200 f/2 with 2.X Teleconverter?

Discussion in 'Lens Lust' started by MJAM, Aug 4, 2007.

  1. MJAM

    MJAM

    778
    Feb 20, 2006
    Juneau, Alaska
    Does anyone have experience with this combo and/or image samples? In Southeast AK the light is very fickle and my 80-400VR, though very flexible and capable of stunning images, just doesn't have the aperture allowance I need.

    Also, any thoughts on this combo versus the 300 2.8 with 1.4X?

    Thanks!
     
  2. Paul K

    Paul K

    192
    May 14, 2006
    Netherlands
    Don't

    Though AF remains quite fast, and you will have effectively a 4.0/600 or 800 (nd D2X in HSC mode) image quality will suffer quite a bit

    I have used the above combination a lot when I started surf photography,

    http://www.pbase.com/paul_k/wijk_20060903_middag

    and was quite satisfied with it

    But I did notice a major IQ improvement when I used the 200 with a TC 1.4 (even if it was a Kenko 300 DG)

    http://www.pbase.com/paul_k/wijk_20061203

    And the lesser IQ due to the TC 20 became even more evident when compared to the shots I now make with a 200-400

    http://www.pbase.com/paul_k/wijk_20070724

    But the 200 on its own or with a TC14 IMHO remains unrivalled

    Note : some images on my site don't have the highest resolution so probaby won't really show the difference
     
  3. MJAM

    MJAM

    778
    Feb 20, 2006
    Juneau, Alaska
    Paul, that's what I feared. Thanks a lot for the feedback, Mike
     
  4. If the blasted thing focuses correctly with it.

    Mine's been adjust twice and still doesn't nail focus with any TC on it.

    Frustrating, but I don't use it that much yet so no big deal.
     
  5. Tosh

    Tosh

    May 6, 2005
    NY
    Mike,

    Somewhere around pp. 16-18 of the massive 200vr thread, I have a series of 200vr/TC-20e shots of wolves and test targets.
    I thought my 200vr/TC-20e combo did very well, but from anecdotal reports there seem to be varied degrees of success.
     
  6. travelerx

    travelerx

    44
    May 19, 2006
    Finland
    I also had my 200/f2 sent to repair for focusing issues that were really apparent when using the 2x TC. Now it's much better, but image quality does degrade when compared to the 1.4x TC, so there are no free lunches. In my opinion the decrease of image quality is not only attributed to the increase in glass.

    I've found that to get the best results with the 2x TC very good technique is required. At least with a D200 the focus becomes a little bit erratic. I guess a pro body would help with this. When the focus is good, the lens mounted on a tripod and there is good light, the results are good. The real problem with the the 200/f2 (without teleconverts) is that you get used to pics at 100% that look like they were the complete frame, even at f2. Slap on the 2x TC and the magic is gone.
     

  7. Paul,

    OT: I think the 200mm is too short for what you were shooting. A 400mm or longer would be more suitable.
     
  8. Mike M.,

    My 1st attempt with this lens + Nikkor TC-2eII was a disaster. Then, I tested the same setup at home and it showed a slight drop in IQ but it was not as bad as the ones in the field. It turned out that the major contribution of the drop in IQ was due to atmospheric issues (slight fog) in the field.

    My 2nd field test was in Alaska in late winter and the light was great with no atmospheric issues. The combination proved to be usable, although, personally, I would think there's a drop of about 10-15% in IQ. AF-S also dropped in speed and that's expected.

    5763432-lg.

    NOTE: You need to click on the above image *twice* to see the full size image.
     
  9. Paul K

    Paul K

    192
    May 14, 2006
    Netherlands
    yep

    That's why I got the 200-400

    Btw, did you take the digital crop into account?

    I originally got the 2/200 as a replacement on digital for the 2.8/300 I used to shoot fashion on film with.

    But in combination with a D2X in HSC and a TC20 it became the equivalent of a AFS VR 4/800, which IMHO despite the relative loss in IQ is quite a good effort for a surf photography lens
     
  10. You might think about other options. the 70-200 with a 1.7 is a fine combo and still relatively fast. I use it all the time up here. A 300 2.8 with a 1.4 or 1.7 would give you more reach and maintain a good appature. The 200-400 would do the same with no TC required. It's an f4 but with that focal range a good bet.
     
  11. I don't mind the little bit of image quality you give up, even with the 2.x TC.

    Mine just doesn't focus well enough with any TC on it. Back focused. Frustrating considering two trips to Nikon service.
     
  12. Frank207be

    Frank207be

    538
    Mar 11, 2006
    Belgium
    Sad to hear :frown:

    My D2x focuses correctly after it was adjusted for viewfinder mirror and autofocus. They also adjusted my AFS VR 200mm f2 for backfocus and I'm in heaven now :wink: I didn't try my TC-17EII yet though. My AFS VR 300mm f2.8 was spot on and didn't need any service. The technician told me that these fast lenses are a nightmare for them as focus is so critical...
     
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.