Nikon Teleconverters any good?

[RalphLambrecht]

Do you have an opinion or experience with an old Nikon TC201? Is it worth dealing with it? quality images etc?I can have one for a song but don't want to waste time!:confused:

 

[Arvee]

When I was shooting sports (cinematographer), the still shooters preferred Canon gear and they preferred the 1.4 over the 2x. There were at least 10x more Canon shooters than Nikon. I recently spoke to a nationally known bird photographer who shoots Nikon and she prefers the 1.4x with her 500mm f4.

As I am sure you already know, teleconverters tend to magnify flaws present in the lens.

 

[Dan Fromm]

If you can get it for a song, sing.

More seriously, see what Bjorn Roslett has to say about them: http://www.naturfotograf.com/index2.html

Back when the TC-200 (the -201 has the same optics) was introduced MP reviewed it very favorably and mine has done well for me on my 200/4 MicroNikor AIS. But the 200/4 is the worst MicroNikkor so I accept middling results from it, with and without the TC. Not very good on my Questar 700.

When I got my first Nikon ('mat FTN) in 1970 Nikon recommended getting a set of lenses with focal lengths 1, 2, 4, ... This eliminates the need for a 2x TC except for the longest focal length. With that in mind, which Nikkors do you have and which would you use a 2x TC on?

 

[snapguy]

sports

When I was shooting sports (Dodgers, Yankees, Lakers, Knicks, Muhammed Ali title fight, Olympics, Arnold Palmer and The Bear in golf,) Canon shooters were simply not to be found. The Nikon F was king and Bell and Howell was madly selling little non-interchangable lens Canon Canonets to amateurs. The Nikon teleconverters are good.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

maybe ,I'd get a 50mm mirror lens instead:confused:

 

[AgX]

Would be a bit short I guess...

 

[benjiboy]

Is The Pope a Catholic ?

 

[fotch]

............. But the 200/4 is the worst MicroNikkor s...........

Gee, I always wanted to get one, whats wrong with it or why did you say that? Maybe its lucky that I did not buy one. I have the 50 & 100 micro Nikon & like them both.

 

[John Koehrer]

There's a couple Canons I think were noteworthy, the FTb and the original F1, although the F1 was a bit late to the market to bite off Nikon's action. But to me, Canon is a photocopier and fax machine company.

TC201 teleconverter vs Canon F1, FTb?

 

[mdarnton]

I picked one up in a store's junk bin for 20 bucks and was very surprised at how good it was, at least for the type of thing I do.

 

[Dan Fromm]

Gee, I always wanted to get one, whats wrong with it or why did you say that? Maybe its lucky that I did not buy one. I have the 50 & 100 micro Nikon & like them both.

50 MicroNikkor? 55 seems more likely.

Fotch, I have 55/2.8, 105/2.8 and 200/4 MicroNikkors. All AIS. I've had a 55/3.5, another 55/2.8, a 105/4, another 105/2.8 and another 200/4 AI. My first 55/2.8, 105/2.8 and 200/4 were stolen, insurance replaced them.

I found both of my 200s less sharp (same subject, film, processing and illumination) than my 55/2.8 and 105s. So did Modern Photography. Here are their results:

f/ Resolution Contrast
Ctr Edge Ctr Edge

200/4 5/81 (@1:49) 4 44 39 38 21
5.6 44 39 42 22
8 44 39 48 26
11 49 44 49 29
16 49 44 46 27
22 44 44 40 25
32 39 35 30 23

I'm sorry, I can't get the numbers to line up properly.

No test results from MP @ 1:2, alas. What you need to know about that is that at 1:2, 10 feet and 40 feet @ f/9, f/16 and f/22 a decent but flare-prone process lens (210/9 Konica Hexanon GR II) beat my 200/4 MicroNikkor AIS badly. All shots at a distance with the same target, same film, same processing, same illumination, same support.

By all accounts the AF 200/4 MicroNikkor is a much better than mine.

 

[Christiaan Phleger]

The TC-200/201 works very well on the Nikkor 180mm f/2.8 ED

 

[RalphLambrecht]

50 MicroNikkor? 55 seems more likely.

Fotch, I have 55/2.8, 105/2.8 and 200/4 MicroNikkors. All AIS. I've had a 55/3.5, another 55/2.8, a 105/4, another 105/2.8 and another 200/4 AI. My first 55/2.8, 105/2.8 and 200/4 were stolen, insurance replaced them.

I found both of my 200s less sharp (same subject, film, processing and illumination) than my 55/2.8 and 105s. So did Modern Photography. Here are their results:

f/ Resolution Contrast
Ctr Edge Ctr Edge

200/4 5/81 (@1:49) 4 44 39 38 21
5.6 44 39 42 22
8 44 39 48 26
11 49 44 49 29
16 49 44 46 27
22 44 44 40 25
32 39 35 30 23

I'm sorry, I can't get the numbers to line up properly.

No test results from MP @ 1:2, alas. What you need to know about that is that at 1:2, 10 feet and 40 feet @ f/9, f/16 and f/22 a decent but flare-prone process lens (210/9 Konica Hexanon GR II) beat my 200/4 MicroNikkor AIS badly. All shots at a distance with the same target, same film, same processing, same illumination, same support.

By all accounts the AF 200/4 MicroNikkor is a much better than mine.

Just looking at these numbers, Iwouldn't be impressed. the images from my 55f/3.5 tell a much better story.It's probably the sharpest Nikkor I own.

 

[dynachrome]

I don't have any Nikon teleconverters, at least not yet. I have used teleconverters for macro work when I needed some added magnification or couldn't get physically closer to the subject. The closest thing I have to a 200mm macro lens for 35mm cameras is the 90-180/4.5 Vivitar Series 1 Flat Field. At the 180 setting it will get to 1:2 at its closest focusing distance. In some cases I have used non-macro 200mm lenses for macro work. It takes considerable extension to get close with a lens this long and one not made specifically for macro work. The best luck I had was with a 200/4 Canon FD SSC. I have also tried this with the 200/4 Ai Nikkor with good results. Some experimentation is in order. Some longer lenses work well with the extra extension and some do not. Medium format enlarging lenses on bellows units of adequate length can also give good results. An interesting lens I have mentioned before is the 200/3 Vivitar Series 1. It focuses down to four feet by itself so less extra extension is needed. George Lepp once gave a lucid explanation of the use of teleconverters in an old issue of Outdoor Photographer. His message was that if the use of a teleconverter degraded the final image less that simply enlarging an image shot with a shorter lens then use of the teleconverter was warranted. I think that's still about right. I do have some teleconverters for Nikon which were made by other companies. These include a Panagor Auto Macro Converter and two Vivitar 2X Macro Focusing Teleconverters.