Nikon TC-200 2x Teleconverter; worth using?

Discussion in '35mm Cameras and Accessories' started by Kino, Dec 7, 2018.

  1. Kino

    Kino Subscriber
    Ads Enabled

    Messages:
    2,512
    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2006
    Location:
    Virginia
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    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...)
     
  2. shutterfinger

    shutterfinger Subscriber
    Ads Enabled

    Messages:
    3,227
    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2013
    Location:
    San Francisco Peninsul
    Shooter:
    4x5 Format
    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.
     
  3. OP
    OP
    Kino

    Kino Subscriber
    Ads Enabled

    Messages:
    2,512
    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2006
    Location:
    Virginia
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    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...
     
  4. Sirius Glass

    Sirius Glass Subscriber
    Ads Enabled

    Messages:
    28,213
    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2007
    Location:
    Southern California
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    Groups:
    There are always some losses with teleconverters, but at that price, it is worth it.
     
  5. RidingWaves

    RidingWaves Member
    Ads Enabled

    Messages:
    899
    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2006
    Location:
    Hawaii
    Shooter:
    35mm RF
    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.
     
  6. OP
    OP
    Kino

    Kino Subscriber
    Ads Enabled

    Messages:
    2,512
    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2006
    Location:
    Virginia
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    Thanks! It seems to be very well built. I'll try it on my 200mm next time I am out.
     
  7. narsuitus

    narsuitus Member

    Messages:
    1,207
    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2004
    Location:
    USA
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    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.

    [​IMG]

    Nikon Teleconverters by Narsuitus, on Flickr
     
  8. mshchem

    mshchem Subscriber
    Ads Enabled

    Messages:
    2,572
    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2007
    Location:
    Iowa City, Iowa USA
    Shooter:
    Medium Format
    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.
     
  9. AgX

    AgX Member

    Messages:
    18,482
    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2007
    Location:
    Germany
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    Compare under practical circumstance. For instance optical prints of same scale, as here your enlarging state comes into.
     
  10. RalphLambrecht

    RalphLambrecht Subscriber
    Ads Enabled

    Messages:
    10,826
    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2003
    Location:
    K,Germany
    Shooter:
    Medium Format
    no.all teleconverters suck.if it sounds too good to be truest is!






    if it sounds t
     
  11. ic-racer

    ic-racer Member

    Messages:
    8,952
    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2007
    Location:
    Midwest USA
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    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.
    Yashica Auxillary Lenses.jpg
     
  12. narsuitus

    narsuitus Member

    Messages:
    1,207
    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2004
    Location:
    USA
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    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.
     
  13. thuggins

    thuggins Member
    Ads Enabled

    Messages:
    754
    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2008
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    "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.
     
  14. jtk

    jtk Subscriber
    Ads Enabled

    Messages:
    1,850
    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2007
    Location:
    Albuquerque, New Mexico
    Shooter:
    35mm
    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.
     
  15. RidingWaves

    RidingWaves Member
    Ads Enabled

    Messages:
    899
    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2006
    Location:
    Hawaii
    Shooter:
    35mm RF
    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
     
  16. abruzzi

    abruzzi Member

    Messages:
    359
    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2018
    Location:
    New Mexico, USA
    Shooter:
    Medium Format
    Yikes, 3x? What is the light loss on that? I know 1.4x is one stop, and 2x is two stop.
     
  17. AgX

    AgX Member

    Messages:
    18,482
    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2007
    Location:
    Germany
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    3x converter = 3 stops

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

    Dan Fromm Member

    Messages:
    5,068
    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2005
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    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, ...
     
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies. If you have a Photrio account, please log in (and select 'stay logged in') to prevent recurrence of this notice.