Observations on using stacked TCs to get to 400mm

gustafson

Senior Member
I've been looking at ways to get to a 400mm focal length affordably and with decent IQ. While saving up for a big boy telephoto, I happened to realize that I had 2 TC-16As (one modified to work and autofocus on my D7100, and one unmodified) that could be stacked to get me that additional reach. My longest primes are currently a manual AI'd 200 f/4 QC and a factory AI'd 180 f/2.8 PC, so it wasn't long before they went on my stacked TCs to see if it would work at all. Below are my observations and a link to sample images. Would appreciate if others could look at the samples and share any other observations, or any thoughts on how the results could be improved.


  • Link to sample images (all SOOC jpegs, handheld with AI'd 180 f/2.8 PC and two stacked TC-16As, except where noted): https://www.flickr.com/gp/89411942@N04/y8998Y
  • Using the 200 f/4 QC on the stacked TCs resulted in too much AF hunting indoors, even wide open, and what photos I got didn't look great, so I didn't bother testing it further.
  • The 180 f/2.8 PC, on the other hand, seemed to work pretty admirably (with certain limitations) with the stacked TCs. I was able to get decent shots at lower ISOs and shutter speeds than I would have expected with 2TCs and the long focal length (460mm f/7). All of the test shots linked above, and observations below, are with this lens and stacked TCs.
    • Given I was stacking TCs, I expected images to be horrendous. However, I was surprised to get surprisingly detailed shots for subjects within 25 feet. Given the light loss due to the TCs, use of a flash helped considerably, although it often introduced CA in the catchlights. Use bounce flash if possible for reflective objects.
    • Shots at wide apertures near the min focusing distance were often soft, but I expect that is due to the thin DOF at those distances which makes focus vulnerable to slight movements of the camera to or away from the subject.
    • Beyond 75 feet to infinity, the detail was not great, as you can see from the moon shots or the BIF shot. To begin with, if the second TC-16A (the one that sits on top of the TC-16A that is attached to the camera) does not have its element extended all the way out, the setup doesn't even focus at infinity. Once I ensured that, I was able to focus at infinity, but the shots were terrible as you can see. Any tips to fix that will be appreciated. If it is even possible, I will be blown away, as it will give me the option to use this rig for BIF and distant birds, although I suspect a single TC with cropping might give superior results.

Look forward to your comments and reactions.
 
Last edited:

STM

Senior Member
When it comes to stacking teleconverters I really have one word or advice............DON'T

Your IQ will take a header quickly. And if your lens has any chromatic aberration, it will be get REALLY bad. You will also probably see a fair amount of vignetting as well.

But the final determination will be whether you can live with the IQ.
 

gustafson

Senior Member
When it comes to stacking teleconverters I really have one word or advice............DON'T

Your IQ will take a header quickly. And if your lens has any chromatic aberration, it will be get REALLY bad. You will also probably see a fair amount of vignetting as well.

But the final determination will be whether you can live with the IQ.

Your comments are consistent with the consensus on teleconverters in general (aside from 1.4x TCs), let alone stacked converters. That was part of the reason why I was surprised that my shots weren't as dismal as I had expected. However, that might have a lot to do with the fact that I was using a crop sensor, which is somewhat protected from the vignetting and corner-sharpness issues. I also learned first hand why many TCs require f/2.8 teles, given how badly the 200 f/4 with the 52mm objective performed.
 

STM

Senior Member
I'm crediting (or blaming) @salukfan111 for my obsession with the TC-16A


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I have both a TC-14B and TC-300 and they both worth very well with my 300mm f/2.8 and 600mm f/4. In fact I see no degredation whatsoever with the TC-14B, just a tiny amount of CA. Just for grins I once stacked both of them on my 600mm and the IQ went to hell in a handbasket pretty quickly. If I want that much magnification, I switch to the D300.
 

gustafson

Senior Member
I have both a TC-14B and TC-300 and they both worth very well with my 300mm f/2.8 and 600mm f/4. In fact I see no degredation whatsoever with the TC-14B, just a tiny amount of CA. Just for grins I once stacked both of them on my 600mm and the IQ went to hell in a handbasket pretty quickly. If I want that much magnification, I switch to the D300.

That is a bummer but not surprising. TCs are reportedly hit or miss when it comes to compatibility with lenses, let alone other TCs. I was out this evening experimenting with the stacked TC-16As to see if I could improve performance at longer distances to infinity, but no dice :(
 

STM

Senior Member
That is a bummer but not surprising. TCs are reportedly hit or miss when it comes to compatibility with lenses, let alone other TCs. I was out this evening experimenting with the stacked TC-16As to see if I could improve performance at longer distances to infinity, but no dice :(

When you consider how a teleconverter works, it comes as no surprise that when you stack them your IQ will go to crap. Both my 300mm f/2.8 and 600mm f/4 have ED glass and ZERO CA. But when you add TC's that don't you are going to get it, well, because the light hits them AFTER it hits your lens.
 

gustafson

Senior Member
When you consider how a teleconverter works, it comes as no surprise that when you stack them your IQ will go to crap. Both my 300mm f/2.8 and 600mm f/4 have ED glass and ZERO CA. But when you add TC's that don't you are going to get it, well, because the light hits them AFTER it hits your lens.

Good point, I had not considered the implications of ED and non ED glass. In my setup, CA was an issue in specular reflections, and a minor one at that. However, the biggest drawback is the poor resolution of detail of subjects beyond 50ft. That the TC-16A has a movable element (rare amongst TCs) makes it all the more challenging. I'm hoping to try stacking it with a 1.4x fixed-element TC (yet to be acquired) to see if I can get better performance with distant subjects.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

gustafson

Senior Member
My 80-200 AF-D arrived last week, so I subjected it to the stacked TC-16A setup and this is what I got. The shots are below with no TC, single TC, and stacked TCs. The 80-200mm was at 200mm & f/4 for the first two shots, and f/2.8 in the last shot (f/4 was too dark for AF). This show how detail at infinity goes south with the stacked TC setup.

80-200 AF-D @ 200mm & f/4, no TC, 100% crop SOOC by p.g.photo.graphy, on Flickr

TC-16A + 80-200 AF-D @ 200mm & f/4, 100% crop SOOC by p.g.photo.graphy, on Flickr

Stacked TC-16As + 80-200 AF-D @ 200mm & f/2.8, 100% crop SOOC by p.g.photo.graphy, on Flickr
 
Top