When I posted my original review/faq on the 200-400 VR didn’t have a 1.4x TC. However as I now do I thought I’d follow up the review by talking about my own findings with this combination in real world situations. The shot below was taken at 550mm, max reach for the lens and TC combo – usually the softest focal length of a zoom, let alone with a TC thrown in as well. Lets see how it holds up in this article, along with another real world examples…
Cormorant, D3 + 200-400 VR, 1.4x TC, 550mm, f7.1, ISO 450
1.4x TC Overview
Length: 0.9 inches (2.3cm)
Width: 2.5 inches (6.4cm)
Weight: 0.2kg (0.44lbs)
Links: Official NIKON website
Purchase: Available in the UK from Warehouse Express and the U.S. from B&H PHOTO and Adorama.
Extra reach please
Of course, this is the reason we want to stick these things on the back of our beloved lenses…extra reach! You never can have enough, especially when trying to photograph wildlife. The desire for more reach with a tele usually comes at the expense of something else though…
Focusing
Ok first of all, let’s get this out of the way now. There IS a drop in performance with the 1.4x added to this lens, the focus is a little slower and can have a slightly harder time acquiring focus as the light levels drop…however…by using the focus limiter switch the speed in regaining acquisition is greatly improved as it stops the lens hunting through it’s entire focus range. It’s also worth pointing out that the slow down is barely noticeable in normal shooting conditions with a D3 unless photographing very fast moving subjects. With a D300 it’s a slightly more pronounced difference and it seems to find it harder to lock on sometimes – a couple of times even in the middle of the afternoon on a bright sunny day in Florida I had one or two instances where it hunted in conditions I wouldn’t have expected, like photographing an Egret in water, nothing but blue around the bird but it seemed to have trouble with the bright white feathers and would dart to the background then the bird again on and off. Stick the D3 on and it locked to the bird and stayed there (it’s worth noting, I found the D300 would hunt in other conditions without the TC on that the D3 had no problems with, so I suspect it wasn’t just the TC at fault but just the difference in focus performance of the two bodies, birds in amongst foliage for example proved tricky to pin point sometimes – the larger on screen focus points on the D300 may make it feel like you can’t get an accurate focus by picking your exact target area though). But I’d not say the performance is awful on a D300, just that after two weeks of shooting both camera’s side by side with this combo, it was clear they have focus differences with the D3 having the edge. Is the drop in focus performance worth worrying about though? If your shooting in the day, no. If your shooting at dawn or dusk, it will varying depending on your camera body and exact light conditions how long you can shoot before the light requires you to take the TC off.
Please note, the D300 I was using was fresh out the box with firmware 1.03 which is not the latest version. The latest of which is said to improve focus performance.
Image quality
This is what we REALLY care about…and I’ve got to say the image quality with the converter certainly usable. Of course it’s not as sharp as the lens alone but it’s good enough still that on a recent trip to Florida I pretty much had the 1.4x attached to lens for the whole two weeks (until a contact pin fell out of it two days before I came home at least!!). Wide open at max reach of 550mm and things are at their softest but stop the lens down a little or zoom back a tad and things improve. I didn’t want to use a shot for this article that was carefully setup, with the lens locked down and set to less than full zoom with it stopped down loads. Instead I opted for a typical shot taken whist out in the field as for me that’s more important as I use the 1.4x with my 200-400 when I want a light weight hand-holdable setup that I can swing around easily. So with that in mind, the shot at the top of this article was taken handheld at 550mm and f7.1 (so only 2/3 stop from wide open at f5.6) and the detail is quite acceptable I think! Below is a %100 crop that has been re sized, however click on the image and you will be taken to a full res un-sharpened Jpeg of the same crop section for you to download and play with yourself, applying your own sharpening methods. The Cormorant was about 12 to 15 feet away from memory.
Please click to view this crop at full res
As for further away subjects…although not a spectacular shot I’ve also included one of this large alligator (must have been a good 10 or 12 foot easy!) which was roughly 40 meters away (or around 130 foot). Taken with the D300 at 550mm (825mm effective with crop factor). The focus point was just to the right and below the closed eye. The shot is handheld and straight out of the camera, ISO 400.
D300, 200-400 + 1.4, 550mm, f8
As per the Cormorant photo, below is a reduced for web %100 crop section with no sharpening applied, to view it unsharpened at full resolution simply click on the image.
Please click to view this crop at full res
Fit
This isn’t something that is exclusive to the 200-400/1.4x combo but worth a mention. As I’m sure most of you out there will have experienced at times, some lens/body combo’s have a little bit of play at the lens mount, where you can twist the lens very very slightly. Well once you have the lens, TC and camera all attached to one another you introduce two points of play which can feel slightly worrying and it does make me wonder if dust and dirt is finding it’s way in at these joints, although I can’t say I’ve ever noticed any extra dust bunnies…but still…
Conclusion
Is the 1.4 in the 200-400 perfect? No. Would I recommend buying it for the times you need the extra reach? Absolutely yes! As I’ve said, the reach does come at a slight price, with softer images and a slightly reduced focus speed (which will show at varying amounts depending on your camera body). However given the flexibility it allows you I think those issues are not worth worrying about too much. I mainly use the 200-400 handheld, resting on any objects to hand or with a monopod and it suits me just fine, if you use proper long lens technique and good support (a tripod should give better results) you’ll do fine. I’ve said in the past that if you want ultimate reach with stunning optics then you should be looking at the 500/600 primes but not everyone wants to lug one of those around or can afford too! In which case the 1.4 is a great addition to anyones 200-400 bag.
Thinking of buying?
If you live in the UK the 200-400 can be purchased from Warehouse Express.
And if you live in America the 200-400 VR can be purchased from B&HPhoto, here and Adorama.
Do you have a review of the 200-400 itself?
Sure do, you can find it HERE.
Handheld and almost wide-open, that is amazing. Thanks for the article.
I’ve found no “measurable” play at the lens/tc connection. In general, TC ergonomics very difficult/risky to work with in the field. Why? Well, you’re exposing three glass faces – including the flush TC faces – & the body opening to the elements/juggling act simultaneously. “Pros” really shy away from TC’s, as do I. I just sold one – again – and I’ll think thrice before reacquiring. One combo that makes “some” sense: TC14 on the 70-200 2.8… mounted BEFORE you start shooting; removed when you’re done.
Lou, TC’s are perfectly usable, just don’t try and attach one outside during a sandstorm.
Some people are so damned prissy about their gear its a wonder that they ever take any photos at all.
Not prissy; just practical. I’ve used all the Nikkor TC’s – off & on – for years. I currently own none, but would consider only the 1.4 in the future. I’ve even shot in a sandstorm on more than one occasion. Anyway, your comments don’t add much substance to the discussion, so I’ll add this:
1. TC’s always impair autofocus speed/acquisition.
2. TC’s always work best with 2.8 & larger maximum aperture.
3. TC’s always a compromise, but cost effective.
4. More focal length is useless if you can’t focus the shot, or can’t achieve adequate resolution.
5. Where most “pros” (I consider myself of this group) use a TC:
A 1.4 on a 400 2.8; a 1.4/1.7 on a 70-200 2.8; any of the TC’s on a 300 2.8; A 1.4 on the 500/600 4.
So, if you have these lenses, a TC can make a useful companion. I’ve used a TC 1.7 on the 200-400, and didn’t care for the downside. The 1.4 may be adequate, but each shooter different.
Conclusion: Better to use a long lens on a DX body if it’s reach you need, and noise issues not elevated (i.e., you have enough light to shoot action at max. ISO 1250). The 200-400 on DX an excellent overall long-lens compromise to fiddling with TC’s.
I have this combo and use it with a D300 with the latest fireware. I find the focusing issue is better with the latest firmware. I also have a 2x and was surprised to find the autofocus was still active with the 2x.
Hi, James:
I have a recent D300 – just before they were discontinued. The 1.10 update primarily issued to fix the “dead battery syndrome”. My 300 came updated, so I can’t speak to any AF improvement. Nikon says that you lose AF with anything beyond 5.6 max aperture. This (inaccuracy) has been the story since the inception of AF. Can you get AF with the 1.7 & 2.0 converters? Yes, but for what I do with the 200-400 – fast-action cars/planes/sports – the AF just hopelessly impaired. That’s why I say: 1.4… barely; 1.7… NO. You can probably MF about as fast/faster when TC’s are involved on an F:4 base aperture zoom. Primes a somewhat better story. See imagepower.de site for some testing results.
Richard,
Thank you for this review. I have this lens and 1.7x, absolutely hate the combo. Got to get 1.4x soon.
I find that the struggle to stay focussed as can be seen by the green dot blinking is often cured by simply switching VR off when using the D300. No such problem with the D3 though.
Hi Richard,
Thanks for putting up your review of the lens. It made me go for this heavy purchase. To be really honest, after an initial disappointment wrt the weight and sharpness of the lens, I finally got to grips with the monster. Mostly softness was a combination of bad settings or bad shooting technique.
After spending much time with it, I have to say I have improved and am loving the versatility this lens offers. I was also curious about the performance of the lens with the TC-14E. I got a chance this weekend and here are some pictures from it. But I really think if you are using a TC-14E, use it like a 550mm f/8 lens, the results will be very good.
Some sample shots here and here.
Regards and thanks
Gaurav
Hi Richard ,
I am so confused of choosing between 200-400 VR I and 500mm AF-S I
i have both need to sell one ,,,
- which one is better with TC-14E ( sharping , quality ) ???
- Which one is sharper , better quality ?
is the VR a big issue , i am not shooting handheld in both lenses
as i read the 200-400 has more ED elements more than 500mm AF-S I
Please advise me ….
Hi Salem. I’m a bit confused here to be honest as you’re asking me which lens is better…but…as you own both of the lenses you are trying to decide between you are probably in a better postition than me to say which is the best? The 200-400 is very very sharp for a zoom lens but the 500mm will handle the 1.4x much better. I’ve no experience of the old 500 AFS though. As I said, because you own both lenses the best thing to do is take some test shots and compare yourself and see which one you are happiest with.
Thanks, Richard
Don’t know why you’re selling, but if it’s mainly to raise cash the 200-400 will likely be more marketable. Example: I was able to sell my 200-400 last year for more than I paid originally five years earlier. Non-VR telephotos have largely lost the interest of the second-hand market. The 300 AF-S w/out VR, for example, has plummeted in value. Nobody much desires a long prime, like a 500, without VR these days, especially when it is hand-holdable. You may not shoot this way, but many do, because they can with VR.
Questions you may want to ask yourself: Which lens do you use more? Why did you acquire each of them initially? The 200-400 is better (sharper) at close range than it is at longer distance. Telephoto primes perform better (in focusing & sharpness) w/TC’s and at distance than the 200-400.
i didn’t acquire them to own both
its a trade with somebody then i got both lenses with very nice price!!
thats why i took both to decide later which 1 is better to use and sell the other for cash saving
you said the prime is sharper than 200-400 , yeah but its old version
hmmm as i read the Nikkor 14-24 is sharper than Nikkor 14 prime lens ( that doesn’t mean ZOOM sharper than PRIME ,,
i know prime is sharper than zoom if compared to the same year of manufacturing
but my 500mm is AF-S I which made before 2000 and the 200-400 made in 2003
really confused
here are my both lenses on a forum to sell 1 of them can you check the 500mm please !! to see if u already use it or so
http://www.friendsoflight.com/forum/showthread.php?t=48056
Thanks so much