want more reach

Joined
Feb 11, 2009
Messages
3,559
Location
Northern VA
Been shooting D90 and 70-200 vr2. Still not enough reach for the backyard birds and animals.

I want to start shooting with my D700 instead, which will cut down my reach even more.

Considering these options so far:

1) Buy a Nikon TC2 v3 for the 70-200 giving me 300mm f/5.6.

2) Sell the 70-200 to fund a 300 AFS f/4 and a TC 1.4, giving me 420mm f/5.6

3) Holding off until I can afford option 2 without selling the 70-200.

4) ??

Any advice, recommendations or experience with these will be appreciated.

Thanks,
floyd
 
Joined
Feb 11, 2009
Messages
3,559
Location
Northern VA
How about sell your D90 and get a D7000 instead? Get the 1.4 or 1.7 for your 70-200 VR2 and then you'll get the reach and more pixel density.

There's a creative alternative ! Thanks, I'll consider that. I need to find out more about the D7000 though, and I do feel that glass is a better investment than another body.
 
Joined
Jul 11, 2008
Messages
3,063
Location
Mohawk Valley, New York , USA
I wanted to get more reach as well so even though I sold my D300 in Oct. last year and decided for me it was smarter to buy a D7000 and not only get the DX reach back but with more mpix's I can crop more as well ....
I also picked up a used 300f4 and after a couple zoo visits I can see why people rave about it ...

ron
 
Joined
Sep 6, 2006
Messages
2,476
Location
Lompoc, CA
Note the TC-20 with the 70-200 gives you 400mm f/5.6. The 70-200 is such a sweet and versatile lens that is what I'd do, unless you really only use it at 200mm, in which case I'd get the 300 + TC-14.
 
Joined
Dec 25, 2007
Messages
1,855
Location
New Orleans area, Louisiana
The 70-200 is really a versatile lens and you should keep it if you can. My recommendation will be to get a 300/f4 with 1.4TC for good reach. Better still, will be 300/2.8 with 2x TC (latest version), and that would be rocking but for a pretty penny.

Good luck.
 
Joined
Feb 11, 2009
Messages
3,559
Location
Northern VA
Note the TC-20 with the 70-200 gives you 400mm f/5.6. The 70-200 is such a sweet and versatile lens that is what I'd do, unless you really only use it at 200mm, in which case I'd get the 300 + TC-14.

Oh yea, I typed wrong. I meant 400 at f/5.6. Thanks for pointing that out.
And yes I believe that most of my shooting with this lens is at the 200mm. Seems I also do that with my 24-70. I shoot at the limits of the ranges, usually the long range.
It is scary though giving up such a great lens.
 
Joined
Apr 21, 2009
Messages
1,464
Location
Boston, MA
Seems to me the 70-200 + 2.0 TC will be just as sharp as 300 f/4 + 1.4, and it'll have VR, and a zoom, so it doesn't make sense to me to swap lenses.

But looking at the 70-200 + 1.7 at yellowstone thread, maybe that's a better combo?
 

Butlerkid

Cafe Ambassador
Administrator
Joined
Apr 8, 2008
Messages
23,690
Location
Rutledge, Tennessee
Real Name
Karen
Just beware of NAS....I bought a 200-400 because I needed more reach, and then spent 3 months in Alaska saying "It's not long enough!" MY poor husband was speechless....! LOL!



The 70-200 vr2 is such a sweet lens, I'd keep it unless I REALLLY had to give it up!
 
Joined
Sep 10, 2008
Messages
1,520
Location
Orlando, FL
Seems to me the 70-200 + 2.0 TC will be just as sharp as 300 f/4 + 1.4

No it won't. THe 70-200 with the 1.4 or 1.7 is very, very good. the 300/4 with the 1.4 or 1.7 is also excellent. THe 70-200 with the 2.0 is adequate based on some testing we did here with a couple different 70-200's and the TC-20eIII.

Get one of the TC's now and the 300/4 when you can afford it.
 
Joined
Feb 11, 2009
Messages
3,559
Location
Northern VA
No it won't. THe 70-200 with the 1.4 or 1.7 is very, very good. the 300/4 with the 1.4 or 1.7 is also excellent. THe 70-200 with the 2.0 is adequate based on some testing we did here with a couple different 70-200's and the TC-20eIII.

Get one of the TC's now and the 300/4 when you can afford it.

Thanks. I think I can live with 340mm for now. So you say the 1.7 provides very very good results ?
that might just be the ticket for now.
 
Joined
Jan 28, 2011
Messages
1,277
Location
canada
Hi Floyd,

I've used the 70-200 VR1 with the TC17e for the same reason - more reach.
It is indeed very versatile and can give you good results.
The reason I went this route is because I saw pictures taken with it in this very forum. :m35:

However, after a while, I'm sure you'll be asking for more reach (I sure did) but you can't go wrong with the combo if you don't plan on getting anything over the price of the TC.

Here's a few of my shots with this combo.
1224533604_TQ4AD-L-1.jpg
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)


1252500737_zBjVj-L.jpg
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)


1252515945_2hyHV-L.jpg
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)


Hope this helps. :smile:
 
Joined
Sep 10, 2008
Messages
1,520
Location
Orlando, FL
Thanks. I think I can live with 340mm for now. So you say the 1.7 provides very very good results ?
that might just be the ticket for now.

The 1.4 is undetectable, the 1.7 is slightly worse than no TC at all, but still excellent, even wide open. The 300/4 is magic with either TC. I own and use all of this stuff on a regular basis. buy which ever TC you can find at a reasonable price - you will own both eventually, most likely. Also, the 300/4 + TC-17 DOES AF just fine. Not the fastest, but it works very well in good light in spite of Nikon's warning to the contrary and the maximum aperture being f/6.7 or thereabouts.

The other option is a used 80-400 VR. The AF is quite slow (I wouldn't use it for BIF), but the IQ is excellent.
 
Joined
Mar 15, 2009
Messages
7,500
Location
Los Angeles, CA
If you don't mind manual focus, there are some affordable Nikkor supertele's out there. At one point I started lusting for the 400 2.8 AIS and the 500 f/4 P, both around $2K in the used market. Something to consider...
 
Joined
Feb 11, 2009
Messages
3,559
Location
Northern VA
Donsky, those are some real nice and sharp pictures. Take with the 200 vr1 and tc17 ?
And I heard that it works even better on the 200vr2.
But on your d300 that works out to 510mm and on my D700 it would only be 240.

Kinda makes what someone else said make more sense ( get a D7000 and a TC for my 20-200.

Thanks, it all helps !


Hi Floyd,

I've used the 70-200 VR1 with the TC17e for the same reason - more reach.
It is indeed very versatile and can give you good results.
The reason I went this route is because I saw pictures taken with it in this very forum. :m35:

However, after a while, I'm sure you'll be asking for more reach (I sure did) but you can't go wrong with the combo if you don't plan on getting anything over the price of the TC.

Here's a few of my shots with this combo.
http://photobydonski.smugmug.com/Wi...ed-Chickadee/WLD5451/1224533604_TQ4AD-L-1.jpg

http://photobydonski.smugmug.com/Wildlife/Birds/Blue-Jay/WLD6434/1252500737_zBjVj-L.jpg

http://photobydonski.smugmug.com/Wildlife/Birds/Nuthatch/WLD6388/1252515945_2hyHV-L.jpg

Hope this helps. :smile:
 
Joined
Feb 11, 2009
Messages
3,559
Location
Northern VA
The 1.4 is undetectable, the 1.7 is slightly worse than no TC at all, but still excellent, even wide open. The 300/4 is magic with either TC. I own and use all of this stuff on a regular basis. buy which ever TC you can find at a reasonable price - you will own both eventually, most likely. Also, the 300/4 + TC-17 DOES AF just fine. Not the fastest, but it works very well in good light in spite of Nikon's warning to the contrary and the maximum aperture being f/6.7 or thereabouts.

The other option is a used 80-400 VR. The AF is quite slow (I wouldn't use it for BIF), but the IQ is excellent.

Thanks Keith.
if 1.4 is undetectible it would be great on the 300/f4, providing 420mm at what, 4.8 ? They say you can reasonable get birds at that range.
Tempting tempting.
 
Joined
Feb 11, 2009
Messages
3,559
Location
Northern VA
If you don't mind manual focus, there are some affordable Nikkor supertele's out there. At one point I started lusting for the 400 2.8 AIS and the 500 f/4 P, both around $2K in the used market. Something to consider...

It really is someting to consider. Lately my focus gets confused with the branches and things in the backround. It seems more reliable to just reach out and tweek focus manually. In good light my eyes seem to be able to do that. Only thing is I can't track BIF very well that way.
 

Latest posts

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