Just Upgraded to Nikon FX - Question on lens choice

[ProG77]

Decided to upgrade to FX and traded in my Nikon D200 for a D610 + a Tamron 24-70mm f2.8 (I know the Nikon version is superior but couldn't justify the extra £400 which I hope I won't regret at a later date). Really looking forward to using this set up as it will cover most of my needs of a general walkabout lens.

My other lenses (which I used on DX) are the Nikon 50mm f1.8 and the Nikon 70-300mm f4.5 VR. I have an option to also get the Nikon 70-200 f2.8 VRII (2nd hand but with a decent warranty). Tried the lens on the D610 and obviously it's an absolute beast of a lens and unquestionably a far superior lens to the 70 - 300, but question is, by getting the 70 - 200mm, would I miss out on the 200-300mm range? Does anyone use the 70 - 200mm with a 1.4x TC? And what do most people use their 70 - 200 for?

Would be very interested to hear from people in a similar situation. Thanks.

 

[minnnt]

You wouldn't just be missing out on 200-300mm... more like 300-450 as you're now on ff rather than aps-c.

The sensor is a massive hike in mega pixel though so cropping will be more of an option.

Have a quick flick through your pics and see how many were shot above 200mm. That will give you the answer.

 

[Deleted member 66768]

I use the 70-200 Mainly for portraits. I used to own the VR2 before I moved to Canon. The main difference of the VR2 compared to others like the Sigma OS etc is the repeatability or keeper rate if you get what I mean. The IQ differences isnt that much. The reality is that with newer cameras ISO hugely negates the need for 2.8 glass, unless you want creative FX with depth of field. I never got using mine with a Teleconverter though I think I would have preferred a longer lens if I was needing the extra reach

 

[ProG77]

Very good point David (still getting used to the fact you get what you see on a FX!) - great suggestion on checking my shots to see how many were shot over 200mm. Suspect very few. Thanks.