Nikon TC-200 2x Teleconverter; worth using?

[Kino]

Never had what anyone would ever consider a good teleconverter, but I was given this as an extra when I bought a 200mm F4 AIS Nikkor prime.

Anyone have any experience with this unit? Even worth mounting on a camera?

(yeah I know, shoot a roll...)

 

[shutterfinger]

Shoot the same subject with the 200 f4 straight and with the 2X. Use a tripod to ensure best sharpness. Compare the results. The lens by itself will be sharper than with the 2X but with the 2X may be good enough for your use/application.
I've used 3rd party 7 element 2X teleconverters in the past, some were quite good while others were junk. I have not used the one you have.
It should be on the better side of converters.

 

[Kino]

I was hoping someone would regale me with anecdotal stories of their experience with this teleconverter, but you are right Shutterfinger; testing is in order...

 

[Sirius Glass]

There are always some losses with teleconverters, but at that price, it is worth it.

 

[Christiaan Phleger]

I have used the TC-200 on all three Nikkor 180's and the ED AiS combination was actually really good. Very useful in landscape reach and decent sharpness stopped down. It also worked really well on the 135mm f/3.5 the newer Ais type. I've come to the conclusion that the Nikkor version of 2x doubler seemed to be better matched to the slower lenses.

 

[Kino]

I have used the TC-200 on all three Nikkor 180's and the ED AiS combination was actually really good. Very useful in landscape reach and decent sharpness stopped down. It also worked really well on the 135mm f/3.5 the newer Ais type. I've come to the conclusion that the Nikkor version of 2x doubler seemed to be better matched to the slower lenses.

Thanks! It seems to be very well built. I'll try it on my 200mm next time I am out.

 

[narsuitus]

Anyone have any experience with this unit? Even worth mounting on a camera?

The Nikon TC-200 is a 2x teleconverter that is designed to work with Nikon lenses up to 200mm in focal length. It also works with the Nikon 500mm mirror lens.

I primarily use it when I am traveling with a light photographic load and need to extend the reach of the longest lens I am carrying, a Nikon 180mm f/2.8.

I could also use it on my 50, 85, and 105mm Nikon prime lenses or my 35-70mm and 80-200mm Nikon zoom lenses but have not yet had a reason to do so.



Nikon Teleconverters by Narsuitus, on Flickr

 

[mshchem]

I've used the AF-S 1.4 on my 400mm 2.8 AF-I Nikkor, works out to be a 560 f 4. Works great. I have a 2x but I've never tried it.

 

[AgX]

Shoot the same subject with the 200 f4 straight and with the 2X.
...
Compare the results.

Compare under practical circumstance. For instance optical prints of same scale, as here your enlarging state comes into.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

Never had what anyone would ever consider a good teleconverter, but I was given this as an extra when I bought a 200mm F4 AIS Nikkor prime.

Anyone have any experience with this unit? Even worth mounting on a camera?

(yeah I know, shoot a roll...)

no.all teleconverters suck.if it sounds too good to be truest is!






if it sounds t

 

[ic-racer]

Compare under practical circumstance. For instance optical prints of same scale, as here your enlarging state comes into.

I don't have any of those Japanese SLR teleconverters, but the nice "Yashica" branded Japanese TLR teleconverter I have for my 124-G is worse than just cropping the 6x6 negative! I would not have expected that, based on the looks of the adapter which is a multi-element coated design. As AgX indicates, you really need to test yourself to know.

The German-Made Mutar teleconverters may be better but I have never tested them.

 

[narsuitus]

all teleconverters suck.

I thought the same thing until I attended a nature/wildlife/close-up photography seminar given by well-known photographer George Lepp.

After seeing the success George was having using auto focus teleconverters on zoom lenses, I changed my mind.

 

[thuggins]

"Traditional" teleconvertors are problematic from both the speed and quality loss. I have several that I would never use again.

However, Olympus made several versions of their T-CON for use on the IS series ZLR's. These screw onto the front via the filter thread. They come in 49, 52, and 55 mm with each size varying a bit in magnification. There is no loss in light when used with lenses of that filter size. The image quality is as good as the original lens.

 

[jtk]

I needed something longer than the Canon 35/3.5 and didn't have space in my coat pockets...so I grabbed the Soligor 2x ...which was exquisitely finely mechanically built. I had brought it almost by accident. Took off into a Sierra Nevada pass, photographed a small waterfall with Ektachrome, received $250 from the client who had called needing a waterfall for their expensive catalog. Your equipment doesn't make the photo.

 

[Christiaan Phleger]

Sometimes the extra reach is worth the trade-offs. I had a fellow newspaper shooter tell me a good yard about the super el-cheapo 3x triple that he just happened to have in his daily bag when a piece of a plane came off in flight and the plane had to make an emergency landing. The only clean angle he and anyone else could get was way on the other side of the airfield and all anyone had was a 300mm with a looming evening edition deadline. Remembering that he had that crappy triple converter (3x) he stuck it on his Nikkor 300mm f/4.5, set the camera on the roof of his car and shot a quick set at a relatively slower shutter speed. The extra magnification of the image on the negative meant he could get that much more useful magnification in printing the tiny detail he needed to show the damage in time for deadline. He didn't care about that "quality loss" it saved his ass and he always had at least a 2x in his bag.
Warmest Aloha,
Christiaan Phleger

 

[abruzzi]

Yikes, 3x? What is the light loss on that? I know 1.4x is one stop, and 2x is two stop.

 

[AgX]

3x converter = 3 stops

With the rule of thumb:
shutter speed = 1/effective focal length
with tele lenses that often means stretching things far

 

[Dan Fromm]

I've had two TC-200s. The first was stolen with my camera bag. I replaced it, and that should tell you something.

My basic Nikon kit is 24, 55, 105, 200 so having a 2x TC makes little sense on the face of it. I've used it mainly on my 200/4 MicroNikkor AIS, not the sharpest blade in Nikon's kitchen. When 400/8 makes photographic sense I use the combo and don't feel deprived.

Kino, whether a 2x TC makes sense for you depends on your lens kit. If your focal lengths are spaced like mine, 2x makes little sense.

As has been mentioned above, Nikon recommends the TC200/201 for lenses no longer than 200 mm and the TC300/301 for longer lenses. Both were reviewed very well when first released.

I also have a Vivitar Ser. I Matched Multiplier 450/4.5. I've used it, also my TC 200, on a 700/8 Questar. This is a difficult lens to use because of its focal length, which punishes the least unsteadiness severely. The TC200 worked a little better on it. But 1400/16 is hard to focus and even more susceptible to vibration, subject movement, focusing error, ...