70-300mm are one of those magical combinations. Some lenses really work well together giving excellent results go get one!

80-200 with TC gives you effectively two lenses, one with f2.8 and one longer reach that is a little slower depending on which TC you use.