1. Welcome to NikonCafe.com—a friendly Nikon camera & photography discussion forum!

    If you are thinking of buying a camera or need help with your photos, you will find our forum members full of advice! Click here to join for free!

70-200VR vs. 300f/4

Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by JerseyJay, Mar 25, 2005.

  1. I know this topic was covered few times on DPR and other but I want to get opinion from nice and honest members of Nikon Cafe. I have 70-200VR but I'm itching for more mm. Craig's post got me thinking last night and I almost send him an email asking to hold the lens. Then I thought about upcoming D200, my saved up money and I asked myself "Should I just get TC for 70-200VR and keep $ for D200 upgrades ?"

    What is your opinion.

    70-200VR w/ TC (which one ? 14/17/20) or 300 f/4

    Thanks in advance.
  2. If you get the TC my advice is the 1.4. You don't lose too much light and it is still sharp. While you may want more mm the 70-200 covers many of the most photographed subjects and in my opinion is a must have range.
  3. Gordon,
    What are your thoughs on 1.4 vs. 1.7.

    BTW. I do have 70-200VR
  4. Carol Steele

    Carol Steele Guest


    I can't give you comparison between 1.4x and 1.7x, but I have just purchased the 1.7x to go with my 70-200VR lens and I did some comparison shots in the studio to try to determine loss of quality.

    Here is a small sample of one of the full sized images


    and here are 100% crops from with and without converter (both have different levels of zoom so as to match the sizes)

  5. F15Todd


    Feb 1, 2005
    I just got the TC1.7 for use on my 70-200mm but have not been out to shoot with it yet. If all goes well, I hope to take it out today.
  6. TOF guy

    TOF guy

    Mar 11, 2005
    This question has already come 3 or 4 times on NikonCafe ! :lol:

    One person posted here a very useful set of pictures comparing the different TCs with the 70-200, like Carol's (thanks :p  ) but telling more of the story because different apertures were used. Unfortunately I can't find the pics again :? .

    My own analysis from looking at these test pics is that the lens itself w/o TC is very so slightly soft wide opened, and the TC's magnify that. With the TC 1.4 the pic was definitely on the soft side at F2.8 (lens aperture, not the final fstop for the lens-tc combo), and the softness gets worse with TC 1.7 and TC 2. But the test pic with TC 1.4 was visually as sharp as the pic w/o the TC once the lens is closed down (F4 to F5.6) enough to remove that visible hint of softness (which means the combo is at F5.6-F8). The TC 1.7 required the lens to be stopped down even further, I assume because the TC magnifies the pic further. The TC 2x needed to close the lens way down, something like F8 (the combo is then at F16 with that TC). At that point the test pic was tack sharp (in fact unlike what the TC's reputation says, just as sharp as the pic w/o TC), but the combo has a combined fstop of F16, which means that you'll need to have to be careful about shutter speed or the pic will be slightly soft from lens shake if hand held and/or in sunny conditions. Additionally you have very little room for apertures to avoid softness.

    My take is that with each further magnification, you loose further fstops * and * you need to stop down even further to preserve sharpness to counter the effect of increased magnification. With the TC2 there is little room left. The TC1.4 does not offer much improved reach. The TC1.7 is an acceptable compromise. Your mileage may vary.

  7. Thierry,
    Thanks for your detail reply. I know there was a topic with MiniVan as sample pictures but I was looking for 70-200 (TC w/ and w/o) vs. 300 f/4 feedback.

    I was leaning towards 1.7 b/c there is not much more I can do w/ 1.4 to justify the purchase.

    Thanks all.
  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.