Tele converter advice needed

Joined
Aug 27, 2006
Messages
1,727
Location
The Garden State, USA
I think my sports pix would benefit from a little more reach. I can't justify the 300 2.8 at this point so perhaps a 1.4x or 1.7x is a good compromise to use on my D200 and 80-200 f2.8 "D" type. Can anyone share thier experiance with that setup or provide another solution that I should consider?

Many thanx,
Brooks
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Joined
May 11, 2005
Messages
17,633
Location
Chicago, IL
Hi Brooks....touch base with RandyNikonCafe for his opinion on TC application with mid-length zooms. I remember him saying that the results were less than impressive.
 
Joined
May 16, 2006
Messages
898
I use the 1.7 and 70-200 on a D200, but not a lot. The results are inconsistent for me. I've gotten a few shots I liked, but also many that were soft. My 1.7 also trashes the bokeh of the 70-200 in my opinion. That said, if I need the reach, adding the 1.7 is better than not getting the shot. If I had to do it again I would get the 1.4, less reach but not as much loss of image quality. This is my experience, I know there are those that will disagree. I know you were looking for 80-200 opinions, but the 70-200 is pretty close. I'm looking hard at the 300...
 
Joined
Dec 6, 2006
Messages
16,847
Location
West of Boston
I shot my first game last weekend w/ the 70-200 & 1.7. I was happy w/ the pics, a gallery of shots is here.

I did a lot of research on it before my purchase, many prefer the 1.4, and many strongly advise against the 2.0 (on the 70-200).

I found this article very helpful and tried to follow his advice for the game above, tho' I did push it and go f5 for virtually the entire game.

I'm going to try another LAX game tomorrow; unfortunately, it doesn't look like it will be a bright day as I'd like to try it in that situation before I pass final judgment.

(I realize you're evaluating the 80-200 and not the 70-200 but thought they'd be fairly close)
 
Joined
May 11, 2006
Messages
41,188
save the money..TC IQ on a zoom is poor.
lack of AFS will make it even worse

i have the new 1.4 tc and on my 70-200 it is not good....on my 300/4 it is great

look for a used 300/4 AFS, you will be very happy
the 70-300 afs vr is a better choice than the 70-200vr + 1.4 TC and alot less expensive
 
Joined
May 11, 2006
Messages
41,188
Yep, a whole lot worse...because the TC-14 or 17's are not even compatible with non AF-S lenses in the first place...:biggrin:

Brooks, have you considered a used AF-S I or II 300/2.8? They're half the price of the new VR and they rock!


thx Ray:rolleyes:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Joined
Feb 4, 2006
Messages
6,647
Location
On a Big Island Down Under...
Kenko works good for me.. I'm very happy...

I think my sports pix would benefit from a little more reach. I can't justify the 300 2.8 at this point so perhaps a 1.4x or 1.7x is a good compromise to use on my D200 and 80-200 f2.8 "D" type. Can anyone share thier experiance with that setup or provide another solution that I should consider? Many thanx,
Brooks
Hi Brooks...

None of the latest Nikon TC will work on the 80-200, in fact they will only work on AF-S lenses. Apparently you can file the small tab off, but you can only then manual focus.

I use the Kenko 1.4x PRO300 DG TC on my 80-200 ED-D lens and get really good results. Apparently the PRO Tamron version is a Kenko re-badged, and I haven't used the Sigma ones but I have been told they work also. For me the Kenko 1.4x PRO work great and the AF is very good, but the only think is that it only shows on the EXIF data the 80-200 settings as if there was no TC attached.

Here is a link to some sample photos I took with the 80-200 with the Kenko 1.4 TC

Nikon 80-200f/2.8 + Kenko 1.4x TC samples


Here are a couple of samples
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)


This is one of the photos from that post....
View attachment 99709
 
Last edited by a moderator:
A

Arif

Guest
I used the 1.4 with the 200 F/2 and was satisfied with my results given the arena lighting.

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)


You can view more pictures here:

http://Aiqball.zenfolio.com/p79114584/
 
Joined
Dec 6, 2006
Messages
16,847
Location
West of Boston
had my 1.7 TC out today for my second use, at my daughter's last LAX game, and thankfully, it was sunny, although this was 1pm EST, and those darn reflective uniforms. :wink:

Here are a few shots, more are in this gallery, tho' they won't be as sharp as these.

I was also using the AF-ON button, w/ my shutter button set to release only, this helped a lot. All pics have some color tweaking and sharpening applied, except for #3 which is right out of the camera.

I'm pleased w/ the sharpness, and the bokeh.

#1 f5, 1/2000, 340mm focal. I was surprised this was as sharp as that other "guide" cautioned about opening the lens all the way w/ the TC.
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)


#2 f5, 1/800, 280mm focal
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)


#3 f5, 1/800, 320mm focal. This one is right out of the camera, just resized for this forum, no sharpening, etc.
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)


#4 f6.3, 1/3000, 185mm focal
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Joined
Aug 27, 2006
Messages
1,727
Location
The Garden State, USA
Brooks, have you considered a used AF-S I or II 300/2.8? They're half the price of the new VR and they rock![/quote]

Not as of yet but that is a good idea, thanx. Time to double check the piggy bank.
 
T

topher04r1

Guest
brooks...... check your piggy bank and eather get a 300 f4 afs or try to pick up a used 300 2.8 you will be thrilled with the results ..... BUT (and listen carefully here) If you pick up the 300 f4 AFS i would strongly considder getting one new...... here's why, i got mine from KEH used and saved a few dollars.... but it stopped working the same day .... sent it back .... got another...... had to send that one back also .... after 3 copies of the lens i finally got one that was a keeper.... they have an issue inside them where the AFS motor shorts out with the barrel of the lens aparently ....... so warrenty is key here...... Many MANY people on the cafe have this lens and LOVE it ....... personally i decided to upgrade to get a bit more low light ability and AFS speed..... Give it some considderation.
 
Joined
Nov 7, 2005
Messages
650
Location
Thailand
Brooks, have you considered a used AF-S I or II 300/2.8? They're half the price of the new VR and they rock!
Not as of yet but that is a good idea, thanx. Time to double check the piggy bank.[/QUOTE]

No problem. Keep an eye on KEH.com. The AF-S 300/2.8's turn up quite often and they're usually priced between $2200-2600.
 
Joined
Jun 14, 2006
Messages
2,507
I use the Kenko 1.4x PRO300 DG TC on my 80-200 ED-D lens and get really good results. Apparently the PRO Tamron version is a Kenko re-badged......

I too, have had very good results with this combination. I've been using the Tamron 1.4 SP AF (same as the Kenko Pro300) on the 80-200 (two ring w/tripod collar) for several years now (both film and digital) and am very pleased. All of the pictures in my zoo cats gallery were taken with this combination. They were all hand held, and for the most part, were shot wide open. I think they are somewhat over sharpened (I was very new to photoshop at the time these were taken), but they will still give you an idea of what this combination is capable of. Autofocus is slightly slower, but it's really not that bad...at least for what I shoot. I know that is a bigger concern when shooting sports.

I'm sure the 300/f2.8, or even the 300/f4 is a better choice, but for the money, this combination is hard to beat.

Good luck.
 
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
Copyright © 2005-2019 Amin Forums, LLC
Top Bottom