Tele converter advice needed

Discussion in 'Sports Photography' started by bvonarx, Jun 9, 2007.

  1. 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,
    Last edited by a moderator: Jun 9, 2007
  2. eng45ine


    May 11, 2005
    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.
  3. dsp921


    May 16, 2006
    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...
  4. 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)
  5. 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
  6. Ray C.

    Ray C.

    Nov 7, 2005
    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!

  7. thx Ray:rolleyes:
    Last edited by a moderator: Jun 10, 2007
  8. Kenko works good for me.. I'm very happy...

    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

    This is one of the photos from that post....
    View attachment 99709
    Last edited by a moderator: Mar 15, 2017
  9. Arif

    Arif Guest

  10. 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.

    #2 f5, 1/800, 280mm focal

    #3 f5, 1/800, 320mm focal. This one is right out of the camera, just resized for this forum, no sharpening, etc.

    #4 f6.3, 1/3000, 185mm focal
    Last edited by a moderator: Jun 10, 2007
  11. Actually I have'nt to this point but that is a good idea.

    Thanks all for the input, time to double check the piggy bank.
  12. 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.
  13. topher04r1

    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.
  14. Ray C.

    Ray C.

    Nov 7, 2005

    You're welcome...I'm always willing to help.
  15. Ray C.

    Ray C.

    Nov 7, 2005
    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 The AF-S 300/2.8's turn up quite often and they're usually priced between $2200-2600.
  16. Brooks

    You might wish to visit . These were all shot with exactly that combination...while the shots are a bit over-sharpened, the shots will show you what the combination can do for reach and clarity. All were shot late afternoon under waning light.

  17. 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 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.
  18. Ray C.

    Ray C.

    Nov 7, 2005
Similar Threads Forum Date
Asking advice on Nikkor 200-500 Sports Photography Mar 30, 2017
Critique Sports Photographer Offers Advice - Do you agree? Sports Photography Jan 20, 2017
Help and advice for shooting a friend's daughter -- track and field Sports Photography Apr 19, 2014
Tele Converter Users-help Sports Photography Nov 14, 2008
Tele lens recommendation Sports Photography Oct 18, 2007