70-200 f2.8 + TC - any good?

mark.roper

mark.roper

Messages
312
Name
Mark
Edit My Images
Yes
Bought myself a Sigma 150-600mm C before xmas, specifically for motorsports / circuit photography where I felt I needed the reach, and have used it to good effect at my local circuit, Snetterton, but I've found it has it's limitations, specifically at 150mm at the short end (given I have a crop-sensor camera so effective 225mm) it's a bit too long in some situations, and looking at the photos I've taken most are at 400mm or less, so I'm not actually using all that reach after all.

I almost bought a 70-200mm f2.8 (2nd hand) before buying the Sigma, but couldn't quite stretch to it, and was pretty sure the 200mm wouldn't have given me the reach I wanted anyway. I'm now revisiting the idea of buying a 70-200mm f2.8, but adding on a tele-convertor to give me the extra reach when I need it. A x2 TC for example makes the lens a 140-400mm f5.6, which gets me about where I am with the Sigma at the moment.

The question I'm asking myself is: Would sticking a TC on a 70-200mm degrade performance / IQ to the extent the Sigma @ 400mm / f5.6 would actually be better?

Or to put it another way, I know the 70-200mm f2.8 will give me performance and options I don't currently have, but if I were to sell the Sigma to fund it am I kidding myself to think a TC to go with it will give me back the reach I've lost with anything like the quality the Sigma currently provides (and it does, it's a great lens).

Does anyone have experience of using a TC with a 70-200mm, specifically the x2 TC?

(and this is all Nikon by the way, both Wex and MPB currently have reasonably priced 2nd hand Nikon 70-200mm f2.8's)
 
I was talking gibberish so please ignore the original posting.
 
Last edited:
I can't comment on the Sigma's but I wouldn't go with a 2x TC on any lens unless I really had too due to the loss of quality.

One thing you could do, if you've not thought about it / know about it, both Sigma and Tamron do a 100-400 equivalent of the 150-600 which is lighter & cheaper and gives reasonable reach.
 
I have the Sigma 70-200 f2.8 and both Sigma 1.4x and 2x converters. The lens by itself is great and very sharp, even at f2.8. Adding the converters you obviously lose 1 stop for the 1.4x and 2 stops for the 2x.

With the 1.4x the image quality is acceptable for me at f4 or f5.6 or higher but with the 2x the loss of quality is noticeable and I wouldn't recommend it unless you have very good light and can stop down to at least greater than f5.6, which somewhat defeats the object of a fast lens.
 
Not really answering your question... but have you looked at the Sigma or Tamron 100-400? My impression (from reviews) is the quality is similar to the 150-600 lenses but in a much smaller package and offers you a wider 100mm (150mm crop equivalent).
 
Stu Meech said:
One thing you could do, if you've not thought about it / know about it, both Sigma and Tamron do a 100-400 equivalent of the 150-600 which is lighter & cheaper and gives reasonable reach.
Click to expand...

I did look at the Sigma 100-400, but I bought my 150-600 in the Black Friday sale and it was the same or similar price, and I figured more reach for the same money! :D

drounding said:
I have the Sigma 70-200 f2.8 and both Sigma 1.4x and 2x converters. The lens by itself is great and very sharp, even at f2.8. Adding the converters you obviously lose 1 stop for the 1.4x and 2 stops for the 2x.

With the 1.4x the image quality is acceptable for me at f4 or f5.6 or higher but with the 2x the loss of quality is noticeable and I wouldn't recommend it unless you have very good light and can stop down to at least greater than f5.6, which somewhat defeats the object of a fast lens.
Click to expand...

Thanks Duncan, that's exactly the feedback I'm looking for, and in my case I probably could stop down to f8, I'd be mostly using the TC at day time events hopefully in decent light. Certainly this weekend when I was at Cadwell Park I could've got acceptable ISO at f8 for many images, it's just the Siggy @ 150mm was too long and I had to use my kit lens, which is soft to begin with.

I guess I'm hoping to have my cake and eat it, a 70-200 f2.8 so-called "pro" sports lens for when I can get close to the action, and stick a TC on it for when I can't. The debate I'm having with myself is do I sell the Siggy to fund the purchase? If I can afford the 70-200 without selling it, I won't need the TC, but then I might need a new wife, who won't understand why having bought a £700 lens last year I need another £700 lens this year! :(
 
Last edited:
I have the Nikon 70-200mm f2.8 VRII and I tried it with the 2x TC (latest model) and wasn't happy with the results tbh, they degraded quite a lot, especially things shot mid to long range.

I used the Sigma 100-400mm last year at Silverstone and was very happy with the results, but I'm not sure whether this would still be too long at the wide end on crop?

Another option I'm actually considering for this year is the 70-300mm VR as you can pick them up for about £250 used. Looking back at old images I took with one I had a while back they're actually pretty good, and for the motorsport that I do images are never going to be absolutely stunningly tack sharp as I generally try to pan at 1/50 or lower (although with F1 I had to up it to 1/100 :oops: :$)
 
I have the Nikkor vr2 70-200 and use a 1.7 with it on occasion. No real affect on images and you lose just under 2 stops .
I’m also planning on buying a 1.4 to go with it .
 
Shame it's Nikon else I'd have said canon 100-400...

I use a 2x TC with my Canon 70-200 f2.8 if travelling as I take one lens and the TC rather than add the 100-400 as well. I've compared images and the tc on the 70-200 is fine and almost as good as the 100-400. If you aren't pixel peeping, producing images for web etc it should be fine.

What about the Nikon 80-400mm f/4.5-5.6G ED VR AF-S Nikkor. Would cover everything you want (except cost?)
 
mark.roper said:
I did look at the Sigma 100-400, but I bought my 150-600 in the Black Friday sale and it was the same or similar price, and I figured more reach for the same money! :D



Thanks Duncan, that's exactly the feedback I'm looking for, and in my case I probably could stop down to f8, I'd be mostly using the TC at day time events hopefully in decent light. Certainly this weekend when I was at Cadwell Park I could've got acceptable ISO at f8 for many images, it's just the Siggy @ 150mm was too long and I had to use my kit lens, which is soft to begin with.

I guess I'm hoping to have my cake and eat it, a 70-200 f2.8 so-called "pro" sports lens for when I can get close to the action, and stick a TC on it for when I can't. The debate I'm having with myself is do I sell the Siggy to fund the purchase? If I can afford the 70-200 without selling it, I won't need the TC, but then I might need a new wife, who won't understand why having bought a £700 lens last year I need another £700 lens this year! :(
Click to expand...

As I say though just don't expect the same image quality with a 2x on the lens. With good light it is better, but it will certainly be noticeable.
 
Thanks for all the replies, I guess I need to understand what's important to me, I have all the focal lengths covered, I actually have a Sigma 70-300mm f4-5.6 as well, but it's an older model, slow to focus, hunts a lot, and again soft wide open. I've used it for cars and it's OK for side-on panning shots, but for bikes coming towards me it's not really viable.

I'm conscious of falling into the GAS trap and didn't really want another lens for a focal range I already have covered unless it was going to benefit me in another way, wider / faster / better IQ / flexibility afforded by the addition of a TC etc.
 
hi I personally never use tc on any lens unless its a prime , it sort of defeats the purpose of a fast short zoom
 
spudhead said:
hi I personally never use tc on any lens unless its a prime , it sort of defeats the purpose of a fast short zoom
Click to expand...
I wouldn’t call the 70-200mm a short zoom tbh. But I don’t see why a TC on a fast zoom is any less warranted?
 
I used to have a Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 with Sigma 1.4x and 2.0x Teleconverters. The 1.4x was almost 'invisible' in terms of focus speed and image quality. The 2.0x did slow down focusing and reduced image contrast and sharpness, especially in poor light.

I think I would keep the 150-600 and also find a lightly used 70-200 to go with it.
 
GeeJay57 said:
I think I would keep the 150-600 and also find a lightly used 70-200 to go with it.
Click to expand...

I'm coming round to that idea.

I have all the focal lengths covered, the issue is going shorter than 150mm means putting on my 18-200mm "kit" lens, which although it isn't the best lens is probably just as good as anything else that is shorter than the 150-600mm but isn't a f2.8, so swapping the big Siggy for a slightly less big something else doesn't necessarily help.

I was hoping to fund the 70-200mm f2.8 by selling the 150-600mm, but to do so requires a TC, preferably a 2x.

If the 2x TC is a "bad idea", which seems to be the consensus of opinion, I can't sell the 150-600mm.

If I can't sell the 150-600mm I need to find the funds for the f2.8 as a straight purchase.

Oh well, I feel a bout of GAS coming on. :eek:
 
You could always hire the pair for a day. A good vr 2 and TC will be over £1000 used so I would not buy them blind on the say of anyone on a forum
 
In my experience autofocus with the 70-200 f2.8 VRII and TC-20E III is poor - very slow, inaccurate and not suited to motorsports
 
Can't comment on the Nikons but on TCs in general. I use a 1.4x behind a 100-400 Fuji XF lens in preference to using the 2x that I also have. If I need the extra "reach" I crop into the 1.4x converted image unless I need as many MP as possible for large prints.
 
Once again thanks for all your replies, I don't think there's much debate that the Nikon 70-200 f2.8 is a great lens, the question is / was and remains: does sticking a TC on it ruin it, and the answer seems to be if it's a 2x then yes, although of course I'll never know if that's true for me without trying it.

However:-
  • I feel that I don't want to part with the Sigma 150-600mm, because I love it, it's a super lens and produces better quality images than any other lens I have
  • I also feel I need something for the instances where 150mm is too long (I go to a lot of oval track races as well, for example, and there it definitely is)
  • I feel my 18-200mm lens performs poorly (though accept part of the problem is me)
Therefore it seems adding a used 70-200 f2.8 to my collection is the way to go, but I'm not going to be able to sell anything to part fund it.

I intend to go to Snetterton on 27th May for the GT's / F3's, and to an oval track meet the next day, so I may hire the lens + TC for that weekend and see if the 70-200 f2.8 is all it's cracked up to be, and whether the TC 2x spoils it.
 
Hi Mark,

I have posted in another thread and whilst this photo needs a further crop / lighten, this was taken with a sigma 70-200. (non OS) without a TC. A 1.4 TC would give more options and would be useful. a 2.0 TC would be too slow to capture a lot of motorsport shots. IMO

I am new to flickr and will be slowly adding more photos. I have also been using a DSLR for only a year so my photos aren't that good.

It is a nice focal length for motorsport and would thoroughly recommend it. If you don't HAVE to have Nikon you can get some really cheap sigma versions for less than £500. There was one for sale on here.

[URL='https://flic.kr/p/26tzHaW']BTCC 3 by Nick Parker, on Flickr[/URL]
 
Last edited:
It depends on what you're doing with the images.
Back in 2004 I was using a Canon 300D and the cheapest £150 75-300mm lens, but if you prefocussed..

These were printed large for the driver

56495241.jpg

56495314.jpg



Better lenses/bodies give more keepers/makes it easier...
 
Thanks Nick, nice pictures, same here when it comes to the world of DSLR's, haven't had mine a year yet and only gradually beginning to work out what the hell I'm doing!

I don't have to have Nikon, I love my big Sigma, but I've tried a few other Sigma's and had issues, I updated the firmware on my Nikon last year to v1.2 (no idea why, seemed like a good idea at the time) and now some older Sigma lens don't focus, I think my Sigma 150-600mm only works because it's the "contemporary" version, with Sigma's latest (compatible) firmware. I think older HSM Sigmas that aren't from the contemporary or art range won't focus on my camera, at least Nikon lens are guaranteed to always work.
 
mark.roper said:
Thanks Nick, nice pictures, same here when it comes to the world of DSLR's, haven't had mine a year yet and only gradually beginning to work out what the hell I'm doing!

I don't have to have Nikon, I love my big Sigma, but I've tried a few other Sigma's and had issues, I updated the firmware on my Nikon last year to v1.2 (no idea why, seemed like a good idea at the time) and now some older Sigma lens don't focus, I think my Sigma 150-600mm only works because it's the "contemporary" version, with Sigma's latest (compatible) firmware. I think older HSM Sigmas that aren't from the contemporary or art range won't focus on my camera, at least Nikon lens are guaranteed to always work.
Click to expand...

Yeah I had that issue, I just sent the lens of to sigma and had it recalibrated. Works a treat now, and they cleaned it too. Price wasn't excessive IIRC. You can still obtain reasonable images from cheaper lenses.
Below is an image I took with a Nikon 55-300mm Kit lens. (f4.5-5.6 I think?) Yeah the background isn't blurred but its not too bad. Exactly the same theory as applied to the previous post by Byker28i regarding the Caterham's.

Do you NEED a 70-200 2.8 - No. Will it improve keepers - Yes.
As long as its the focal length you want, then go for it. I rarely shoot anything less than 100mm on track.
Wouldn't use the TC much except for a few areas of deep shooting (e.g druids corner at brands).

[URL='https://flic.kr/p/26tGkdq']Blancpain 2017 by Nick Parker, on Flickr[/URL]
 
Last edited:
Back in the days of film cameras, we didn't have autofocus so I learnt to prefocus then shoot as the car/bike got there. Worked a treat with my original, old slow focussing lenses. Still do it sometimes if I'm using a slow shutter speed for panning
 
Byker, yeah I appreciate that, I was at Snetterton last year with a Sigma 70-300mm, a cheap lens that came bundled with my camera (me not realising it was a cheap lens at the time of course). I found it too slow to focus, ended up manually focusing on a spot, setting aperture to f8 - f10 to ensure everything I wanted was in focus, and started snapping away and got some OK photos out of it, like this one, I think!



The answer to the question do I NEED this that or the other is No, this is a hobby, it's just the challenge of always trying to do it better is part and parcel of the enjoyment I get out of my hobby! :D
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Nod
When I used to shoot Canon I tried the 70-200 MkII with the latest 2x TC in some of the best light I’ve shot low level jets in and the results were really disappointing. Not a combo I’ve even contemplated replicating in the 5 years I’ve been shooting Nikon.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top