What's new
DPR Forum

Welcome to the Friendly Aisles!
DPRF is a spin-off of dpreview. We are a photography forum with people from all over the world freely sharing their knowledge and love of photography. Everybody is welcome, from beginners to the experienced professional. From smartphone to Medium Format.

DPRF is a community for everybody, every brand and every sensor format. Digital and film.
Enjoy this modern, easy to use software. Look also at our Reviews & Gallery!

Teleconverter AF malfunction

Scott,

Is it possible that the "fix" to the 300mm is sufficient to make it work with the 1.7 tele without modification of the tele...or do you think that Nikon incorporated the "fix" into the production version of the 1.7 tele?

--------------------

Anton and Scott,

Let me echo Scott's comments about contributors to this forum. I have only been on it for a little over a week, but, in browsing through some of the other threads, it seems that everyone is interested in sharing experiences and helping solve problems, rather than ranting about something. I appreciate the time and thought put into the posts.

Waiting for my lenses to return...

Erik Breden
 
Thanks for Your welcome on this Forum!
Other Forums are even too active and I get more enjoyment taking a look here, sometimes.
Surely, I worked out conjectures which both You knew already; just the matter may appear as more regognized, now to someone else, too who might come here reading.

So now, We know Scott haven't had this problem since the lenses were "repaired"; ok!
At first, I wondered how ***Nikon*** Contacts could get a such persisting problem; then, Your experiences addressed my mind to re-take into main consideration as the 300mm f/4D ED-IF AF-S Nikkor is an heavy Lens powered by own embodied AF motor. Which requires many Current running along a couple of races; more than other functions and not-AF-S Lenses require.
Which higher Direct Current, starts an anodeic process on some static contacts; as a result, an insulating "film" stopping low-Voltage Current.
Applying Teleconverter, points of contacts are then doubled; that, helps this process to increase, giving more than double effects.
Some low-Voltage apparatuses, do have gilt contacts; to help Low-Voltage Current.

Erik, alert Us as soon as Equipment is in Your hand again ...
Have a nice Sunday,
Anton
 
Scott et al,

I got the lens and teleconverters back last weekend, but haven't had a chance to go out. I tested them at the store and all seemed well.

Nikon "repaired" the "FPC" (flat printed circuit?) in each.

I'll post a report after my next outing.

Erik
 
Scott et al,

Bad News! The AF Teleconverter problem reared its ugly head during a week at the Texas coast the first week of May. I was able to "fix" it by removing and re-connecting the lens, 2X teleconverter, and camera body, but it returned over and over again after a few minutes. It seemed to go away after I connected my second camera body, but I'm definitely "bummed" about this. The problem did not occur with the 1.4 teleconverter.

And all around me were guys shooting 400 and 500 mm Canon IS (image stabilized) lenses, including hand holding them. I visited one of their web sites (after talking at length with him about Canon), and saw amazing pictures of a Hudsonian Godwit that put mine (of the very same bird at the very same time!) to shame.

Nikon doesn't yet offer long lenses with VR, so I am seriously considering switching to Canon equipment, even though this would require a substantial funds outlay.

Frustrated,

Erik
 
Hi, Erik

Sorry to hear about your malfunction. I agree that buying long glass is a huge undertaking. This January I bought Nikon's 500mm afs f4 II for CAD$8200. I'm a lowly school teacher, so this required some serious sacrifice. On the bright side, having long glass will change your (bird) photography forever. It isn't just a question of magnification, but the amazing subject isolation that I couldn't get with the 300 and teles. If you go with Canon, you'll have the benefit of the IS and the lenses are cheaper than the Nikon equivalent. From what I understand, cheaper enough so that you'll come pretty close to being able to pick up a body with the difference. I've looked at your web site and I get the impression that you generate income from photography, so upgrading might be easier for you to justify. THe way I justified is that buying a 500 f4 is like buying a house -- unlike dumping cash into a digital body that has a much shorter useful life. 15 year-old MF 500s still fetch at least few thousand on Ebay.

Check out my kingfishers taken with the 500 + tc-17e from a blind at their nesting site. www.scottyphotography.com

Scott
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top