Test - AF-S Nikkor 300mm f4 D IF ED + Tamron SP 1.4 T/C

[Cage]

Got my new AF-S Nikkor 300mm f4D IF ED yesterday, and was a little surprised when I looked in the rear of the lens and saw the shutter blades.

Yep, no rear element. To my way of thinking, a permanently attached T/C is almost a necessity.

I rather impetuously jumped in last week and bought a Tamron 1.4X SP AF Tele-Converter.

I took about a dozen test shots today, with and without the T/C. It was quite gusty, and somewhere along the line I realised that the tripod collar wasn't tight. :Doh: My fault.

Anyway I'll post one of each test and would appreciate any comments re the relative sharpness of the two combinations.

To me, the bare 300 looks marginally sharper, but not by the proverbial country mile.

Bare AF-S 300
94399

AF-S 300 + T/C
94400

However, and isn't there always a 'however', the T/C wasn't really snug on the lens. Was a bit of play. Not good.

Both shots had the same minimal processing. I'd appreciate any feedback, but I'm leaning towards the TC-20E III. I just want to get it right this time.

[Tommo1965]

looks pretty darn sharp to me..with and without the TC...how much sharpening in PP did you give these images ?

[Cage]

Hi Steve

Unsharp Mask +150, Radius 0.8 & masking 10, and to be brutally honest it didn't really have that much effect. Probably could have got the same result with the "Blacks' and 'Clarity' sliders in Camera Raw.

That small print is about 1mm, and the subject distance was about 6m. This thing IS SHARP!

The lens build is 'Pro' quality and it's going to give me images that I'll be proud to post here or anywhere.

The bit of slack at the T/C interface shouldn't really be a big problem for me because I mostly shoot off a tripod using a remote release.

Oh, and Nikon seem to have sorted the tripod collar issue as I didn't find any evidence of flex or instability.

It mates perfectly with the D600 and IT"S A KEEPER. :th3:

Cheers

Kevin

[Tommo1965]

I've just tried the Unsharp mask in PS..as to be honest I never use it and prefer the smart sharpen Tool...I concur that at the setting you have listed the unsharp mask has little effect on sharpening...try the smart sharpen tool instead and at around 70-80 % at 1.0 pixel..also use the drop down box to remove Gaussian Blur....this has more effect in PS to increase the sharpness IMO

as for the fit of the lens... what's it like on the body without the TC...my 70-200 Vr II is a tad sloppy with and without the Nikon 1.7 TC...nikon actually do this on purpose to allow for temperature changes and the effect that would have on the lens mount and lens coupling ..at least thats what I read in the manual on my 70-200..:)

as for the 2xTC...its a great TC by all accounts....but I would prefer to use a 1.4 tc on the 300F4...perhaps use DX mode for the reach over cropping a FF capture..as the metering will be accurate for the desired framed image .. also try upscaling the DX mode images..as Im sure the D600 can handle a little push in that area during PP

[Sifor]

Yes there is a difference in sharpness, but it wouldn't bother me - I'd be more thinking about the extra loss of light.

[mongo]

Mongo agrees largely with Sifor in that the difference is noticeable but not worth noticing - it is a reasonably good result. Mongo would have gone for the Nikkor 14EII (second hand if necessary) over the tamron 1.4 converter but again with results like this, it may have made little to no difference.

[swifty]

Just wondering, how are the photos resized?
Upsizing the bare shot, downsizing the TC shot or up/down-sizing crops of both to a certain dimension?
To me, the differences are only marginal but the bare is more crisp. The TC version could even have very slight motion softness :confused013.
But since the objects in the photo are about the same size (but one has a TC used), could you tell us how the files were prepared? The difference can be a little more than what appears.

[swifty]

Btw.. Reason I ask is if you shot from the same location, with and without TC. Regardless of how you end up with the final image, if when you re-size to the same size and end up with less detail/sharpness then why use a TC in the first place.
I'd expect perhaps less acuity but with the advantage of extra detail from the extra pixel density with a TC.
But if u shot from a different distance to the same framing then it changes everything.

[jim]

Got my new AF-S Nikkor 300mm f4D IF ED yesterday, and was a little surprised when I looked in the rear of the lens and saw the shutter blades.

Yep, no rear element. To my way of thinking, a permanently attached T/C is almost a necessity.



The aperture blades on my 20 year old 300 f4 AF are also naked. Seriously, it's not a problem.

[Cage]

Swifty, it was 'quick 'n' dirty'.

Just opened up in RAW and cropped to the same size.

This shot has convinced me to persevere with the T/C.

- - - Updated - - -


The aperture blades on my 20 year old 300 f4 AF are also naked. Seriously, it's not a problem.

Thanks Jim.

I was a bit concerned about dust infiltration.

Cheers

Kevin

[swifty]

Great shot with great detail.
Sorry I wasn't trying to suggest the TC wasn't valuable. Only that perhaps the testing methodology may not tell you the info you're seeking.
But fair enough it was a quick n dirty.