Teleconverter 1.7 attached to 70-200 VR - comparison shots

Had a play with something interesting? Got something that we all covet? Found a real lemon? Write a few lines about it, and share your experiences.

Moderator: Moderators

Forum rules
Please ensure that you have a meaningful location included in your profile. Please refer to the FAQ for details of what "meaningful" is.

Teleconverter 1.7 attached to 70-200 VR - comparison shots

Postby Glen on Mon Feb 07, 2005 8:07 pm

Hi all, a few people have asked for comparison shots with the 1.7 TC. Here a few quick shots I got off this evening, all taken from a tripod with remote, using auto focus in AFS mode. In normal portrait fashion, the focal point was the eye, in this case the left one. The subject is relatively shiny, so hard to take a good shot of, but with lots of different surfaces. I was about 6 metres away, so DOF was relatively small, especially as many shots were taken wide open. I am a bit unsure of methodology, so compared the TC wide open (F4.8 ) to the bare lens at a similar F stop and also at F2.8. I am not sure what is a fair comparison and welcome suggestions. If anyone want different comparisons feel free to ask or if you want NEF's or full sized JPG.

No sharpening at all was applied, these are resized for the web and exif should be intact.



120mm at F4.5

Image



120mm with TC at F4.8

Image



120mm at F4.5

Image



120mm with TC at F4.8

Image


200mm at F2.8

Image



200mm at F4.5

Image



200mm with TC at F4.8

Image




200mm at F8

Image




200mm with TC at F8

Image



200mm at F4.5

Image




200mm with TC at F4.8

Image



and for comparison


340mm with TC at F4.8

Image



340mm above blowup at 200%

Image
User avatar
Glen
Moderator
 
Posts: 11819
Joined: Sat Aug 07, 2004 3:14 pm
Location: Sydney - Neutral Bay - Nikon

Postby Glen on Mon Feb 07, 2005 8:23 pm

Just realised these were a bit small, can email any comparison shots
User avatar
Glen
Moderator
 
Posts: 11819
Joined: Sat Aug 07, 2004 3:14 pm
Location: Sydney - Neutral Bay - Nikon

Postby sirhc55 on Mon Feb 07, 2005 8:26 pm

I presume Glen that these shots were taken at your home - after seeing that head I now know why you go out a lot :wink:
Chris
--------------------------------
I started my life with nothing and I’ve still got most of it left
User avatar
sirhc55
Key Member
 
Posts: 12930
Joined: Fri Sep 17, 2004 6:57 pm
Location: Port Macquarie - Olympus EM-10

Postby Glen on Mon Feb 07, 2005 8:33 pm

Yes Chris, taken at home. I like the head but I am about the only fan. I point out to the girls it is quite disrespectful their attitude to the head.
User avatar
Glen
Moderator
 
Posts: 11819
Joined: Sat Aug 07, 2004 3:14 pm
Location: Sydney - Neutral Bay - Nikon

Postby birddog114 on Mon Feb 07, 2005 8:35 pm

Glen wrote:Yes Chris, taken at home. I like the head but I am about the only fan. I point out to the girls it is quite disrespectful their attitude to the head.


That head is your guard, perhaps :wink:
Birddog114
VNAF, My Beloved Country and Airspace
User avatar
birddog114
Senior Member
 
Posts: 15881
Joined: Sat Aug 07, 2004 8:18 pm
Location: Belmore,Sydney

Postby Glen on Mon Feb 07, 2005 8:38 pm

Birddog, that is how I view it. The last owner made the ultimate sacrifice so I could use his head, it would be disrespectful not to :wink:
User avatar
Glen
Moderator
 
Posts: 11819
Joined: Sat Aug 07, 2004 3:14 pm
Location: Sydney - Neutral Bay - Nikon

Postby Onyx on Mon Feb 07, 2005 9:06 pm

Glen, thanx for taking the time and energy to shoot these images. I'm sure some here will appreciate your efforts.

Is that the head you talked of at an earlier meet (ie. real human skull)? :shock:
User avatar
Onyx
Senior Member
 
Posts: 3631
Joined: Sat Aug 07, 2004 6:51 pm
Location: westsyd.nsw.au

Postby Glen on Mon Feb 07, 2005 9:12 pm

Onyx, thanks they are also on my pixspot account. Yes, that is a real human skull which is why the wife and daughter don't like it. As I pointed out to them, way too late to give it back now.
User avatar
Glen
Moderator
 
Posts: 11819
Joined: Sat Aug 07, 2004 3:14 pm
Location: Sydney - Neutral Bay - Nikon

Postby plukaduck on Mon Feb 07, 2005 10:01 pm

Glen,

I tried to look at your pics but quickly noticed the brick wall even though you had tried to disguise it by adding a coat of paint.

I just cannot bear the wall.

Cheers,

Darryl.
D70, kit lens, 70 - 200VR lens, 12-24 lens, SB 800, Lowe Pro Mini Trekker, Manfrotto Carbon 440 Tripod, Velbon ball head Monopod, Ikelite Underwater Housing, Ikelite 125 Strobe, 60GB X Drive Pro.
User avatar
plukaduck
Member
 
Posts: 63
Joined: Sat Aug 07, 2004 11:05 pm
Location: St Huberts Island (Central Coast NSW)

Postby Glen on Mon Feb 07, 2005 10:57 pm

Darryl you caught me out! :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops:
User avatar
Glen
Moderator
 
Posts: 11819
Joined: Sat Aug 07, 2004 3:14 pm
Location: Sydney - Neutral Bay - Nikon

Tibetan death skull ?

Postby christiand on Mon Feb 07, 2005 11:07 pm

Hi Glen,

is this a Tibetan skull ?

What is the purpose of it ?

Cheers
CD
User avatar
christiand
Senior Member
 
Posts: 1989
Joined: Sat Aug 14, 2004 1:36 pm
Location: Tuggeranong, ACT - Canberra

Postby JordanP on Mon Feb 07, 2005 11:13 pm

Appreciate your effort here Glen. One thing I noticed was some colour differences when the TC was applied .... noticably between:

120 @ 4.5 and 120 with TC @ 4.5 when you shot the chillie bush

and

200 @ 4.5 and 200 with TC @ 4.8 when you shot the chillie bush

didn't notice much isses with sharpness - looked pretty good.

Thanks,
Craig
User avatar
JordanP
Senior Member
 
Posts: 1050
Joined: Sat Aug 07, 2004 8:52 pm
Location: Lismore, NSW

Postby Glen on Tue Feb 08, 2005 9:55 am

Hi Christiand, well picked it is a Tibetan tantric skull, used in many ceremonies to ward off wrathful deities. It is believed that the best skulls come from one who has died a violent death, were a wise person, died prematurely young, etc. A person who dies peacefully in their sleep in old age is not considered a very usefull skull. I bought in a market in Kathmandu, everything in the market was under $2-3 , then this one skull was $100. Wouldn't negotiate, telling me it was the only one he had, ended up buying it (was with a mate of mine who was a doctor, confirmed it was genuine), came back 4-5 days later and there was another one! My doctor mate bought it.
User avatar
Glen
Moderator
 
Posts: 11819
Joined: Sat Aug 07, 2004 3:14 pm
Location: Sydney - Neutral Bay - Nikon

Postby sirhc55 on Tue Feb 08, 2005 11:09 am

Chris
--------------------------------
I started my life with nothing and I’ve still got most of it left
User avatar
sirhc55
Key Member
 
Posts: 12930
Joined: Fri Sep 17, 2004 6:57 pm
Location: Port Macquarie - Olympus EM-10

Postby Glen on Tue Feb 08, 2005 11:16 am

Chris you're right! $1250 or $1200 US, maybe my guardian really is a new lens! I love the description on the second one where they describe the item as "new". By definition a human skull must have been used at least once before :wink: As you know Chris I am always happy when I get a bargain :D
User avatar
Glen
Moderator
 
Posts: 11819
Joined: Sat Aug 07, 2004 3:14 pm
Location: Sydney - Neutral Bay - Nikon

Postby sirhc55 on Tue Feb 08, 2005 11:28 am

Glen you must know by now that there are those that never use there skull :wink:
Chris
--------------------------------
I started my life with nothing and I’ve still got most of it left
User avatar
sirhc55
Key Member
 
Posts: 12930
Joined: Fri Sep 17, 2004 6:57 pm
Location: Port Macquarie - Olympus EM-10

Postby Glen on Tue Feb 08, 2005 11:32 am

sirhc55 wrote:Glen you must know by now that there are those that never use there skull :wink:



:lol: :lol: :lol:
User avatar
Glen
Moderator
 
Posts: 11819
Joined: Sat Aug 07, 2004 3:14 pm
Location: Sydney - Neutral Bay - Nikon

Postby pippin88 on Tue Feb 08, 2005 1:08 pm

sirhc55 wrote:Glen you must know by now that there are those that never use there skull :wink:

Surely everybody headbuts when fighting?
User avatar
pippin88
Senior Member
 
Posts: 1107
Joined: Thu Jan 06, 2005 6:42 pm
Location: Newcastle / Sydney

Postby kipper on Tue Feb 15, 2005 2:23 pm

So what do you think Glen of the TC1.7 for crispness with the 70-200VR?
I'm in two minds as to get the TC1.4 or the TC1.7, I know the TC2.0 is shite.
kipper
Senior Member
 
Posts: 3738
Joined: Thu Nov 04, 2004 9:23 pm
Location: Hampshire, UK

Postby Glen on Tue Feb 15, 2005 2:26 pm

Kipper very happy with it, would recommend it, especially at the F1 if you are a long way away. 1.4 is better, but reach is reach. Could also be used later on 300 F4 AFS, to give a cheap big gun
User avatar
Glen
Moderator
 
Posts: 11819
Joined: Sat Aug 07, 2004 3:14 pm
Location: Sydney - Neutral Bay - Nikon


Return to Equipment Reviews

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 40 guests

cron