| Sign in: |
| Members log in here with your user name and password to access the your admin page and other special features. |
|
|
|
|
|| SportsShooter.com: Member Message Board
Nikon 1.4 extender and soft images
Jim Owens, Photographer
 |
Cincinnati | OH | usa | Posted: 12:37 PM on 11.19.06 |
->> I've spent this morning looking at images I shot while I was at the OSU/Michigan game yesterday.
I was a spectator seated high up in the stands and just for fun I took along my D2X, 70-200 2.8 and T-C 14E extender.
I was thrown for a loop when I saw the soft photos popping up in Pshop when I opened them. NOT ONE was sharp. In fact as I zoomed in in Pshop, it became apparent that there was significant detail loss as well.
All images were shot in RAW so there were no JPEG issues.
I ran a more complete test just a few minutes ago shooting items outside in even light in my yard.
At the same focal distance , the subjects without the extender were much sharper than they were in the images shot with the 1.4 extender.
All images were shot at the same aperture and iso and I filled the frame exactly the same for each image.
Have any of you other Nikon shooters experienced this and what did you do about it ? |
|
Harry Bloomberg, Photographer
 |
Pittsburgh | PA | USA | Posted: 1:52 PM on 11.19.06 |
->> When I first got my D2X, I took it and my 300 f2.8 AF-I to the Pittsburgh Zoo for some test shots with my TC 14E extender. The results were similar to yours, the images were very soft with a huge improvement when I shot without the extender. This really surprised me as I had been shooting for years with the extender, both with film cameras and with my previous digital bodies (D100 and D2H).
I can only speculate as to why the results are so poor. Perhaps the D2X autofocus cannot deal with the extender, or maybe the resolving ability of the D2X sensor is so great that we're seeing flaws in the extender.
Now that I've got a D200, maybe I should try the extender again to see if the results are similar. |
|
Doug Holleman, Photographer
 |
Temple | TX | USA | Posted: 9:08 PM on 11.19.06 |
| ->> I don't understand it, but some days the photos with my TC14E seem nice and sharp, and other days they seem consistently softer. Same lens, same camera, same type of setting. I always try to shoot a stop above wide open to get the best out of the lens. Maybe it's a nasty thumbprint on the element or something. I'm kinda bad about that. |
|
Chris Preovolos, Photographer
 |
Stamford | CT | United States | Posted: 9:35 PM on 11.19.06 |
->> I have the same problem, so I try only to use the extender on my 70-200 only if I'm in a jam.
I do, however, use it all the time on the 400 2.8 and the results are very good. |
|
Patrick Smith, Student/Intern, Photo Editor
 |
Forest Hill | MD | USA | Posted: 10:57 PM on 11.19.06 |
->> I sold my 1.4x TC-II for the same reason.
Being a college student, funds are very limited. I thought that investing in a TC would save me a chunk of change instead of purchasing a 300/2.8 or 400/2.8.
However, I quickly found out that I wasn't getting many keepers with it. As you said, my images were very soft when the TC was used in combination with my 70-200/2.8.
After a couple games and many tests later, I decided to just sell it and shoot as tight as I could and crop even tighter on my D200.
I haven't looked back since and have not had any softness issues since the sale. However, I hear that the TC14 is great when used with a 300 or 400/2.8. (I wouldn't know :( ) |
|
Jon Cunningham, Photographer
 |
Lisle | IL | USA | Posted: 10:59 PM on 11.19.06 |
| ->> Same here, and similar to Chris. My TC-14E performs much better with my 300/2.8 AF-S than it does with my 80-200/2.8 AF-S, where I must stop down at least one from wide-open to get anything usable. Could it be that "zoom" is the key word here? |
|
Samuel Lewis, Photographer
 |
Miami | FL | USA | Posted: 11:11 PM on 11.19.06 |
| ->> I found that the extender does not seem to play well with the 80-200/2.8, but seems to work increasingly well with the 300/2.8 and 400/2.8 (the longer the lens, the better the performance). Given that there used to be two 1.4x extenders (for longer and shorter lengths), I wouldn't be surprised if the TC-14E is optimized for use with longer glass. |
|
Darren Whitley, Photographer
 |
Maryville | MO | USA | Posted: 11:19 PM on 11.19.06 |
| ->> I shoot Canon. I haven't used my extenders for several years now. Same issues as what you all mention. |
|
Daniel Berman, Student/Intern, Photographer
 |
Seattle | WA | US | Posted: 12:34 AM on 11.20.06 |
| ->> I wish this thread had been started a few days ago! I just purchased a 1.4x TC14E-II to use with my AF-S 80-200 2.8 and now I hear about this. Oh well. I will report back with my experience using the above combo with a D2H. |
|
Jim Owens, Photographer
|
Cincinnati | OH | usa | Posted: 7:05 AM on 11.20.06 |
->> Samuel, Daniel Berman and all :
After I get off work today I plan on running some tests with my 300 2.8 and a tripod to ensure a steady platform. I believe there is a direct relationship with focal length and the distance to subject regarding quality.
I think it's becoming obvious that any time one sticks any object between the main lens and the camera, there will be a performance drop off.
The key will be if the image has an acceptable sharpness level to the individual photographer. |
|
Mike Ullery, Photographer
 |
Troy | OH | USA | Posted: 9:23 AM on 11.20.06 |
->> Jim,
While all of the above remarks regarding less-than-perfect images with a 1.4 converter are probably valid, one other possibility comes to mind.
You said that you were in the stands. It was a later afternoon/early evening game. I don't know what ISO and shutter speed that you were using, but with you being but one of 109,000 people in attendance, what are the chances of motion blur being the cause? You probably were not using a monopod and even though the concrete and steel structure is "solid", with that many people moving about, stomping feet, etc., there is bound to be movement.
Just another thought.
Mike |
|
Chuck Steenburgh, Photographer
 |
Lexington | VA | USA | Posted: 9:33 AM on 11.20.06 |
->> Several possible things going on here, but remember a TC is a compromise at best. A TC on a zoom is a compromise on a compromise.
1) Some glass does not work well with a TC, regardless of quality of either. I got a TC-20E with my first 80-200/f2.8 AF-S thinking I'd have a great combination. Every image from that combo sucked. Never bothered with the TC-14E after that.
2) When you're shooting from far, far, away, your AF sensor is larger than your human-sized target, meaning the camera could actually be focusing on something behind what you're aiming it. (I think this is what Jim O. is referring to, whether he knows it or not.)
3) I have used 1.4 TCs from Sigma and Kenko and they work well, producing very sharp images with little loss of detail compared to the original. But neither worked with the 80-200 very well. (The Sigma TC even works very well on the Sigma 120-300 zoom.) |
|
Lucas J. Gilman, Photographer
 |
Denver, CO & Jackson Hole | CO | USA | Posted: 11:55 AM on 11.20.06 |
| ->> I've used the TC-14e with both the older Nikon 80-200 afs and now the Nikon 70-200 vr. No problems here... any chance the lens got swithed on to "active" VR and not "normal" ? Active only works in say a helicopter or or moving car... or so I've been told. |
|
David Harpe, Photographer
 |
Louisville | KY | USA | Posted: 3:03 PM on 11.20.06 |
->> I'm shooting Canon now, but when I was shooting Nikon I seem to remember some improvements in the TC-14E-II over the non -II model. Is that still true, or am I fuzzy in the head?
When you do some more testing, try testing at aperatures other than wide open. Performance might improve if you stop it down a bit. |
|
Garrett Hubbard, Photographer
 |
Naples | FL | USA | Posted: 3:13 PM on 11.20.06 |
->> I'm a canon shooter, but maybe the optics are very similar. softness issues are with objects that are nearing infinity focus on the lens. whether on a 300 or 400.
everywhere else it is sharp.
I thought I'd offer this even tho I'm a canon user.
-g |
|
Jim Owens, Photographer
|
Cincinnati | OH | usa | Posted: 5:34 PM on 11.20.06 |
->> Lucas, It's not a VR lens.
Mike Ullery,
How's it going ?
I should be up at Welcome Stadium in Dayton this weekend for the OHSAA football semi-finals for D1 and D2
To answer your question,
I was at 500 and 800 iso so that my shutter speed was at least 1/250 sec. I shut it down when I couldn't hold that shutter speed.
It's too dark to test right now so I'll give it a shot tomorrow.
The stands were rockin needless to say.......
but the tripod test at home here should give me some answers. As I said earlier, I shot some objects handheld in my back yard and compared imgaes shot with and without the converter. The results were the same. There was a noticeable loss of detail with the converter on. |
|
Mike Braca, Photographer
 |
Providence | RI | USA | Posted: 7:36 PM on 11.20.06 |
->> Jim, 70-200 not VR means non-Nikon lens? I have heard, but have no first-hand experience and find it counter-intuitive, that particular TC's work better with some lenses than others. Maybe getting a matched TC from the same manufacturer as the lens would make a difference.
I assume from the description of your test that you have ruled out focusing speed issues. Have you ruled out other focus issues (slightly front- or back-focused)?
Be nice if you could post a couple of comparo shots. Meanwhile I'll see if I can dig up my TC-14E and try it on my 70-200. Haven't used the TC since shortly after I got the 300 2.8 & have never tried it on the D2X (it worked great on a D1h w/ 70-200).
Cheers,
Mike |
|
Gerald H. Ling, Photographer
 |
Storrs | CT | USA | Posted: 9:12 PM on 11.20.06 |
->> To the OP Jim,
The TC 14 with the 70-200 will give so-so results; no new news here. Quality is bound to degrade when a TC is used. Whether or not it is acceptable depends on the end-user. I can deal with it if I am shooting for a newspaper. Otherwise, I'd only use it if I really have to. The 70-200 with a TC does give me a pretty nice zoom range though.
My experience using the TC with a 70-200 or a 400 f/2.8 are reasonable at low ISO levels. Best results are achieved with a 300 f/2.8 and the worst is with the 200 f/2. All of these are used wide open. I got the 200 and the TC to replace my 300 but it doesn't fit the bill so I am looking to get a 300 again. The TC with my 70-200 gives me erratic AF after the lens was involved in a car accident; it gave me decent results beforehand. I have to get the lens fixed...
On another note, I noticed that my D2X with any lens tends to give me a fair share of softer images compared to my D2H or earlier cameras. I don't know if it is due to the AF algorithm or the "apparent" increase in resolution of the D2X in relation to my older cameras that makes motion blur more prominent. I've come to live with it and have learned to curse for ten seconds straight discretely under my breath on the sidelines without notice. Hey, whatever leads me to learn a new skill can't be a bad thing.
I guess the bottom line is that you shouldn't put too much faith in your TC with respect to quality. It will still be good, but not as good.
P/s: I find shooting anything at the D1 level and above with a shutter speed of less than 1/500th of a second exhibits significant subject motion blur; I personally shoot with a shutter speed of at least 1/640th of a second. Could it be that your shutter speed is too low at 1/250th of a second? |
|
Jim Owens, Photographer
|
Cincinnati | OH | usa | Posted: 9:44 PM on 11.20.06 |
->> The lens is a non VR Nikon 80-200 ED AFS II.
Gerald : A good question. 1/250th sec might have been too slow a shutter speed for action but I also took some shots of the crowd in the stands and there's one pic of the captains meeting at midfield for the coin toss that's just as soft as every other photo
It's not motion blur I'm looking at, it's softness and detail loss.
I'll be testing the setup again tomorrow with a tripod and stationary subjects. |
|
Jim Owens, Photographer
|
Cincinnati | OH | usa | Posted: 10:56 AM on 11.24.06 |
->> Update :
There's a definite drop off in sharpness with the 1.4 teleconverter installed according to my back yard tests with a tripod mount and remote shutter release. It was not as profound a difference as I thought though, and the images were quite acceptable.
The real culprit was apparently operator error [me] as the shutter speeds bounced back and forth and the camera was handheld while I was in the stands with many people moving around me. Add to this the effect of the focal length, distance to subject etc.... and you have crap-ola.
So, quite a few of you were correct in your responses.
Bad news :
After verifying the tests, I formatted all the images before I took my camera to my family's Thanksgiving day gathering yesterday, so I have nothing to show any results on my gallery.
Sorry. |
|
|| Sponsor Special Deals
SB-900 TTL AF Shoe Mount Speedlight
|
Available from:
Samy's Camera
|
Price: $499.95 |
Notes:
The SB-900 i-TTL Speedlight leads the Nikon Creative Lighting System delivering the portability, power and versatility to support any photographer's creative lighting imagination. SportsShooter.com users should call 866-726-9463 to get the special SportsShooter price.
|
|
-- More Info -- |
|
Return to --> Message Board Main Index
|