# Is the Nikon 1.7x Teleconverter worth it?



## Wolverinepwnes (Nov 28, 2009)

So i finally got the nikon 70-200mm i wanted so badly for so long!  for those who have experience with this, is the 1.7x tele worth the price, or should i just save the money for something else?  i do take wildlife shots, so the extra reach is nice, but as far as the IQ goes and what not would you recommend it?


----------



## Wolverinepwnes (Nov 28, 2009)

i forgot to add, but i imagine cropping would do the same! so what would be the advantage of the tele in this case, granted due to the increase in the focal lenghth one can frame the shot better, I really want to get one, but i just want to make sure its worth the investment.  cuz i also want the 105mm macro lens so I just need to make sure the tele is a better investment for the time being!


----------



## MrLogic (Nov 28, 2009)

Wolverinepwnes said:


> So i finally got the nikon 70-200mm i wanted so badly for so long!  for those who have experience with this, is the 1.7x tele worth the price, or should i just save the money for something else?  i do take wildlife shots, so the extra reach is nice, but as far as the IQ goes and what not would you recommend it?



I only have a 1.4x TC at present, so I don't really know. _Some_ say the 1.7 only provides empty magnification (over the 1.4), but it's seems to work well with primes such as the 300 f/2.8, the 300 f/4 and the 500 f/4

500mm f/4 VR & 1.7x TC: 

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3440/3717240802_2372228843_o.jpg

photographer: Scott Grant


1.7 TC with old 70-200mm. Scroll down to "The TC-17 teleconverter" for small sample images w/ this combination:

The tele system &#8211; Nikkor 70-200VR and TC17 « Photography+

Looks okay to me.


----------



## Wolverinepwnes (Nov 29, 2009)

thnx for the link!  i'll though i agree that the quality of the picture doesn't drop very much, but i just want to see if its worth the 550$ price tag, or will cropping pretty much do the same thing


----------



## MrLogic (Nov 30, 2009)

Wolverinepwnes said:


> thnx for the link!  i'll though i agree that the quality of the picture doesn't drop very much, but i just want to see if its worth the 550$ price tag, or will cropping pretty much do the same thing



According to Ken Rockwell (not the best reviewer, so...), the 1.7x TC gives "excellent" results when used with the old 70-200.  However, you now have an effective 120-340mm f/4.8 (1.5 stops slower), which isn't terribly fast. 

To make matters worse, for the best results you have to stop down a further 1.5 stops (though stopping down only .5 stop helps). His website is off-line at the moment, so I don't know if he did any comparisons.


----------



## itznfb (Nov 30, 2009)

The 1.7x is good for when you need an extra reach and have plenty of available light. You really need to stop down to f/5.6 before you start getting sharp results comparable to the 70-200 alone.

I found a refurbished one on Adorama for $325.


----------



## Heck (Nov 30, 2009)

I been thinking the same thing about the 1.4 tele for my 70-200. It does seem to be the best option for that bit of extra reach with this lens. But I have yet to pull the trigger because of the price. I don't see nikon lens prices comming down anytime soon so its just a matter of time before I pick one up.


----------



## kundalini (Nov 30, 2009)

I'm pretty sure this was taken with D300, 300mm f/4 with 1.7TC, Yes, it was cropped.




 

The TC does knock down your aperture by 1.5 stops (?) and given the right circumstances, it does produce some nice results. Shooting a BIF, I have never been happy with the results. A static subject is another story.  However, the moon IS NOT static...... I just got lucky.​


----------



## Derrel (Nov 30, 2009)

Teleconverters are something I have always purchased on the used market. Occasionally, it is possible to buy a TC for a very reasonable price--often well under the used price at the big web sites. If you contact photo stores outside the New York and Los Angeles area, you might find used TC's for sale for prices that many would consider ridiculously low-priced. Two years ago, I bought a Nikon TC-14e for $100 in a photo store in a city of about 500,000.

The key is to locate a store that sells equipment on consignment! Consignment sellers are often willing to take substantially lower prices than stores are on stuff they have bought outright from sellers. A copy of Shutterbug magazine will put you in touch with hundreds of real, brick and mortar dealers across the USA. The question then becomes,  "Is a TC17 worth $240?"

Here is a very,very informative photo comparison you might want to see.

D3x scrutinizes the 70-200 VR models [Page 1]: Nikon SLR Lens Talk Forum: Digital Photography Review


----------



## icassell (Nov 30, 2009)

Derrel said:


> Teleconverters are something I have always purchased on the used market. Occasionally, it is possible to buy a TC for a very reasonable price--often well under the used price at the big web sites. If you contact photo stores outside the New York and Los Angeles area, you might find used TC's for sale for prices that many would consider ridiculously low-priced. Two years ago, I bought a Nikon TC-14e for $100 in a photo store in a city of about 500,000.
> 
> The key is to locate a store that sells equipment on consignment! Consignment sellers are often willing to take substantially lower prices than stores are on stuff they have bought outright from sellers. A copy of Shutterbug magazine will put you in touch with hundreds of real, brick and mortar dealers across the USA. The question then becomes,  "Is a TC17 worth $240?"
> 
> ...



I agree. I bought both my TC's, each in mint condition with case/box (Sigma EX 1.4 and EX 2) for slightly over $100 each (different vendors, different times) on e-bay.  This represents a significant savings.


----------

