600mm f/4 VR with 2x TC III Nikon (1 Viewer)

[Formatted]

Since there is great interest in long lenses in this particular section, I thought I would post the review I wrote on the 600mm. Problem with the bird forum is I can't link directly to pictures, and I'm not reloading them up to the forum as attachments as its just more bandwidth, you can click on the links to take you to the photos.

I was asked the other day by someone on twitter what I thought about the 600mm f4 VR and my TC 2x III, well I took it for a test run the last couple of days and I've put together a couple of shots for review, and I'll interject some comment about how I found using it as we go on.

Auto-focus

Biggest issue surrounding the use of a 2x TC with a f/4 lens is that the auto-focus is not guaranteed to work. Whilst in good light it is use-able I found that during my couple of days with it that I spent 90% of the time manual focusing, as the lens hunts like crazy.

To combat this you have to engage the ∞-10 m which did improve the speed, it was a waste of time. So if your happy to manual focus then its not a problem.

First photo
Ringed Teal (Captive-Escapee), England / Distance 12 m
Camera - D3s

EXIF DATA
Aperture f/8
ISO 1000
Shutter Speed 1/1250

100% Crop

As you can see the image isn't as sharp as the 600mm alone, but its off use-able quality.

Second Photo
Ringed Teal (Captive-Escapee), England / Distance 12 m
Camera - D3s

EXIF DATA
Aperture f/8
ISO 1000
Shutter Speed 1/1250

100% Crop

Quality increases the closer the subject is in and with the amount of light available.

Third Photo
Great Egret. England / Distance 40+ m
Camera - D5000

EXIF DATA
Aperture f/8
ISO 800
Shutter Speed 1/2000

100% Crop

Quality is starting to reduce at this focal length (1800mm effective), it doesn't focus at all with the D5000, well it does but very very slowly.
​

Conclusion

The 600mm f4 VR is an incredible lens and if you want to get some shots at ridiculous focal lengths, you could use the 2x TC III, but its a bit of a struggle to get good quality, its possible but hope for good light and no wind.

You can find some of the edited shots from the last couple of days on my flickr, which I'll be updating throughout the rest of the day and evening.

 

[Dave Williams]

Your findings were much the same as mine when I tried it on the 500mm f4.
I won't be buying one !

 

[GYRob]

A friend of mine tried it on his 500mm f4 and found it to be -well he said hopeless .
I use a Canon 500f4isL and dont use the 2x tc unless i have to as the IQ drops but it will AF on the mk3 its slower though .
Rob.

 

[Duke Leto]

been having mixed emotions with mine, but on Monday took a few shots in better light and had very good results here's an uncropped shot just resized to post, D300, 400/2.8 TC20e-III f10 1/400 -0.67 iso 400 no post production except sharpened raw and converted to jpeg, and the other is a closer look at the head and neck from the same image

 

[RJM]

here's an uncropped shot just resized to post, D300, 400/2.8 TC20e-III f10 1/400 -0.67 iso 400 ...

Why did you choose to shoot this at f10? I would think the 400mm/f2.8 + 2xTC would give optimal sharpness if you stop down from f5.6 to perhaps f6.3. Certainly not more than F8! You would have shot a faster shutter speed (1/1200sec?) that might improve your results. Moreover, an f10 aperture setting is close to the diffraction limit for the D300 sensor.

 

[Duke Leto]

I tried at f8 in less than suitable conditions and found the results not too impressive, the first trial was mainly at f6.3 and again I wasn't completely impressed.
I do believe its my technique which needs improving and not the equipment. I will try a set of shots at various apertures and check the results.

 

[Formatted]

Why did you choose to shoot this at f10? I would think the 400mm/f2.8 + 2xTC would give optimal sharpness if you stop down from f5.6 to perhaps f6.3. Certainly not more than F8!

Thats so so wrong.

Lenses are sharpest at middle aperture, so if your lens goes all the way upto f64 then its sharpest at f32. So my 70-200 vr 2 f/2.8 is sharpest at f8.

 

[pe'rigin]

This is not at all easy.

The weight of the lens, camera and converter, plus the excitement of getting that close to a Bittern out in the open, to hold that lot steady will be a major achievement for superman let alone a mere mortal.

All lenses have an optimum, usually with the faster ones at F11, the speed and F stop are fine.

Maybe this set-up needs a tripod?

 

[Dave Williams]

Thats so so wrong.

Lenses are sharpest at middle aperture, so if your lens goes all the way upto f64 then its sharpest at f32. So my 70-200 vr 2 f/2.8 is sharpest at f8.

Isn't it also a question of D.O.F. when it comes to image sharpness ?
Oh and shutter speed and camera shake.
I find that f8 is were I usually try to aim for to get a decent balance between D.O.F and shutter speed within the acceptable ISO range of my D300s.

I also think that in Steve's Bittern shot we talking about a shot with the 2.0TC which is different to a naked lens.
However, we seem to have strayed away from the 600 f4 and on to a new topic !!!

 

[RJM]

Thats so so wrong.

Lenses are sharpest at middle aperture, so if your lens goes all the way upto f64 then its sharpest at f32. So my 70-200 vr 2 f/2.8 is sharpest at f8.

And Ansel Adams said waaay back in 1937, "Any good modern lens is corrected for maximum definition at the larger stops. Using a small stop only increases depth..."

Hmmm, I guess we have a cunundrum??

If you want to shoot a 2009 vintage US$2000+ f2.8 lens at f8, knock yourself out. But I bet at f8 you could get the same results with the far cheaper 70-300 at the same focal lengths. Seriously.

 

[Formatted]

If you want to shoot a 2009 vintage US$2000+ f2.8 lens at f8

Yep that is what I'm saying.

Lenses are sharpest at middle apertures.

When I use my 14-24 f/2.8, for landscapes I shoot at f8 not only to reduce depth of field but also to increase the sharpness.

 

[Dave Williams]

And Ansel Adams said waaay back in 1937, "Any good modern lens is corrected for maximum definition at the larger stops. Using a small stop only increases depth..."

Hmmm, I guess we have a cunundrum??

If you want to shoot a 2009 vintage US$2000+ f2.8 lens at f8, knock yourself out. But I bet at f8 you could get the same results with the far cheaper 70-300 at the same focal lengths. Seriously.

But would it focus as fast !
There must be a reason I spent all that money :eek!::eek!::eek!:

 

[RJM]

Yep that is what I'm saying.

Lenses are sharpest at middle apertures.

When I use my 14-24 f/2.8, for landscapes I shoot at f8 not only to reduce depth of field but also to increase the sharpness.

Are you confused? Smaller apertures aka larger f numbers INCREASE DoF. Unless you have something close in the foreground, say withing 20m, you want to be sharp in the shot, most landscape shots are at infinity focus anyway so F4 on that lens will be plenty sharp for an 20" print.

 

[Dave Williams]

Certainly straying off topic now. You wouldn't shoot landscapes with a 600mm unless they were lunar !

 

[Duke Leto]

This is not at all easy.

The weight of the lens, camera and converter, plus the excitement of getting that close to a Bittern out in the open, to hold that lot steady will be a major achievement for superman let alone a mere mortal.

All lenses have an optimum, usually with the faster ones at F11, the speed and F stop are fine.

Maybe this set-up needs a tripod?

So the Bittern was shot as you know on a D300, 400/2.8 TC20e-III mounted on a Wimberley Mk2 on top of a Gitzo 3 series with the head reasonably tightened down, the real issue I had would be with floor flex as the other 20 people in the hide jockeyed for a better view as the bird slowly moved around the mere. I had 2 legs completely collapsed and on the shelf and one extended to the floor.
What I need to do in a test environment is try a cropped non TC shot against an uncropped with TC shot at various apertures. Although in the UK last month the weekly photography mag had a piece on TC's and the summary was a TC shot even with a 2x was better than the equivalent cropped shot, this is something I have yet to agree with or experience

Apologies for taking the thread down a new route but my original post was to show that I am becoming happier with the 2x than I 1st was.

Now as a new thread has any one tried it with the 70-200vr and does it make a nice walkabout option of a 140-400vr f5.6

 

[Watts]

And Ansel Adams said waaay back in 1937, "Any good modern lens is corrected for maximum definition at the larger stops. Using a small stop only increases depth..."

Hmmm, I guess we have a cunundrum??

I guess we do.

Ansel Adams might have said it, but is it true? And if it is, is every lens test that I've seen wrong in suggesting that definition (not to be confused with depth of field, we know that increases with smaller apertures) improves as a lens is stopped down but reduces when stopped down too far?

Bill

 

[Formatted]

Are you confused?

The larger the number the larger smaller the aperture so the plane of focus is larger so the less depth of field there is.

If you don't believe me look at a dof table like - http://www.dofmaster.com/doftable.html

Onto the matter of sharpness there are several articles about it I did a quick google search and gave up with (http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/focus.htm) or http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=176537

 

[pe'rigin]

Ah Steve,

Didn't know you were in a hide with people, that's your problem not technique or equipment.

You'll have no chance at all.

I've stopped taking my 600mm to hides on a weekend, and I use the old ally gitzo studio tripod which can carry plate cameras. It is as solid as a rock.

I would like to see your further attempts with the new TC, when on a firmer platform.

 

[RJM]

The larger the number the larger smaller the aperture so the plane of focus is larger so the less depth of field there is.

If you don't believe me look at a dof table like - http://www.dofmaster.com/doftable.html

Onto the matter of sharpness there are several articles about it I did a quick google search and gave up with (http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/focus.htm) or http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=176537

Still confused about DoF I see. Play around with that table and maybe you'll eventually catch on.

Re: sharpness, even Ken Rockwell says that the modern dslr will start to show diffraction effects at apertures smaller than f8 and recommends stopping down no more than 1-2 stops smaller than the lenses max aperture not to exceed F8.

The best visual aid I have found of the diffraction effect can be seen here under the heading "VISUAL EXAMPLE: APERTURE VS. PIXEL SIZE. Perhaps this helps explain why you are not getting the results you want with the 600mm f4 + 2x TC III combo.

 

[CactusD]

In case anyone's interested and for sake of comparison, I've posted a few shots in my gallery of Slav Grebe taken with D3S/600VR/1.7TC (on Gitzo 3540LS/Wimberley II). I decided to buy the 1.7x over the 2x because of the question-marks about sharpness and af performance, and it works well. af not as good as naked or with 1.4x, but it still works!

see e.g. http://www.birdforum.net/gallery/showphoto.php/photo/350728/ppuser/57693
and
http://www.birdforum.net/gallery/showphoto.php/photo/355239/ppuser/57693
and
http://www.birdforum.net/gallery/showphoto.php/photo/350587/ppuser/57693

Another tip I've picked up re. Nikon semi-pro and pro bodies is to fine-tune the AF with all your TCs, using a test chart at 20 times the focal length (i.e. at 12 metres+ with 600VR!).