Vince68 Loc: Wappingers Falls, NY

I'm no expert on bird photography, but one reason your second shot was more out of focus is your shutter speed, 1/200 vs 1/500 on the first. At 700mm with the 1.4 converter, your shutter speed probably should have been 1/1000. Myself, I would have used 1/1000 on the first shot simply because of the distance you were shooting at, and a faster shutter with the converter shot. You didn't say what other steps you took taking the shots. Did you use mirror up, use a remote release, shutter delay? All these would have helped with camera shake/movement and helped get a sharper, more in focus image. Also, I would have probably taken the shots wide open, as the grass, trees, etc are distracting anyway imo, and it is the bird you want to focus on, not the other stuff.

As I said, I am not expert, just my 2¢. I do not own that lens, so I cannot speak from experience of using it, but from what I do know regarding technique, my experience with getting sharp images, and what I have read and learned from others, those are just my thoughts. Try some more test shots before returning the converter. I have seen a number of images with the 200-500mm lens and 1.4 converter on this site and other sites and they are very sharp and in focus. I truly think the distance you were from the bird contributed greatly to your results.

Good luck in whatever you decide to do.

bigdukeor

The depth of field is substantially reduced in #2, which means the Fstop had to be wider with the converter.

conservit

Looks to me as if the focus on #2 is substantially in front of the bird. Notice how sharp the grass is at the bottom of frame.

Jerrin1 Loc: Wolverhampton, England

Would you say that to the pro wildlife and sports photographers who choose to use 500mm and 600mm f4 lenses with 1.4 TC's: or is you comment only applicable to amateur photographers?

romanticf16 Loc: Commerce Twp, MI

Looking at photo #2 it looks like the point of focus was the grass in front of the bird. Were you using spot focus or multiple points in this test?

amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA

At that distance you're asking a lot out of the lens and TC. I picked #2 as the TC shot... though because of the shallower depth of field, not just because it's a wee bit softer.

Someone suggested, and I agree, if not doing so you would probably be best served using single AF point for a shot like this. Any multi-point pattern that leaves it up to the camera to choose the point of focus is likely to cause problems.... with ultra long focal lengths, depth of field is shallow and less forgiving of even minor focus errors.

You might try a different TC...

For example, since you're using a D500 (DX/APS-C), you might give the Kenko MC-4 1.4X a test drive. It's a whole lot cheaper ($100) and quite sharp in the center. Works well on crop sensor cameras.... but might not be ideal on full frame (actually, less than sharp corners are usually not much problem for wildlife photography... still for FX/full frame).

But before you send the TC back, you also might try micro focus adjusting it and the lens. Might make a world of difference.

Also, even with a VR lens images might be effected by shake blur... even internal camera vibrations from the mirror or shutter... working with such long focal length (500mm + 1.4X = 700mm.... on APS-C that makes it act like 1050mm on full frame).

When working with really long lenses on a tripod I sometimes put a small sandbag on top of them to help dampen any vibrations. If there's a breeze, I also might remove the large lens hood (depends upon the lighting, though).

But even using every trick in the book, when you shoot a distant subject through a lot of atmosphere there's often a lot of image quality lost to factors out of your control... how clear the air is, even ambient temperatures can have significant effect.

Try VR on and VR off, too. Stabilization is normally quite helpful. But it takes a moment to "do it's thing" and if shutter is released too quickly, images may not be sharp. Stabilization in some lenses also can be problematic if on a tripod. And many Nikon users feel VR slows down autofocus. And, in many lens designs turning it off also "locks" elements in place, that are normally allowed to move to counteract any shake.

Finally, do you have a "protection filter" on that lens? If so, try without filter (the nice, deep lens hood probably does a better job of protecting the lens, too). You might be surprised. Any filter "costs" a little bit of image quality... though better multi-coated filters won't cost much IQ most of the time, under ideal conditions. But some lenses really don't "play well" with filters. The original Canon 100-400mm zoom was one. A lot of folks who used that lens were stunned how much sharper it was once they removed the fancy, expensive filter they'd bought to "protect" it.

Perhaps the best lesson from these images should be that there's no substitute for getting closer... even with equivalent to 1000mm on full frame.

DeanS Loc: Capital City area of North Carolina

There is a color diff also. Colors in the tc version not as clear as first shot.

dmsM43

Your DOF with the teleconverter will be less than without. This may explain why the background is soft and out of focus. I also notice that the foreground in picture #2 appears to be sharper than in picture #1, which suggests that your focus may be off. Did you use AF or MF when taking these pictures?

Shootist Loc: Wyoming

I'm going for focus problem with the shots. The focus appears to have locked onto the grass in front of the bird in the first shot and quite a bit shorter in the second (the duck in the foreground appears sharper than the heron. Also, it looks like the photos were taken in subdued light, this can affect focus. I would recommend going out with early or late sunlight and do some more testing before making a judgement. Understand, I am just getting to know longer lenses and have much to learn but I think your setup can do much better.

BudsOwl Loc: Upstate NY and New England

1 was with the teleconverter And I think it is sharper than 2,

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

Neither is sharp or with correct focus ......

Steve Perry Loc: Sylvania, Ohio

The TC shot is severely front focused, look at the grass. I'd suggest AF Fine Tuning, but it looks like it's beyond what that can do. Send it back for a different one. I use that same TC and while it's not quite as good as the bare lens, it's tough to tell them apart.

TriX Loc: Raleigh, NC

👍👍👍

JeffDavidson Loc: Originally Detroit Now Los Angeles

I have the NIKON 200-500 mm and the TC 1.4 teleconverter and I seriously doubt that you could tell which ones I took with a teleconverter or not.

Check your focusing, spot, center weighted, etc. How many points of focusing are you using? Where is the focusing point? Are the contacts clean on the teleconverter and the lens mount?

UKBillyBoy Loc: Central Texas

I'm a new member of the Ugly Hedgehog community, but I have enjoyed reading replies for some time and have learned a lot in doing so. I'm replying to your problem because my results using teleconverters have been very good. For birding I use a Nikon D750 with a 300mm f/4 prime lens. I get excellent results using 1.4, 1.7 and 2x Teleconverters. The drawbacks are losing 1-stop aperture using 1.4x, 1 1/2-stops using 1.7x and 2-stops with 2x TCs, and more difficulty locking in the auto focus in low light conditions and low contrast subject areas. My shots using the 1.4 seem better than your photo without 1.4x TC. I'm relatively new to cameras and photography but I found early on that it is important to check the autofocus accuracy, and if necessary refine adjust the lens itself and with each Teleconverter.