Teleconverter and 24-70mm f/2.8

[arnica]

Hi All,

Just wondering whether there is a teleconverter for the 24-70mm lens. There doesn't seem to be one available.

[kiwi]

Any Nikon mount one should work - Kenko or Nikon

Not sure why youd want to though really for that focal length ?

[arnica]

I've got the 1.7x TC and it only fits on my 70-200

I'm still considering whether I should bring my 70-200 along with me to the trip (as it does weigh me down).

[lay-z]

In what way doesn't your 1.7xTC fit your 24-70mm?

A Nikon mount TC should be able to fit on any Nikon lens.

[I @ M]

In what way doesn't your 1.7xTC fit your 24-70mm?

A Nikon mount TC should be able to fit on any Nikon lens.

Absolutely incorrect!!!!!

Nikon quite clearly spell out that some teleconverters and lenses are physically incompatible and will cause damage to either the elements of the lens or converter if you attempt to mount them.

[lay-z]

Absolutely incorrect!!!!!

Nikon quite clearly spell out that some teleconverters and lenses are physically incompatible and will cause damage to either the elements of the lens or converter if you attempt to mount them.

Well there you go! I never knew that.
Thanks Andrew.

Edit: Furthermore, by saying that they are physically incompatible, does that mean the lens does not physically fit onto the TC?

[kiwi]

I would have thought a 24-70 and 70-200 are quite similar re mount both being 2.8 - but, yeah, Andrew's right - not all are compatable.

[I @ M]

Edit: Furthermore, by saying that they are physically incompatible, does that mean the lens does not physically fit onto the TC?

Yes.

I know some teleconverters are deliberately manufactured with bits in place to prevent them being mounted on certain lenses.
I believe that some lenses are also manufactured with similar obstacles to stop them mounting on incompatible teleconverters.

Whilst the mounting system of Nikon lenses to Nikon bodies is essentially the same to allow the vast majority ( but not all ) of Nikon lenses to physically fit the same can not be said of teleconverters because the elements on some protrude from the body of it and when attempting to mount them on a lens that has less space than necessary the physical incompatibility arises.

That is even before you start to consider the functionality of the converter regarding metering and auto focus between the different models.

That is why I said that your statement of " A Nikon mount TC should be able to fit on any Nikon lens. " is incorrect.

[arnica]

(IMO) It's so Nikon can increase sales of more lenses as opposed to TC's

[kiwi]

nah, its because it makes no sense to put a TC on anything less than a 200mm lens imho

[alf6]

Kiwi, Could you explain why you think the TC's make no sense on less than 200mm? I would have thought it would be a cheap option to extend your range of lenses without spending a fortune. Could you also expand my knowledge on whether using a TC has a downside - loss of qulaity, AF speed, etc. Thanks.

[fillum]

Phil, if weight is critical you could maybe consider getting a 70-300 which is around half the weight of the 70-200, and would also give you an extra 100mm at the long end. If you sold it when you got back you might not lose too much. (eg Can be had for ~$525 and a used one sold recently on ebay for $430).


(IMO) It's so Nikon can increase sales of more lenses as opposed to TC'sI think it's more about the 'extreme' design of some lenses. I have a couple of lenses (eg 18-200) where the rear element extends outside the main lens body.


Cheers.

[kiwi]

Kiwi, Could you explain why you think the TC's make no sense on less than 200mm? I would have thought it would be a cheap option to extend your range of lenses without spending a fortune. Could you also expand my knowledge on whether using a TC has a downside - loss of qulaity, AF speed, etc. Thanks.

TC's all have a loss of quality, loss of AF speed. The better TC's and the better matchings are negligible (eg a nikon 1.4 on a 400 2.8 you really cant tell the difference)

lets take a 24--70 with a 1.7 tc maks it a 40mm - 120mm - I dont think the different betwwn 70 and 120 (another 50mm) is that significant and if you crop to that not a major change of IQ - in fact I bet youd hardly tell.

On a longer tele like a 400, diff between 400 and 680mm for a 1.7tc is really quite a big difference (another 280mm).

[Lance B]

I am sure that you cannot use TC's on the 24-70 f2.8 because it has a rear glass element that is very close to the end of the lens mount. Therefore that element would foul on the front element of any of the TC's as the TC's front element protrudes forward from the front of the forward face of the TC's front mount where the lens would attach to. This is not a "we want to sell more lenses" conspiracy by Nikon, but simply a lens design function, ie, that is the best way to design the lens and the unfortunate consequence is that the rear element is close to the rear of the lens mount.

[kiwi]

Ill have to have grab my 24-70 and look up its backside when i get home. :)

[Sar NOP]

The Nikon TCs won't fit the 24-70, and some other zooms and primes :

http://img10.imageshack.us/img10/2180/cb72730.jpg


http://img41.imageshack.us/img41/8256/cb72736resize2.jpg



Usually, tele-primes and tele-zooms can be used with Nikon TCs.
Like a 200mm prime here :

http://img829.imageshack.us/img829/6520/cb72742resize2.jpg


Otherwise, you can use Kenko TCs on the 24-70/2.8 but you will not be able to use AF :

http://img546.imageshack.us/img546/6170/cb72748resize2.jpg

[arnica]

Thanks for the post SAR.

It's been a long time since I've seen you post. Love your bird pics!! hint hint ...

[Sar NOP]

Thanks for the post SAR.

It's been a long time since I've seen you post. Love your bird pics!! hint hint ...

I've been busy for the last 3 weeks testing the new 200/2 VRII in the field : http://www.ausphotography.net.au/forum/showthread.php?89383-Nikkor-AF-S-200mm-f-2-G-VRII

[gqtuazon]

I don't know why would you want to put a TC with this lens but since it made me curious, I have a Kenko 1.4x TC and was able to mount it with all of my Nikon lenses including a Tamron 90mm AF lens. The Nikon 24-70mm f2.8 was able to AF using the Kenko 1.4 DG TC but it didn't change the aperture unlike the 70-200mm f2.8 which was changed to f4 when I used the TC.

[creakingbones]

According to 'The New Nikon Compendium' published in 2004 by Lark Books, page 226 indicates that the Nikon TC14E II and the TC20E II fit and work with Nikkor AS-I and AF-S lenses. This means they will be compatible with the 24-70. There is a trade off though, with the 14E you will lose 1 stop and 2 stops with the 20E. Auto focus is retained with both. I use the 14E and it works a treat. Looks good too but costs a heap.

[Lance B]

According to 'The New Nikon Compendium' published in 2004 by Lark Books, page 226 indicates that the Nikon TC14E II and the TC20E II fit and work with Nikkor AS-I and AF-S lenses. This means they will be compatible with the 24-70. There is a trade off though, with the 14E you will lose 1 stop and 2 stops with the 20E. Auto focus is retained with both. I use the 14E and it works a treat. Looks good too but costs a heap.

None of the Nikon TC's can work with the 24-70 f2.8 due to the rear lens element of the 24-70. As shown in the first photo above by Sar, the front element of the Nikon TC's protrudes forward and would foul on the rear element of the 24-70 as shown in the second photo by Sar, above. Not only that, but I've tried to and it doesn't work!

[creakingbones]

Hi Lance
thanks for the update. Appreciated. I'll write to the editor of the compendium when I get the time.

[reaction]

It's interesting that people cite telecon as a cost saver, last time I looked at the 1.7x TC it cost more than the price of many a lens! It would only be a saving on exotics like fast tele primes, and I guess that's where they're marketed.

You can get cheap MF ones sure, but if I didn't care about IQ so much I could just crop and scale in PS for free!

[Lance B]

It's interesting that people cite telecon as a cost saver, last time I looked at the 1.7x TC it cost more than the price of many a lens! It would only be a saving on exotics like fast tele primes, and I guess that's where they're marketed.

You can get cheap MF ones sure, but if I didn't care about IQ so much I could just crop and scale in PS for free!

Very true, but as you say, TC's are defintiely marketed for fast tele primes and they are often designed as part of the light path of these exotic tele's. I am reasonably sure that Nikon specifically designed the 200 f2, 300 f2.8, 400 f2.8 (and possibly even the 500 f4 and 600 f4 with the 1.4x TCII), 70-200 f2.8 in conjuction with the TC's as part of their light path, so that they are basically as one with the tele lens rather than an afterthought.

So, in that regard, they are a low cost alternative to get longer focal lengths for the exotic lenses, not really for the consumer end zooms etc. Yes, you can possibly use them, but IQ and/or AF can be severely compromised. As you say, a TC can cost as much as a consumer end tele zoom and so in some regards it can be false economy.

I use the 300 f2.8 and 3 TC's, the 1.4x TCII, 1.7cx TCII and the 2x TCIII as a cheap way to get 420 f4, 510 f4.8 and 600 f5.6 and the IQ is exemplary. Also, when consdering the 500 f4 and 600 f4 lenses, there are no real alternatives for a Nikon user to get say 700mm and 840mm lenses and with a 1.4x TC you can achieve this by attching it to a 500 or 600 f4.

[Sar NOP]

Totally agreed with Lance.
Instead of attaching a TC x2 on the 24-70, one can just make a few steps forwards with the bare zoom to get the same field of view ! :D

[reaction]

a friend was going to get a 17-35 FX 2.8 and a TC instead of a normal range lens for the D700.
comments?

[kiwi]

As above.