70-200 VR with TC Question

Gvk

GVK answered this yesterday in another thread here:

I prefer the TC-14E II with the 70-200 mm VR. Both the TC-14E and TC-17E can produce excellent results with this lens. However, with the TC-17E you pay an extra half stop of aperture for about 20% more magnification. In practice, I find that I can use the TC-14E stopped down only one stop to f/5.6 with almost no noticible degradation. However, I feel that with the TC-17E best results are obtained at f/8 or so. I find that extra stop of usable aperture results in many more opportunities to use the TC-14E, at least for sports action that I most often use the 70-200 mm VR for.

Others prefer the additional reach and recommend the TC-17E, so YMMV.
__________________
Gerry

 

Bill,

I gave you Gerry's answer. If you can wait one week. I am going to order the TC 1.4 for my 70-200vr.

From what I have researched, I will lose one stop. Fine. Up from 2.8 not bad, but I do believe that a TC 1.7 is 1.5 stops. That might not be bad in good light. Remember, you are using a telephoto - 200mm tops. 300 on a D200. I forget the rule about shutter speed, but since I have had the lens for one week, I have learned a great deal. Nothing is perfect.

I have been getting great picts at 1/300 and up and at f5 and up. At first I thought something was wrong with the lens. No, operator error. I started using a monopod and guess what, better pictures. The kind I expected.

 

I bought the 1.7 because I had read over and over that it was the best compromise between added length and loss of IQ. At the time the 70-200 was the longest lens that I had so if I was going to kick out about $400 for a TC I didn’t just want to turn 200mm into 280mm. I am pretty happy with it, but it does need to be stopped down a bit. I used it for wildlife a bit, and it does make for a nice compact combo that you can keep with you. Right now I am shooting some softball with the 300 2.8 and the 70-200 + 1.4 TC, and the 1.4 with the 70-200 results in a very good zoom range for softball/baseball batting and infield action. When the sun starts to go down you have to pull it off and even f/2.8 isn’t quite enough.

 

I have had great luck with the TC17E. I also will stop it down to 5.6 but the pictures are very sharp...as long as you have enough light. I also want to pick up a TC14E as it will be even sharper but less reach. I would also pass on the TC20...just not worth the loss...IMHO

 

I should also just comment that I have no direct experience with the TC-20E, so I did not offer any opinion regarding that one.

 

Bill,

The VR will make no difference with high school sports, since it basically only compensates for hand shake. (It does compensate for panning motion, but there aren't to many high speed high school sports), which is to say, yes, a monopod is a very useful tool for field level sports.

Sports shooting is rarely the justification for VR, the'other' in your original post may benefit more. For VR to shine, IMHO, the subject of the photo needs to be stationary. That being said...

With a TC, the VR is unlikely to provide any compensatory benefit to the lens. I'm going with the 1.7TC with my lens since it appears that it gives the best compromise between reach and quality, at least in the short term. (Ultimately, for baseball and soccer I see 300 and 400/2.8's in my future, but $$$ hold me back for the time being).

I shot a lot of evening baseball with a 75-300 on a monopod, mostly less than 200mm. The frustrating part was having to put the camera away around 7:45 pm because I couldn't get below f/5.6. With the 70-200 and monopod (no VR), I was able to shoot a while longer.

 

No, it was shutter speed and f stop. I was looking for sharppicts and in Ohio the last couple of days, weeks, the sun has been at a premium. I did turn off the VR when on the monopod. I was also shooting a moving object:



This is cropped - 1/400 @ f6.3 120mm. It is a cloudy day. No PP. I guess I am really picky.

 

I am not being critical, but that is not sharp to me. I was getting better than that with the 70-200 hand held. You will like the 70-200. The colors are great. Like I said, I must be really picky.

 

I have and I use it on my AF-S 300mm f/4 for some desperate birding fix. Acceptable quality if you get rid of camera shake.

I've tested it on my AF-S 80-200mm f/2.8 but I did not like what I saw. Besides for longer focal lengths, I'll reach for my 300mm f/4 instead.

 

Bill, I've shot a fair amount of soccer with the 70-200 and the TC-17EII. I think everything in this gallery was with that combo: http://www.pbase.com/dave_dickerson/freestate_tournament I guess these shots are decent but are certainly not anything to write home about. BTW, I believe all these shots were wide open (f/4.8)-I generally shoot youth soccer at maximum aperture because the backgrounds are so crappy. The light wasn't great for this tournament, so keep the ISO's pretty high (400 to 800 IIRC). I used a monopod and had VR set to off. It takes the better part of a second for VR to kick in after you half-press, so it seems to cause me more problems than it solves for sports. I believe a monopod improves my sharpness and framing and reduces fatigue.

As others have said, the 1.7 is a pretty good compromise between length and speed. On a D200, AF is speed is reduced but not horribly; I'd expect your D2X to do somewhat better. I've never tried the TC-20E on the 70-200 for soccer, but have used it on my 300/2.8 for birds. Even in good light, AF is much more of a struggle in terms of both speed and accuracy.

For most of the youth/high school venues I've seen, indoor and night games are a challenge at f/2.8, let alone f/4 or f/4.8 with a TC.

 

Maybe I'm the only one around these parts using the TC20 with the 70-200. I think it's a usably sharp combo at f/6.3 or so, and I haven't felt the need to look for a TC17. If an established member of the community who has the 70-200 with TC14 wants to borrow the TC20 for formal head-to-head testing, drop me a line.