Nikon TC-20e, not II

[AzRich]

I picked up one of these thinking it would be fine for the 70-200mm VR, but I don't think it's very good, which is probably because I don't understand that this lens should get the TC-20e II... duh.

This is a shame because it focuses (even though it's not real clear) VERY quickly.

Does anyone know if this is to be expected? Or is this TC bad?

Oh a happier note, the PQI 2gb 40x CF card works like a charm. I found it for $170 on eBay.

Any help is appreciated. If it's not bad, then I'll just sell it and get the kenko pro.

Thanx,

[Igor]

Hi Rich, should be sharper of course. I use the TC-20E (not II) with my 70-200, and it's NOT the top sharpness combo, but still not THAT soft.
I see you pic suffers more from blur than softness. Maybe there was too dark? Try shooting not less than 1/125 and stop down to f/8, then check what you get.

[Swampy]

I agree with Igor. That shot suffers from shake more than anything.

To test it's quality, turn VR off, throw the whole thing on a tripod and shoot at a decent shutter speed on something static.

[ballroom_boy]

I use to have the TC-20e and used it with this lens... although the images are a bit softer than using the TC-14e, they should not be this soft. I agree with the above posters that it is probably excessive camera shake.

Sometimes, I find that if I "jiggle" the VR lens a little bit, then VR seems to really kick in and help stabilize the image. Just my experience. Anyway, try shooting from a tripod, and then experiment with the 2 VR modes: normal and active.

Take care,

[AzRich]

Here's hand held, first at 200mm, f8, iso200, 1/1500 each shot. These are 1:1 crops, un-sharpened. VR on.

I'll try the tripod tomorrow, but I've been getting decent shutter speeds, maybe the VR isn't working right? I'll have to turn it off for the tripod anyway.

The King Fisher was shot at 1/125 and VR on @ 400mm.

Thanks for the help,

[Igor]

Rich, it's not clear which shot is which?
The #1 is VR off and #2 VR on ?

[Bruce]

Igor,
The TC I have on order is the II series. I hope it produces images worth the investment.
Bruce

[Igor]

Oh, then you'll be the only one of us who has the II !
Be sure to post some test shots when you receive it, I'm very interested to see if there's any difference with this "Mark II" :)

[Bruce]

Hi Igor,
I thought that the II was what you were all using.
In the Nikon catalog it says that the II must be used to have full capability with the 70-200VR. :confused:
I ordered the 1.7 instead of the 2.0.
From what investigation I have dug up on the Internet it is claimed that the 1.7 is the sharpest of the three TC's. Not sure how they can differ but we shall see huh? Plus, it is ten dollars more than the others so that must make it great huh? :righton:
Also that the 1.7 maintains better balance and is more user friendly when hand holding.
We shall see.
I will let you know when it comes. :)
Bruce

[AzRich]

(sorry Igor, I got side tracked on that last post and perhaps it is confusing)

Both shots in that previous post there were handheld, VR on. The blurry one is with the TC attached, the clear one is without. Both had fast enough shutter speeds that I believed were fast enough to cancel any shake, and of course the VR should help too.

And yes, I am using the TC20-e that does NOT have the II after it, so that may be the only problem. I hope. I don't want to sell it and find out that it's faulty if that is the case.

Here's a tripod mounted shot with the TC, f8, 1/1000 (or 1/1500, I forgot!!), 10 second delay before shutter to rule out camera shake. The TC is definitely fuzzy.

Thanx again for everyone's input

[Bruce]

Hi Rich,
My TC should be here tomorrow if UPS is working today. I will be able to give it a test then.
From my understanding by what I have read in the Nikon catalog the 70-200VR must have the II series to function properly.
I may have read wrong too. You can never tell with me. :)
I'll let you know as soon as the little beastie makes it here.
Bruce

[AzRich]

Does anyone know which lens(es) the TC-20e is designed for? I checked Nikon's site, but I guess I was looking in the wrong place as it only listed the new stuff.

[Igor]

Rich, I believe the "shortest" supported lens is 70-200.
I see no reason to use it with the 28-70, 17-35 or other "shorter" AF-S lenses tho'.