70-200 VRII designed along 2.0 TC III ???

Joined
Jun 3, 2009
Messages
6,227
Location
Chicago "burbs"
I was out trying to shoot some small birds yesterday, best I could do was turtles (slow day). I ran into a guy who saw my 400 VR and we started talking Nikon gear. Turns out he owns (but didn't have with him) a D700/70-200 VRII/2.0 TC III combo. He mentioned that he read that the 70-200 VRII and the 2.0 TC III were somehow designed together as one hybrid optical formula. Pretty deep huh???

The only reason I'm curious about this is because my 70-200 VRII and 2.0 TC III seem to play awfully nice together.

Is anyone aware of anything to support this or was he just pulling my chain in the fresh air?

Edit:

Will, I'll save you the "if so, back to the drawing board" reply :smile:
 
Joined
Mar 1, 2009
Messages
4,793
Location
Nutley, New Jersey
I was out trying to shoot some small birds yesterday, best I could do was turtles (slow day). I ran into a guy who saw my 400 VR and we started talking Nikon gear. Turns out he owns (but didn't have with him) a D700/70-200 VRII/2.0 TC III combo. He mentioned that he read that the 70-200 VRII and the 2.0 TC III were somehow designed together as one hybrid optical formula. Pretty deep huh???

Is anyone aware of anything to support this or was he just pulling my chain in the fresh air?

I wouldn't say its 100% rubbish but I would wonder why Nikon wouldn't market it as such....all they had to do was state they were and could charge twice the price for it...

Following this thread...
 
Joined
Mar 24, 2011
Messages
1,370
Location
Canada
They wouldn't market it to prevent it eating sales of 300, 400 and 500 lenses. They can't afford people actually considering the hybrid option instead of getting a 400.
 
Joined
Mar 1, 2009
Messages
4,793
Location
Nutley, New Jersey
They wouldn't market it to prevent it eating sales of 300, 400 and 500 lenses. They can't afford people actually considering the hybrid option instead of getting a 400.

I somewhat disagree - the 300/400 are bought for f/2.8 the 500/600 are bought by people who know what they want.
 
Joined
Nov 16, 2009
Messages
728
Location
travel
I don't recall any rule that states nikon cannot do its best to make sure the newer lenses play nice with the new TCS. so it is definitevely not out of the real of possible things that nikon does/should do.

clearly there is no conspiracy if nikon's latest 2x TC and 70-200vrII are able to get results which were impossible in the past using the older models. that's the way it should be if they are serious about competing. The fact longer glass may still be better has to do with the laws of physics, not marketing.
 
Joined
Mar 15, 2009
Messages
7,500
Location
Los Angeles, CA
I wouldn't say its 100% rubbish but I would wonder why Nikon wouldn't market it as such....all they had to do was state they were and could charge twice the price for it...

Because they know that people will always find something wrong with just about anything, and it will be an epic fail of a claim once people start to find "issues" with this combo. I think it's a case of "let's not claim anything and let the users find out for themselves".
 
Joined
Jan 13, 2008
Messages
5,324
Location
New Mexico
Edit:

Will, I'll save you the "if so, back to the drawing board" reply :smile:
:biggrin: It has it's place up to 30 yds. Most of the "samples" people are braggin' on
come from zoos, close in, and/or static shots. Hardly a challenge for ANY combo. :eek:
BTW...I've heard stories too, but it was with the 200 f2 VR and NASA.
 
Joined
Jan 13, 2011
Messages
1,743
Location
Australia
:biggrin: It has it's place up to 30 yds. Most of the "samples" people are braggin' on
come from zoos, close in, and/or static shots. Hardly a challenge for ANY combo. :eek:

But I wonder why you think this is such a bad thing? Why be so negative? I mean, this is exactly what some people buy it for and from what I have seen the results can be quite spectacular. Why spend $8,000 on a 400 f2.8 when you can have the convenience, both in hanldling terms and sizewise for transport, of the 70-200 f2.8 VRII + 2x TCII for less than half that. Horses for courses.

BTW...I've heard stories too, but it was with the 200 f2 VR and NASA.

And here I was thinking it wat the 300 f2.8 VRII. :smile:
 
Joined
Jun 3, 2009
Messages
6,227
Location
Chicago "burbs"
Why spend $8,000 on a 400 f2.8 when you can have the convenience, both in hanldling terms and sizewise for transport, of the 70-200 f2.8 VRII + 2x TCII for less than half that.

f/2.8 for one and while the 70-2.8_2.0III is a nice combo, it ain't the incredible 400 VR (I'm lucky enough to own one). also, the 400 + 2.0 gives you 800!! better get out your credit card :biggrin:.
 
Joined
Jan 13, 2011
Messages
1,743
Location
Australia
f/2.8 for one and while the 70-2.8_2.0III is a nice combo, it ain't the incredible 400 VR (I'm lucky enough to own one). also, the 400 + 2.0 gives you 800!! better get out your credit card :biggrin:.

Well, that's correct, but that's not what most people can afford nor what most people want to lug around. I have the 300 f2.8 VRII and even that can be a challenge at times, so the 400 f2.8 would be even worse.

I took the 70-200 f2.8 VRII + 2x TCIII on my recent trip to Singapore where we went to the zoo and Bird Life Park and it was indispensible and much better then lugging a 300 f2.8 on the plane and all over Singapore as well as worrying about where I could store it when I wasnt using it. With the 70-200 and my other lenses I could lock them in the room safe, but the 300/2.8 wouldn't have a hope of fitting.

However, my next lens may be a 500/4 VRII. :biggrin:
 
Joined
Aug 22, 2009
Messages
121
Location
andover
Just sold my 600 and bought a 500 VR. You'll LOVE it.
Especially when you can get pictures like this with a 2x converter !
The reality is that there is a big improvement over the old 2x which was crap IMHO.

Both shot taken at distance, those that know Thruxton, I was on the spectators bank shooting across to the chiicane. The 300 vr took the converter well keeping a good af speed and held it's contrast and colour surprisingly well. The 500 vr's af dropped noticeably and my keepers fell off the cliff lol but putting that to one side the end picture considering it was shot wide open at a 1000mm and F8, under exposed by a stop and a half (my fault ) and on a horrid over cast day is still mighty impressive. But and a big but I would not use it for wildlife as it does loose considerable detail. I guess it's down to how you set your own expectations and what you are prepared to keep. Personally it will stay in my bag and come out in emergencies.

With the VR 11 70-200 there is a Definate drop off in performance to the point I personally would not use it with this converter. I'm not convinced. It was optimised for any particular lens..... If I had to guess I'd say the 300vr

Posting from my iPad so not able to post linkable pictures so here is a direct link for 3 pictures. 300vr with 2x, 500 with 2x and 500 with 1.4

http://www.gautonphotography.com/Other/Desktop/17318036_m5gBch#1317056258_HnMdj4T
 
Joined
Jan 13, 2011
Messages
1,743
Location
Australia
I actually prefer Will's (trench's) insight - he is out there er'day shootin so his opinion is straight from the hip - I respect that

What, and mine isn't?

I use the 2x TCIII extensively on both the 300 f2.8 VRII and 70-200 VRII and have many fantastic shots with both combos. The way I see it, if I am able to get top shots with the combo and someone else isn't then it isn't me that has the problem. :biggrin:
 
Links on this page may be to our affiliates. Sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.
Nikon Cafe is a fan site and not associated with Nikon Corporation.
Forum post reactions by Twemoji: https://github.com/twitter/twemoji
Forum GIFs powered by GIPHY: https://giphy.com/
Copyright © Amin Forums, LLC
Top Bottom