Home News Buyers Guide About Advertising
 
 
 
   

View Poll Results: Should i fork out for the Nikon TC-E17ED?

Voters
4. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes, it is the best telephoto for the FZ-50.

    2 50.00%
  • No, stay with your Tcon 17.

    1 25.00%
  • I remain neutral.

    1 25.00%
Multiple Choice Poll.
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 25

Hybrid View

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Lincoln.ne.us
    Posts
    91

    should i get the Nikon TC-E17ED?

    your opinions plz.
    Panasonic/Leica/Lumix FZ-50K (28-Sep-2006)
    Panasonic/Leica/Lumix FZ-20K (15-Mar-2005 - 28-Sep-2006)
    Canon AE-1 (05-May-1980 : 1-Feb-05)
    Nikon TC-E17ED, Olympus Tcon 17
    Canon 100mm-300mm

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Los Altos, CA
    Posts
    2,635

    I voted...

    I have both lenses, and prefer the TC-E17ED, because it brings back the sharpness of the original lens, something which I think the TCON-17 struggles with a little more. You can get sharp images with the TCON-17, but your "hit rate" will improve with the Nikon. It (the Nikon) also gives a little more mag., like a true 1.7X vs. the TCON's 1.6X, and I'd venture to say it loses less light than the Oly. It's a brighter lens.
    Let a be your umbrella!

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    461

    The differences being so tiny as to beg a truly objective judge...

    Quote Originally Posted by John_Reed View Post
    I have both lenses, and prefer the TC-E17ED, because it brings back the sharpness of the original lens, something which I think the TCON-17 struggles with a little more. You can get sharp images with the TCON-17, but your "hit rate" will improve with the Nikon. It (the Nikon) also gives a little more mag., like a true 1.7X vs. the TCON's 1.6X, and I'd venture to say it loses less light than the Oly. It's a brighter lens.
    By any real test, the Nikon is "better", but not in all areas, and not so definitively that the T-CON should be played-down for being anything other than the sterling lens it is.
    The more meaningful tests for the T-CON I’ve seen show no purple fringing and an advantage to the Nikon that would, if it were a NASCAR 500 mile race, the eventual "winner" being determined in thousandths of a second, not by hundreds of feet.

    I chose the T-CON 1.7 for that reason: “pixel peeping” not being one of my affectations.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Los Altos, CA
    Posts
    2,635

    It's not about "pixel peeping"

    It's an intangible "capture confidence." I shoot a lot of bird photos, and many of my friends and I share a preference for this feature of the Nikon. That is, when you snap the photo, it gives you the confidence that you've nailed a sharp image. Yes, the TCON-17 (I also have one) can get sharp images, but it doesn't impart that intangible "feeling" as well, and it's borne out in the captured results as well. You don't have to "pixel peep" to notice how sharp this Turkey Vulture is?



    Another advantage of the Nikon is that it actually delivers on its 1.7X promise, where the Oly falls short, around 1.6X.
    Let a be your umbrella!

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    65
    Quote Originally Posted by John_Reed View Post
    It's an intangible "capture confidence." I shoot a lot of bird photos, and many of my friends and I share a preference for this feature of the Nikon. That is, when you snap the photo, it gives you the confidence that you've nailed a sharp image. Yes, the TCON-17 (I also have one) can get sharp images, but it doesn't impart that intangible "feeling" as well, and it's borne out in the captured results as well. You don't have to "pixel peep" to notice how sharp this Turkey Vulture is?



    Another advantage of the Nikon is that it actually delivers on its 1.7X promise, where the Oly falls short, around 1.6X.
    I would have to agree with John on the "confidence" factor, at least with my FZ3 + TCON combination.

    Frankly, I'm reluctant to take the time to put the TCON on the FZ3 because I feel I will be disappointed. I don't feel this way with the wide angle I'm using, but I do with the TCON.

    Maybe my expectations are too high and I just need to focus on getting closer to the subject and stop relying on full zoom and a converter to get me there.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Los Altos, CA
    Posts
    2,635

    Red face Shortening distance can be tough!

    Quote Originally Posted by pappekak View Post
    I would have to agree with John on the "confidence" factor, at least with my FZ3 + TCON combination.

    Frankly, I'm reluctant to take the time to put the TCON on the FZ3 because I feel I will be disappointed. I don't feel this way with the wide angle I'm using, but I do with the TCON.

    Maybe my expectations are too high and I just need to focus on getting closer to the subject and stop relying on full zoom and a converter to get me there.
    Getting closer to the subject is a nice ideal, but practically, it can be quite difficult. That Vulture happened to be perching atop a power pole when I shot his photo, and just my presence was enough to send him flying. Little songbirds are very skittish, so sometimes you have to take what you can get from a distance, like this one:



    That happens to be a Song Sparrow, at full zoom, full frame, uncropped in FZ30's 5MP EZ mode, with Nikon TC-E17ED
    Let a be your umbrella!

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    65

    How Big of a Fork

    Quote Originally Posted by Riddick51 View Post
    your opinions plz.
    How much is the Nikon? I have a TCON-17 for my FZ3 and pictures come out on the soft side.

    I selected it over the TCON-14b because it was (a) less expensive - I'm in the learning phase; (b) light - wanted to minimize weight on long day hikes; and (c) has a bit more zoom for wildlife.

    Although the TCON-17 has been useful as a learning tool the images are too soft for my taste and I would prefer a crisper lens.

    Here are some examples shots after sharpening with Elements.

    Marmot - hand held shot: f/5.2; 1/80; ISO 200; full zoom
    http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=5036196

    Nuthatch - steadied with a tripod: f/2.8; 1/800; ISO 200; full zoom
    http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?p...117924&size=lg

    Pine Cones - tripod using 10 sec timer: f/3.7; 1/40; ISO 80; full zoom
    http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=4668353

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    65
    Forgot about this shot - nice and crisp. But it was not at full zoom and could have been taken without the TCON.

    Nitro - steadied with a tripod: f/4.6; 1/320; ISO 100; 304 mm equivalent (counting TCON magnification)
    http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?p...634391&size=lg
    Last edited by pappekak; 10-31-2006 at 06:44 PM. Reason: clarification

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    western pa
    Posts
    2,334
    Dang I wish all my shots were soft like those.....
    .






    Gene
    http://grc225.zenfolio.com/
    http://imageevent.com/grc6
    one of these days I'll understand!

    Panasonic FZ20 & FZ30,FZ18
    D50 -- D80

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Yukon, OK
    Posts
    315
    I need one of those!!! Those pics look great to me.
    Minolta X370, 35mm, 50mm; Vivitar 28-80 zoom; Auto Spira-Tel 200mm, 300mm; JC Penney 80-200 zoom;12mm, 20mm, 36mm extension tubes, 2X & 3X teleconverters
    Sony Mavica FD-83
    FZ-20; 62mm Pemaraal Adapter; TCON-17; Hoya SHMC UV; Kenko Circular Polarizar; Tiffen ND 6, Sky 1-A
    Vivitar 2800-D flash; Spiratone Tripod

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •