want more reach

[fwellers]

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

 

[Jonathan F/2]

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.

 

[fwellers]

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.

 

[scott grant]

if you want more effective reach just buy the 300mm with 1.4X converter.

and/or buy a blind.

 

[hockeyron]

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

 

[CAJames]

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.

 

[Maji]

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.

 

[fwellers]

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.

 

[Varmint]

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]

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!

 

[gociggie31]

Just beware of NAS.... and then spent 3 months in Alaska saying "It's not long enough!" MY poor husband was speechless....! LOL!

classic
:wink:

 

[khollister]

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.

 

[fwellers]

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.

 

[donski]

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.

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

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

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

Hope this helps. :smile:

 

[khollister]

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.

 

[Joseph]

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...

 

[trenchmonkey]

Seems to me the 70-200 + 2.0 TC will be just as sharp as 300 f/4 + 1.4

Not even close neither AF nor IQ beats the prime and TC-14E II shot wide open/stopped down....FX....DX, it matters not.

 

[fwellers]

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:

 

[fwellers]

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.

 

[fwellers]

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.