Dossile

A teleconverter with a 200-500 is not recommended. With a D850 the clarity is such that you can crop. Nikon has a chart on its site of the lenses a teleconverter will work with and the 200-500 is not recommended.

Joexx

You are misunderstanding focal length and magnification. If you take a 5x7 print and instead print it 10x14, it is not like getting a 2x magnification. It is a digital magnification. An optical magnification ( increased physical focal length) will give you a real (re. Additional data) magnification.

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

Can you post an example of one of the better images taken with the TC?

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

You can print a 40x60 easily with a 6 mp camera. I did it all the time with my D70S. The D850 will let you crop severely and still make a large print.

RichardSM Loc: Back in Texas

Gene I could have not explain it any better, why these folks on this site buy into this is beyond belief? Again thank you for your wonderful post.

Bozsik Loc: Orangevale, California

No

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

It depends on the lens. The 1.4 III works beautifully with the 70-200 F2.8 FL -

"As expected from the above sharpness numbers, the Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8E FL VR performs very well with all three teleconverters. The Nikon TC-14E III teleconverter has very little impact on lens sharpness, so if you want to extend the reach of the lens to 98-280mm focal length, definitely add the 1.4x TC to your camera bag. The Nikon TC-17E II teleconverter works pretty well as well, as long as you use the latest generation Nikon DSLRs that can focus better in low light conditions. The 1.7x teleconverter results in a 119-340mm f/4.8 lens and once stopped down to f/5.6 can make another attractive combination with very good sharpness. The Nikon TC-20E III is a mixed bag (140-400mm f/5.6 resulting focal length) – stopping down to f/8 results in acceptable sharpness, but the lens will hunt in low-light conditions and might end up focusing inaccurately. So keep that in mind when using the lens with teleconverters. Overall, I would say that teleconverter performance with the Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8E FL VR is pretty similar to what I experienced with its predecessor, with slightly better sharpness results."

This was found in Photography LIfe's detailed review:

https://photographylife.com/reviews/nikon-70-200mm-f2-8e-fl-vr/4


And there are others that work equally well. In fact the Nikkor 180-400 comes with it's own dedicated 1.4 TC.

You may want to better qualify your broad statement. It is not exactly accurate. Unless you have first hand experience with the glass you are discussing, your opinions are just that - opinions. Facts supported by experience, measurements, real-life examples always lend a measure of credibility that a simple unsupported opinion will never have.

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

Please post an example.

DebAnn Loc: Toronto

I would use the new lens for a while, consider the results, and then decide if you need something more.

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

Well, context is everything, isn't it?

The quote you cherry picked was part of a discussion of slower lenses that are F6.3 at the long end, and the fact that the 200-500 is still F5.6. From the standpoint of aperture vs AF performance, yes, the lens is suitable to use with the 1.4 TC.

However, in the context of actual comparisons, taking into consideration actual image quality, which clearly was not part of the reviewer's comment on suitability with a TC, the 200-500 is less attractive. The article shows that the 200-500 with the TC is better than the lower end 150-600 lenses, but it doesn't touch the Sigma Sport. When you look at the price of the 200-500 with a TC and the Sigma Sport, the Sigma focuses faster in lower and less contrasty light, has higher resolving power and contrast, and is closer to a 600mm prime than any of the lenses tested and compared in the article.

I will add that the Tamron G2 is probably equivalent to the Sport, and my impression, not supported by any testing, is that at shorter focal lengths, the G2 is sharper than the Sport, making it an even better choice over the Nikkor, even more so if the plan for the Nikkor is to use it with a TC.

ekfelton Loc: Michigan

My question is why would you put a 1500.00 lens on a 3000.00 camera? I’m a firm believer in buy the best glass you can, like the 180-400. Excellent lens with a built in converter. Just my 2 cents

larryepage Loc: North Texas area

The 200-500 performs optically well beyond what would be expected from a $1500 lens. The compromises in that lens are around build quality and a couple of minor design shortcomings. It is a well accepted lens for the D850, D810, and D500. I personally know a photographer who does projects for National Geographic and other publications who uses that lens with those bodies for his assignments.

That said, the effect of a 1.4x teleconverter is less than a DX crop. I agree with those who say to not use the converter and just crop the image. I use both the D810 and D850.

cjc2 Loc: Hellertown PA

I have several $ 1,500 (and less) lenses that shine on my $ 3,000+ D850. A Nikon 85/1.4, Nikon 105/1.4, Sigma 50/1.4 ART and a Sigma 135/1.8 ART, just to name a few. The Nikon 180-400/F4 would seem to be an excellent lens at $ 12,000. I prefer my Nikon 400/2.8 at only $ 11,000. Yet I use my Nikon 200-500/F5.6 on my D850 whenever I need it! There is neither a rule, nor a thought, that the lens must cost more than the camera. Best of luck.

Fotoartist Loc: Detroit, Michigan

I have the Nikon 200-500 and Nikon TC 1.4 Teleconverter. I shoot birds with a Nikon D500 without the Teleconverter. If I were to use the TC 1.4, I would use a red dot sight with it on a tripod. And it would have to be a sunny and bright day and I would still use a 1/4000 sec. or thereabouts shutter speed. Effective focal length, approx. 1000mm.

mas24 Loc: Southern CA

I agree, that the lens does not have to cost more than the camera. I'm looking forward to owning a D500. My lenses, all DX, except one that is a FX, will cost less than that camera. One of my favorites, the DX version 35mm f1.8G, priced new at $196, will surely be used on it. Should I get that camera.