TC vs Long prime

[specialman]

Looking at going up to a D3s this year but I'll end up losing length on my 70-200mm. Just wanted to hear peoples thoughts on using a 1.4x TC with that lens as opposed to going for a f/4 300mm or even a used Sigma 300mm f/2.8....

Obviously the loss of a stop or do in terms if aperture can be in done way recouped by great high USO performance from the body but overall, it's a cost issue that dictates what option I go for to get the focal length. Anyone done those options and what were your feelings in using a TC to do a prime's job?

Obviously, the TC us the cheapest option, which would work best for my employer, but a prime (say a new f/4 or used f/2.8 Siggy) would offer me optional quality.

 

[D3S]

I'd always say go for length on the lens, despite some very good IQ results with 1.4x TC and even 2x in the case of Nikon's TC-20Eiii. You'll love the D3S, believe me! I use a Siggy 120-300mm F/2.8 on it, and it's superb.

 

[specialman]

I'd always say go for length on the lens, despite some very good IQ results with 1.4x TC and even 2x in the case of Nikon's TC-20Eiii. You'll love the D3S, believe me! I use a Siggy 120-300mm F/2.8 on it, and it's superb.

Forgot about the 120-300.... quite a few TP members rate that lens.... a possible option.

Would go for a D3 but we want to venture more into web featurettes for the mags, hence the appeal if the D3s. Wonder if used prices are easy enough to swallow?

 

[Mr_Sukebe]

Can't say I was impressed with the TC that I used to own. MUCH preferred the 400mm prime that I owned for a couple of years. Awesome AF and VERY sharp. Not that it's an option for you as you're a Nikon owner, but I assume they have something very similar.

 

[dunganick]

You would obviously choose a plain lens over a TC combination. However if funds dont allow then TC's offer a superb alternative.

From what i hear about the new Nikon TC's, they are very impressive. You also have access to 1.7x TC's unlike Canon, which i've seen members of this forum use to good effect on a 300 F4 and D300.

I personally cant stretch to a 300 2.8 currently, so i am using my 1d 70-200 2.8 + tc for most things (most of last year as well) and frankly its superb. Drop in IQ is nearly non existent, the only effect is AF accuracy in poor light. (if you want examples, take a look on my site at pretty much any motorsports photos)

 

[D3S]

D3S over a D3 is a no-brainer; the D3S is stunning through most of the ISO range as I'm sure you've already researched.

 

[specialman]

D3S over a D3 is a no-brainer; the D3S is stunning through most of the ISO range as I'm sure you've already researched.

Reading the Thom Hogan write-up it seems the D3s is yet another quantum leap in pro body technology. I was always going to go for a D3 but the video function interests me massively on the D3s, despite it 'only' being 720.... more than enough though for the kind of stuff I'd be gong for. D300s would be fine TBH if it was just video I wanted as an extra but in reality, it's a bit if a step forward and two to the side from the D2x because it doesn't offer me enough of a rise in high ISO shooting.

 

[D3S]

I went from a D300S to a D3S....and won't be looking back!