Nikon TC-14E ii vs TC-14E iii: Does anyone have experience with these two teleconvertors to advise if the iii is a worthwhile upgrade? Would be using with a Nikon 70-200mm f2.8 Fl lens...

bob100

Does anyone have experience with these two teleconvertors to advise if the iii is a worthwhile upgrade? Would be using with a Nikon 70-200mm f2.8 Fl lens when need a bit more reach. Also interested if either would be a big compromise vs spending considerably more on the 300mm F4 P lens. I am having a hard time justifying the extra money for what may end up being a low use lens so thought a way to save money would be with one of the converters. Any thoughts? Thanks in advance!

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

I'm not familiar with either of these extenders. (I use a Kenko 1.4), but I would guess that the newer one would be superior to the older one. As for extenders in general, take a look at these outstanding shots.

https://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-561130-1.html

Brucej67 Loc: Cary, NC

Look at these comparisons https://photographylife.com/nikon-tc-14e-iii-vs-tc-14e-ii-performance-comparison and he is right.

bob100 wrote:

Does anyone have experience with these two teleconvertors to advise if the iii is a worthwhile upgrade? Would be using with a Nikon 70-200mm f2.8 Fl lens when need a bit more reach. Also interested if either would be a big compromise vs spending considerably more on the 300mm F4 P lens. I am having a hard time justifying the extra money for what may end up being a low use lens so thought a way to save money would be with one of the converters. Any thoughts? Thanks in advance!

FiddleMaker Loc: Merrimac, MA

jerryc41 wrote:

I'm not familiar with either of these extenders. (I use a Kenko 1.4), but I would guess that the newer one would be superior to the older one. As for extenders in general, take a look at these outstanding shots.

https://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-561130-1.html

Wow - I would never imaging getting this kind if IQ from an extender. Then again, these photos were taken with a Canon. I should know better.

traveler90712 Loc: Lake Worth, Fl.

Brucej67 wrote:

Look at these comparisons https://photographylife.com/nikon-tc-14e-iii-vs-tc-14e-ii-performance-comparison and he is right.

Would have been benifical, to me at least, to compare it to the nikon 200-500.

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

Brucej67 wrote:

Look at these comparisons https://photographylife.com/nikon-tc-14e-iii-vs-tc-14e-ii-performance-comparison and he is right.

Good comparison, and it would not push me into buying the iii over the ii, depending on price.

ekfelton Loc: Michigan

I have used the TC-14lll on a 600mm lens while in Africa. The results were excellent. Yes the light was good and I was shooting on a secure platform. For me the decision was easy

bob100

Thank you so much.

bob100

Thanks again to everyone who responded to the original post!

billnikon Loc: Pennsylvania/Ohio/Florida/Maui/Oregon/Vermont

bob100 wrote:

Does anyone have experience with these two teleconvertors to advise if the iii is a worthwhile upgrade? Would be using with a Nikon 70-200mm f2.8 Fl lens when need a bit more reach. Also interested if either would be a big compromise vs spending considerably more on the 300mm F4 P lens. I am having a hard time justifying the extra money for what may end up being a low use lens so thought a way to save money would be with one of the converters. Any thoughts? Thanks in advance!

1. There has not been a teleconverter made that IMPROVES image quality.
2. Image quality degrades more as you move from a 1.4 to a 1.7, and again from a 1.7 to a 2.0.
3. The Nikon TC-14E iii is not a over the hill improvement on the TC-14ii. I have owned both and not much difference.
4. The Nikon TC-14Eiii will cost you $500.00. For an extra $500.00 you can get a mint in the box 200-500 mm f5.6 lens off ebay. Refurbished $1250.00 and about 6 times a year Nikon will give you another 10% off, so then refurbished would run around $1125.00.
5. If you do buy a 300mm F4, buy new. You don't want to end up with an early production model.
6. The Nikon 200-500 5.6 lens gets great review, is extremely sharp at 500 mm and is a bargain at list price.
The following photo was taken with the 200-500 and a D4s.

bob100

Thank you.

Barndog Loc: Tacoma

I use the III for spring sports. Don’t have any experience with the previous version. Use it on a D500 w/70-200 f2.8 and it is amazingly sharp.

dgingerich Loc: Cape Coral, FL

I have no comparison data but I have the TC-14Eiii and I'm constantly amazed at its sharpness when used with the Nikon 200-500VR 5.6. I enlarge it 100% in LightRoom and I'm always surprised at the sharpness. Very little compromise at all. I'm very happy with mine for a 40% boost in my zoom capability for bird photography on a full frame D750.

bob100

Thank you for sharing your experience

dgingerich Loc: Cape Coral, FL

You are definitely right about the 200-500 Nikon being very sharp. And I bought mine on a refurbished sale on the Nikon website so it was a great buy. After having a 50-500 Sigma for several years, I couldn't be more pleased with the Nikon 200-500 for bird photography. After using the Nikon a year, I rented a TC14iii for a week and found very little degradation so I went ahead and bought one 6 months ago. Very happy with the combo of the two of them. You are right, they never improve the quality but as long as they don't compromise it noticeably. I make all my evaluation with the raw photo in Lightroom with the 100% magnification on and it's almost negligible between the lens only and with the TC on. So, looking at it in regular view without 100% magnification, it's not noticeable at all.