About 2 months ago I ordered the newest teleconverter and it arrived today. I tried it with the 70-200 VRII and it seems to work very well, expanding the range to 400mm with a limitation of f/5.6. My question is that there is a distinct rattle to the optic which seems to relate to a moving pin in the side which attaches to the lens. It makes no noise when attached, but even with the covers on and in its nice little bag, it really rattles -- is this normal? There is very little instruction in the manual, but I believe that this pin limits the opening of the aperture to 2 stops less than normal. If anyone else has the TC-20E III it would be nice to know if yours also makes noise when you shake it.
TC-20E III
(21 posts) (14 voices)-
Posted 2 years ago #
-
It does.
Posted 2 years ago # -
thanks, that makes me feel better, i thought maybe it was too loose.
Posted 2 years ago # -
Mine does too, looks like its built like this.
Posted 2 years ago # -
Would you guys/Gals re-purchase the TC-20E II again if given the chance?
I am looking to purchase this for my 70-200 instead of buying a 400 lens.
Other than losing 2 stops,...any other issues or concerns?
I am looking to shoot pics of fast moving soccer. Thx.
Posted 1 year ago # -
I use the TC-20E III on my 70-200 it needs stopping down an extra stop to f8 to make it reasonably sharp
I use it on a tripod with a gimbal mount with a D700.
I would think, for fast moving soccer you would be definitely better off with the 200-400
but I not a sports photographerPosted 1 year ago # -
Well, I'll be.... sure does. I think this is the lever which transfers the f/stop preview info to the lens.....maybe? But it sure does rattle when not on the lens.
I do use the 70-200 VR II and this TC-20EIII and have found it gives good results. As sevencrossing has suggested, both a gimbal and tripod/monopod and stopping down are helpful to obtain the best results. Anything out there at 400mm or 600mm on DX is a handful.
Mmmm.... guess I better go shake all this stuff.... Oh, I think it was suggested the TCII might be used.... doubt the performance would be the same as the TC-20EIII as the upgrade must be for something. And there is not a large margin of error for these "add-ons"
The 200mm + 2X at 400mm is good for fast moving cars, even when moving toward the camera. I shoot about 1/800th, f/8 or 11 With soccer, the trick is to be able to follow the action. Which camera body is being used may determine this. One little trick is to shoot in DX mode, seeing the full FX image, so as to have a bit of "border" around the active area. Or use a wire frame tracking device on the top of the camera to aim the shot and not even look through the camera, rather like a rifle sight.
Good luck..
Posted 1 year ago # -
LoveTheBerry said:
Would you guys/Gals re-purchase the TC-20E II again if given the chance?I am looking to purchase this for my 70-200 instead of buying a 400 lens.
If you do not have to walks all day long with a big 400mm and have the money, I would go with the 400mm if I was you.
I managed to produce good result with the Nikon 70-200 F2.8 VRII + TC-20E III and my poor bones only allows me this compromise.
Posted 1 year ago # -
I also found I can use the TC-20E III with my 300 F4 AFs. In good light, normal contrast, using just a single center sensor allow AF to works fine. Keep that shutter speed up... Body used D3s
framer
Posted 1 year ago # -
Hi everybody, well I'm about to buy one of these (my first ever teleconverter), I'm buying it second hand but apparently it is in mint, as new condition. Anything I need to check before parting with my money? Would it be a good idea for me to bring my sensor loupe with me and have a quick check of the front and rear elements? Any known issues with this converter? Also I'm planning on getting this to use with my 70-200, when I have it will I ever want to use my 70-300 again (originally bought as a cheap way of giving me some reach), or can you think of some situations where it may still prove useful? The reason for asking that is I can cover the cost of the converter if I sold the lens, good idea?
Posted 1 year ago # -
I would put it on your lens, (converter goes on lens, then to camera) shoot a couple of shots at 200mm (400mm) with the lens set to about f/5.6 or 8 (8 or 16 effective) and see how it works out in your computer. enlargements. Compare these with the 70-300 under same circumstances. Then decide.
I have one, works well with my 70-200,2.8 VRII, on the D90. But, as with any "used" item, carefully check out how it feels when mounted on your camera. Examine the contacts. Just look with a good light at the mount and optics to see if clean and if any damage is present.
And, a friend from Cornwall explained to me the other day what "skint" meant...love it!
Posted 1 year ago # -
Thanks msmoto, sounds like a good plan. So you think there is a possibility that the 70-300 may be as sharp as a 20E III equiped 70-200? Although the latest 70-300 seems to be a well liked lens on the forum, most have commented on finding it soft at the 300 end, does the application of a converter noticeably soften an otherwise sharp lens?
The word "Skint" is so entrenched in the English language, I forget that others might not be familiar with the term :-) Now if you really want me to stump you, I'll start talking my fluent cockney rhyming slang LOL.
Posted 1 year ago # -
@LoveTheBerry:
How is it going with your 70-200 at full stretch? Is it sharp enough at 200mm?
The reason I ask is that I'm currently shooting Rugby with the 200 f/4, usually stopped to about f/5.6 or f/6.3. (The 200 f/4 is designated as a Micro lens, but the Nikon cops have yet to show up and arrest me for using it in non-Macro situations.) At any rate, I'm about ten yards off the pitch and I find the reach is OK and the results are good. Now to be fair I'm along the touchline, not past the endline, and maybe that makes all the difference.
But I guess what I'm wondering is this: before splashing out for the 400mm, have you considered spending thousands less on the 200mm or 300mm and just cropping your way to what you need?
Posted 1 year ago # -
shawnino said:
@LoveTheBerry:How is it going with your 70-200 at full stretch? Is it sharp enough at 200mm?
The reason I ask is that I'm currently shooting Rugby with the 200 f/4, usually stopped to about f/5.6 or f/6.3. (The 200 f/4 is designated as a Micro lens, but the Nikon cops have yet to show up and arrest me for using it in non-Macro situations.) At any rate, I'm about ten yards off the pitch and I find the reach is OK and the results are good. Now to be fair I'm along the touchline, not past the endline, and maybe that makes all the difference.
But I guess what I'm wondering is this: before splashing out for the 400mm, have you considered spending thousands less on the 200mm or 300mm and just cropping your way to what you need?
There's nothing wrong with using a macro lens for non macro applications. As long as you get your shot, who cares?
I'm slightly off topic, but would the TC-20E III work with the 80-200 2.8?
Posted 1 year ago # -
@SkintBrit... I have no idea how the 70-300 performs. I do think anytime one takes an image off the back of a lens and magnifies it, like two times, the resolution of the original lens is cut in half. At least sort of. Thus, the image from the 70-300 may be at least as good as that from the 70-200 plus the TC-E20III. Now, I must admit, some of my bias comes from the old, old, old days. In the 60's, a Nikkor 300mm f/4.5 prime, with a Soligor 3X tele extender, was so fuzzy it could only be used for special purpose. And, these impressions tend to stick.
I am working on a shot from last year with the 70-200 at 200 w/ the TC-20EIII attached. Here is the link
http://www.flickr.com/photos/fantinesfotos/7235638706/sizes/o/in/photostream/A point to think about when viewing the shot. During the 1/800th second of the shutter open, the car moves over 2 inches. Thus, the panning, if not perfect does detract from the sharpness. However, look around the image and see what you think.
Posted 1 year ago # -
I haven't noticed any problems with resolution using TC-EIII and 70-200,2.8 VRII on D800.
You can see some examples in my set below (the Squirrel pic are shot with that combination).
http://www.flickr.com/photos/jyrilaitinen/sets/72157629804280100/Posted 1 year ago # -
If the 70-200mm is mounted on a tripod via its tripod collar, is there any concern with the D800 applying a lot of stress to the teleconverter owing to the weight of the camera?
Posted 1 year ago # -
Jyri said:
No, actually the length of the lens doesn't affect the stress to the TC when using tripod collar, it remains the same, only depending from camera weight.You appear to have misunderstood my question. I was not worried about the length/weight of the lens, as the lens is supported directly by the tripod. I was asking about stresses on the TC mount owing to the camera, which is moderately heavy and which hangs from the TC with no other direct support to bear its weight.
Posted 1 year ago #
Reply
You must log in to post.
