70-200mm lens

[dsp]

There are more contributors to this thread that own and shoot this lens than just two. I'm a bit offended by that comment, guess not everyone counts or maybe I'm a reader and don't realize it.
And the 1.7 on the 70-200 is bad.

[Tom Swaman]

Dave,

If you feel better feeling offended, so be it. However, I did not say that you or anyone else does or does not own this lens. I also have no idea of who does or does not take good pictures. I also do not know who has a good copy of this lens among those who own the lens. So, Dave, since I did not say anything personal toward you or towards anuyone else, but I did suggest that there are differences in qualities of advice both on the side of the giver and on the side of the receiver, you are of course welcome to whatever you care to feel, However, kindly do not blame me for what I did not say. Thank you!

Tom

[Tom Swaman]

MorningDusk,

This will be my last poston this subject.

Please know that when you add lens elements, even filters, and the like, you run the risk of degrading image quality under certain circumstances and you may improve the image quality under others.

Simply said, certain camera bodies work beter with certain lenses than they do with others. The same is true fore teleconverters. Furthermore, certain copies of the 70-200mm f/2.8 VR work better with certain copies of different teleconverters. If you are particular or care about image quality, you owe it to yourself to actually test the exact copy of both the lens and the teleconverter(s) you plan to purchase so that you have a good idea from the outset what you are buying and what it can be expected to deliver. Neither cameras, lenses or teleconverters are created equal in anything other than in their Model name.

On the right lens, the teleconverters do work as, Julio and myself and others have acknowledgedAgain, good luck and I hope you have gotten the help you seek.

Tom

P.S. please bear in mind what Rootrider stated above, namely that the lens and TC can give you abiout 280mm of effective focal length with a maximum aperture approaching an f/5.6. Rootrider is very correct.

[dsp]

Originally Posted by Tom Swaman

Dave,

If you feel better feeling offended, so be it. However, I did not say that you or anyone else does or does not own this lens. I also have no idea of who does or does not take good pictures. I also do not know who has a good copy of this lens among those who own the lens. So, Dave, since I did not say anything personal toward you or towards anuyone else, but I did suggest that there are differences in qualities of advice both on the side of the giver and on the side of the receiver, you are of course welcome to whatever you care to feel, However, kindly do not blame me for what I did not say. Thank you!

Tom

Also, the information you are receiving is from two uesrs and not just from "readers"

That's what you said after there were several contributors to this thread. And that's what I said you wrote. The way that reads is that only two opinions matter. You're free to feel that your opinion is for whatever reason more important than others, but maybe that's something that should go unsaid.
I'm not going to get into a stupid internet discussion about this, I didn't like your comment and I told you, sorry if that annoys you.
I'm done, back to the OP's questions.

[rootrider]

Originally Posted by Tom Swaman

P.S. please bear in mind what Rootrider stated above, namely that the lens and TC can give you abiout 280mm of effective focal length with a maximum aperture approaching an f/5.6. Rootrider is very correct.

1.4x TC = 280mm @ f/4

thankfully with AF-S lenses and a Nikon TC (or a newer Kenko/Tamron TC) the body shows you the effective aperture rather than the lens aperture, so confusion should be limited

[Tom Swaman]

Joel,

I stand corrected and thank you. It is f/4 as you stated and not f/5.6 as I mis-stated.

Thanks for the help/correction,
Tom

[Nikonfreak]

Originally Posted by dsp

There are more contributors to this thread that own and shoot this lens than just two. I'm a bit offended by that comment, guess not everyone counts or maybe I'm a reader and don't realize it.
And the 1.7 on the 70-200 is bad.

I don't believe he meant that quite the way it was taken. Everyone is welcome to their opinion and certainly the open sharing of ideas and opinions is what forums like these are about.

There are so many people that jump on one bandwagon or another.. "I don't like filters..." or "I don't like TC's" or "That lens is garbage..."

When you say "bad", I ask myself... well... what is "bad" to you?

Define "bad".

I feel that the 70-200 f/2.8 and the 1.4 or 1.7 TC's wil give you better image quality overall than the 70-300 at 250-300mm. The OOF rendering, sharpness and ability to resolve detail will be better in the 70-200 as will it's ability to AF in less than optimal conditions.

Don't just take my word for it... Here's a quote from Thom Hogan on his review of the 70-200 f/2.8 AF-S VR

Quote from bythom.com regarding the 70-200 and teleconverters.
"

Performance with the TC-14e teleconverter is nothing short of astonishing. How good is it? Well, I can't see any differences between the 70-200mm at 200mm with a TC-14e and the highly regarded 300mm f/4 AF-S! That's both unexpected and unprecedented. In other words, if you need a 300mm f/4 AF-S, just get the 70-200mm and a TC-14e. You'll get a more versatile lens and lose no sharpness. With the TC-20e teleconverter, the results are still good (see above), but sharpness is slightly compromised in the corners. I would characterize the results as being an "better-than-adequate" 400mm f/5.6. You might be able to do better with a dedicated 400mm or the 300mm f/4 AF-S with a TC-14E, but the 70-200mm and TC-20e combination will get you by if you don't have one. "

Here's the link to Thom Hogan's review of this lens:

70-200mm AF-S VR Lens Review by Thom Hogan

My experience with the 1.4x, 1.7x and even a borrowed 2.0x NIkon teleconverter gives excellent, decent and acceptable results (in that order with each converter as listed) on both the 70-200 f/2.8 VR and the 300 f/2.8 VR. I've kept the 1.7x teleconverter but I will be getting the 2.0x NIkon teleconverter. I mean for $400 I can carry one lens and have a 600 f/5.6 reach.

I'll sacrifice a little sharpness for that kind of reach and have the versatility in two lenses and two small teleconverters to go from 70mm to 600mm in my wildlife photo bag. Heck yes. Any day of the week and twice on Sunday.

Julio

[Tom Swaman]

Julio,

Lest you not have to guess what I meant, I will try to tell you. What I intended was to draw a distinction between those folks who physically own the lens or who have first hand, hands-on experience with the lens as opposed to those folks who read reviews, books, the Internett, and listen to the words of others. My distinction was between real users and those who "read", but have not used. No offense was intended or implied!!!!!

Tom

[Nikonfreak]

I understood what you meant. You weren't being disrespectful at all.

I shoot with that lens on almost a daily basis. If I ran it over with my car 10 minutes from now, I'd be at a store in the morning at 9am to get a replacement. It's that important of a lens in my kit. There is no substitute for it in my bag. If I go on a job, it's there with me. Period.

There is a 70-200 f/2.8 in just about every single pro's bag. I don't care if it's Canon or Nikon. (By the way, at Saturday night's concert... Canon might have been the minority camera. I saw lots of NIkon 70-200's flying around my head. The press pit was a zoo... usually is anyway, but when Nelly Furtado came out it got ugly. One guy was shoving others out of the way to move around and get shots... but that's another story... and brings me to build quality. My 70-200 hanging around off my shoulder when I'm not using it gets bumped around a bit. It never blinks at abuse.

Julio

[cyclohexane]

When you say "bad", I ask myself... well... what is "bad" to you?

Define "bad".

I'm guilty of "bandwagoning" here... =) This is why I don't like TCs on the 70-200:

For TC's on the 70-200: loss of contrast, loss of light, slower-focusing. Sharpness hasn't really been an issue, but the loss of contrast, slower focusing, and increased propensity to flare (thanks to the extra elements) is bothersome to me. I should point out that when shooting with this lens I tend to be wide open at f/2.8 and wishing the lens was actually a f/2.0 or f/1.4 for exposure (not depth of field control) reasons, so any compromise is usually too much, especially when my average shooting situation needs 1/500 second+ and ISO 3200 just barely gets me there.

Also, the effect on how the lens handles is somewhat annoying to me as well; with the TC-14E/II 1.4x TC the 70-200 is still handholdable, but I have a little bit of trouble with the TC-20E/II 2x TC and the TC-17E II 1.7x TC mounted. I tend to take the TC off and put it back on with some regularity at sporting events and having to stick my monopod somewhere when I wasn't using the TC was an added distraction. Of course, that was when I only had the 70-200mm; now I have a monopod all the time for a longer lens, but it doesn't get detached from the lens.

The handling/distraction argument is kind of petty, but extra distractions means more time that I'm not ready to look for/make photos.

I've kept the 1.7x teleconverter but I will be getting the 2.0x NIkon teleconverter.

"I may or may not be listing my TC-20E for sale in the very near future..."

If I ran it over with my car 10 minutes from now, I'd be at a store in the morning at 9am to get a replacement.

Heheheheh... same.