70-200 VR 2.8 or Other Zoom

[rhurley]

I traded my 80-400mm in and purchased the 70-200 2.8 VR. Now, I'm a little disappointed with my range in trying to take baseball photos. I'm considering a 1.7 teleconvter. Would you recommend this or getting a different zoom. I still want good quality, but this lens is pretty much at the top of my budget.

Thanks

Rich

[JDArt]

A teleconverter will work, but really I don't see much overlap between the 80-400 and the 70-200, even with teleconverter. I'm afraid multiple lenses or compromises are what we all have to live with.

[cyclohexane]

Get a 300mm f/4 AF-S Nikkor and use a TC-14E II (the original E doesn't seem to be available new anymore, but it's got the same optical formula as the new one) to get to 420mm (f/5.6) if you need to get even more reach. That'll provide the best quality 400mm for under $1.5k. If this is out of your budget, you're going to have to consider other options. I've heard good things about the 400mm f/5.6 AT-X Tokina, but it's long out of production.

I have a TC-20E 2x teleconverter, and while it yielded satisfactory results with my 70-200mm f/2.8 VR (especially stopped down), they were just that: satisfactory. I've had people tell me that the 70-200 with TC-20E is just a hair less sharp than the 80-400mm, but I wouldn't know.

Also, the two stop loss of light meant I could only shoot half a game with the TC on before having to pull it off to get f/2.8 again, as the sun would set due to the scheduling of what I was shooting with it. The TC-17E II 1.7x you're considering will make the lens a f/4.8; if you've gotten used to having f/2.8 with the 70-200, it'll be a rude shock.

[Nikonfreak]

I don't know what level of baseball you are trying to shoot and from what vantage point... but.....

I have to agree with Michael here.

I've said it before and I'll say it again here, there's no cheap way to get beyond 300mm and get really high quality, or fast glass without spending a lot of money.

Now that being said, the 300 f/4 AF-S will do a fine job even with the 1.4X teleconverter on board.

I would say it depends on the spot from where you are shooting. If you're high up in the bleachers or stadium, even 500mm is going to be somewhat challenging.

On a kids field, I've gotten stunning pics of the infield with the 70-200 f/2.8 AF-S VR without a TC.

Obviously, you can't pick the game times so low light could be challenging with the 300 f/4 AF-S combo, but I can attest to the absolutely superb, crisp, stunning quality of the 300 f/4 AF-S Nikkor as I used a friends copy for weeks before opting for the 300 f/2.8 VR. It's an excellent lens with all the sharpness of the f/2.8 big brother in a smaller, lighter package at the sacrifice of one stop.

Now that all having been said, there are very few lenses with the versatility of range and superb image quality of the 70-200 f/2.8 AF-S VR Nikkor. There are lots of super sharp and high quality primes, of course, but the 70-200 f/2.8 VR is one of the most valuable lenses in my bag... not price wise, but use wise.

Julio

[moizes]

70-200 VR wide open + TC17EII, handheld, street, and crop.Next one - rainy. Be the judge. Dimitri

[jmancini]

If you already have the 70-200VR, the 1.7 E II teleconverter is a great companion for it, and if 340mm is long enough for your purposes, I think you'll be pretty happy with it.

I'd certainly get one and try it out (maybe rent it?) before dropping any additional money on a 300/4.