Best image quality at '300mm' - D700+70-200/f2.8+TC14E or D200+70-200/f2.8?

[Naboo32]

How's that for a confusing title ?

I have a Nikon D700 and (will soon have) the new 70-200mm f2.8 VR II lens to go with it. One of the things that I will be trying to do, fairly often, is to photograph small birds in the forest (the feathered variety ). In order to do this, as I can't get too close to the subject, I really could do with a focal length of at least 300mm, or I could try to acheive similar results by using a crop-frame sensor camera.

Given that a TC14E (1.4x teleconvertor) costs only slightly less than the price of a used Nikon D200 DSLR (with a 10.2MP sensor), I was considering the pros and cons of the following combinations:

1. Nikon D700 with the 70-200 lens and a TC14E teleconvertor.

2. Nikon D200 with the 70-200 lens and no teleconvertor.

In theory, the subject will look roughly the same size in images taken with both of these setups, as the extra reach offered by the TC in option 1 should balance out with the 'crop factor' of a 200mm FX lens on a DX sensor.

The obvious trade-offs are that, with the first option, you lose the f/2.8 aperture and get f/4 instead (as well as a possible loss in sharpness?) and in the second option you are getting an image which totals 10.2MP and not 12.3MP (which affects your cropping options a little).

I'm very tempted to go for the D200, as this would mean that I don't have to drag my (expensive) D700 around in the dirt with me and I also get to shoot at f/2.8 (a large part of the reason for buying this lens was for ultra-shallow DOF), but I wonder what you folks think? Perhaps I've overlooked something in this 'grand scheme' .

Opinions welcome ...

Thanks !

 

[Wail]

Not exactly the same, but I use the old 70-200 AF-S VR I with a D200 and a 1.7 TC; the end results were very good. I'd expect the newer lens with the 1.4 TC to be even better.

That, and you've already got the D40 for a cropped body so why bother with a D200?

How about D40 + 70-200VR II + 1.4 TC :shrug:; now that's some pretty good reach without any need to crop in post processing. OK, images would be 6MP, but it's a very sharp and good image, I am wiling to bet.

 

[davekiddle]

I use a D300 and a 70-200 VR with Kenko 1.4TC and it gives great images.

 

[TheOracle]

I've no Nikon experience but I would say the D200 will give a far better result in this situation unless you're shooting at high ISO

 

[Naboo32]

Not exactly the same, but I use the old 70-200 AF-S VR I with a D200 and a 1.7 TC; the end results were very good. I'd expect the newer lens with the 1.4 TC to be even better.

That, and you've already got the D40 for a cropped body so why bother with a D200?

How about D40 + 70-200VR II + 1.4 TC :shrug:; now that's some pretty good reach without any need to crop in post processing. OK, images would be 6MP, but it's a very sharp and good image, I am wiling to bet.

You hit the nail on the head there Wail, when you mentioned the 6MP sensor of the D40 . So far, I've had to crop all of my bird shots down to ridiculous levels, as I just can't get anywhere near them (they're wild, not sitting on bird tables ).

The focus isn't brilliant on the D40 either (just 3 AF points :thumbsdown and it doesn't have the 51 point 3D tracking of the D700 (although neither does the D200. It has 11 AF points). On top of that, I don't think that the combination is such an ergonomic one and that counts for quite a lot, when you're holding it all day.

Still, it's a very affordable and practical solution, so thanks for the input .

Having re-read some reviews on the TC-17E II, it turns out that it's not as guilty of robbing image quality as I had previously thought. This could well be the way to go, as 340mm is going to require a lot less (if any) cropping and a max aperture of f/4.5 is still going to give reasonable shutter speeds. And, if it doesn't, I can get away with bumping the ISO a lot higher on the D700 than on the D200, so this could well be the winning ticket - D700 + 70-200 + TC-17E

I use a D300 and a 70-200 VR with Kenko 1.4TC and it gives great images.

Thanks Dave, that's good to know. I must say, I've decided to stick with the Nikon brand, when it comes to getting a TC - they may do more or less the same thing, but I want the best build quality and don't want to invalidate any of my warranties .

Again, thanks for the input!

I've no Nikon experience but I would say the D200 will give a far better result in this situation unless you're shooting at high ISO

Thanks Mr. O! It could well be that I will need to push the ISO past 1600 (I use much higher ISO settings now, with my 70-300 f4.5-5.6 VR lens).

I think that the TC-17E might actually offer better overall results now. Must give it more thought!

Cheers for sharing your thoughts.

 

[puddleduck]

Really if you want 300mm, forget the 70-200 VR and get a 300mm f/4 AF-S. Trounces the 70-200 VR with 1.4x TC.

IMHO if you need a 300mm lens, buy a 300mm lens, not a 70-200 with a 1.4x TC...

 

[foodpoison]

Really if you want 300mm, forget the 70-200 VR and get a 300mm f/4 AF-S. Trounces the 70-200 VR with 1.4x TC.

IMHO if you need a 300mm lens, buy a 300mm lens, not a 70-200 with a 1.4x TC...

He already has the 70-200.

Not everyone has the financial assets to just say "well a 300mm lens would be better than a 70-200 w/ 1.4 converter so I'll just spend the extra god-knows-how-much-£ on buying a whole new lens"

 

[Naboo32]

Really if you want 300mm, forget the 70-200 VR and get a 300mm f/4 AF-S. Trounces the 70-200 VR with 1.4x TC.

IMHO if you need a 300mm lens, buy a 300mm lens, not a 70-200 with a 1.4x TC...

Hi Andy !

Actually, I spent a long time looking at both the older 300mm f4 and the (sexy) newer version. They both do the '300mm thing' extremely well, from what I've seen. What's more the old version, although slow to focus and lacking VR, is very reasonabley priced (£300-500 used).

What stopped me from buying that was the knowledge that it would only be good for one thing: the kind of long range/high magnification stuff that I mentioned in my OP. What I would also like to have is a longish lens that can be used for portraits (with hefty bokeh ) and incorporate VR technology (which I rather like).

So, rather than buy the 300mm f4 and then later go out and buy something like the 70-200mm VR I, anyway, I thought that I'd just bite the bullet and go for the VR II version now and not end up buying two lenses, one of which might not be as good as the lens I have just bought :shrug:.

As you know, it's always difficult to figure out what you really need, until you've tried to do whatever it is that you want to do with a particular piece of kit and seen the results. As a fan of f/2.8 and as someone who doesn't want to carry too many lenses around with me, I think that this 70-200mm VR II is a pretty good compromise for me (even though I will have to use it at f/4 or f/4.5 in order to get to 300mm :|).

Mind you, I do appreciate your tip Andy (you've given me a lot of good advice over the past 12 months ) and you're right - if I only wanted a 300mm lens for bird photography, the f/4 would probably do a better job !

Merry Christmas!