.Hi everyone
Which Nikon TC perform good with the Nikon 70-200 2.8 VRii pls.. I was thinking the 1.7 be ideal for me..
Also can someone shed any light how to calculate it correctly for Crop.
Would I do 70 x 1.5 then x 1.7
Or
70 x 3.2
Cheers
What about hiring to try yourself first?Well that the end of that idea then LOL
The 1.7 is more like a 1.6x and I don't find it any better than the 2x (III).
Here is an example of the 70-200 w/ 2x almost wide open at f/6.3... I meant for it to be at f/5.6 but I must have bumped the dial.
Demo Shot by Steven Kersting, on Flickr
Nowt wrong with that either to be honest.. I was hoping for the 1.7 to get a bit more benefit as 1.4 isn't really much in the extra?
Andy I've just had a quick look through some old shots of mine with the 70-200mm VRII and 2xTC III and they're not as bad as I recall. I'm on the phone at the mo so can't link them but I'll do it tomorrow when on the computer.
If you're going to have to crop significantly w/ 400mm, then yes, probably. If not, then it becomes a circle of tradeoffs w/ no clear/easy winner.Ok would I be better getting a len such as a 150-600 rather than using TC? But was hoping a TC be the answer
What is it you dislike about the 1.7x so much?I have the 70-200 VRII & all 3 (1.4III, 1.7II, 2.0III) tele's.
The 1.4 - excellent all round - dont need to stop down beyond the obvious (280 @ f4)
The 1.7 - I need to sell it as I dislike it enormously... (340 @ f5)
The 2.0 - its ok in good light - BUT only OK...... Its one of those that I would use if I absoutely had to but in general I'd switch to another lens before bolting this on (you lose 2 stops - 400 @ f5.6)
For me it's just "so-so." It's actually more of a 1.6x (i.e. 320/5), not much gain over the 1.4 and it costs another 1/2 stop of light. IQ wise I find the 2xIII just as good at the same settings (after AFMA).What is it you dislike about the 1.7x so much?
I think you're right in that the Sigma stops down early and at 400mm is already f6.3, however the Tamron is still only f5.6 at 400mm.Like I said, it's not easy...
At 400mm the 70-200 will be at f/5.6 and the 150-600 will probably be at f/6.3 (1/3 stop slower) and neither will be at maximum sharpness. The 70-200 gives you a little more light or the ability to stop down a hair more from wide open. Stopped down to ~ f/8 they will be much closer to each other in both light and sharpness. But I think mid zoom is where the 150-600 will be performing it's best and I think it will have somewhat better IQ (I don't own one to say definitively). However, it's going to be larger/heavier and harder to operate optimally, especially hand held (a significant factor in the end results). And it's going to cost you a good bit of money.
Edit:
Generally, an appropriate zoom will give better results than a shorter zoom w/ a TC (equiv FL and good technique). But comparing an appropriate zoom to a shorter prime w/ TC's is much tougher.
What are you going to be doing with the images? If it's just going to be for sharing (web/smaller prints/etc), then I would suggest that you may be best off just cropping the 70-200 images.So out of all those you really suggest the 1.4.. I would only be using the TC out door at zoo and the like..
If I had to pick one lens in these situations (i.e. I didn't already own a 70-200/2.8) then I would probably choose the 150-600 as long as the 70-150 range wasn't important to me (at a zoo and in the paddocks it could be). In your situation, it's tougher. At 280mm one will be an f/4 and the other will be an f/5.6 and neither will be optimally sharp wide open. I can't definitively say which would handle better, and that's somewhat subjective anyway. While 280mm may still require some cropping for composition, it will also make panning easier due to relative speeds being slower. And a sharper image cropped is usually as good as/better than a less sharp image un-cropped.I'm not sure 280mm will be enough though (70-200mm with 1.4x TC).
That's because most zooms have variable aperture and most(all?) cameras loose some AF functionality/accuracy above f/5.6. That and the fact that TC's do degrade IQ somewhat and not many zooms have that great of IQ to start with.I only use a 1.4 teleconverter on primes my such as 300mm 2.8 , 400mm 4, , 500mm 4.5 , i was always under the impression that converters were not a very good idea on zooms ?
It's on Nikons teleconverter compatibility chart so it should fit, it says AF with not work which probably isn't a problem with a macro lens. (Note:all lenses on the list a teleconverter should fit without causing damage, if a lens is on the list it's likely the rear element would come into contact with the teleconverter if it's a Nikon one).Can some one explain then if I fitted TC 2x to a Nikon 105mm f2.4 the focal length would be 210mm, but what happens to the f2.4, does that half to 4.8 or there abouts?
It will connect (and if you remove the blocking tab it will connect to most anything). But it's a 105/2.8 and it will become a 210/5.6 in every aspect, to include having 1/2 the DOF at any given distance/aperture.Can some one explain then if I fitted TC 2x to a Nikon 105mm f2.4 the focal length would be 210mm, but what happens to the f2.4, does that half to 4.8 or there abouts?