Pondering iq with a teleconverter

[Chainsaw_Willie]

I've been pretty happy with my 70-300 lens but I still want something better and sharper down the road.

Problem is if I want the same reach that means I either have to go with a prime lens for huge $$$ or go with something like the 70-200 f2.8 and use a teleconverter which is still expensive but not as much as a prime.

I know the 70-200 is a fantastically sharp lens. How badly will using a 1.7 tc degrade the image? I don't want to spend $$$ to end up with the same iq I have now from my 70-300, which is pretty darned good.

The ultimate option would be to buy the 300 f2.8 and a 1.7tc. Maybe if I win the lottery.

[Chainsaw_Willie]

Well, digging around on the net I think I've answered this question for myself. Found this test:

http://mansurovs.com/nikon-70-200mm-vr-ii-review/4

Looks like as long as I'm willing to put up with the smaller aperture it works great. Seeing as how the 70-300 I have now is only f5.6 @ 300mm I wouldn't really lose anything in speed but would gain significantly in iq. Not only that, buy buying one of the 70-200 variants I'll have the superior image quality *and* fast aperture of that lens whenever I don't need the TC for long distance work.

I've also discovered that Nikon has produced a succession of very optically nice 300mm f4 primes over the years. The first of these with AF are on Ebay for only a few hundred bucks. I could pick up one of these and a used 1.4 TC and get the equivalent reach and iq of a 420 mm f5.6 prime for around $6-$700. Tempting.

[TNKen]

I purchased a 100-400 L Canon lens for the same reasons you describe. Have had it about a year and used it 3x.

Get the 70-200 and the converter.

[Gregger]

Hey... I just answered this question over on NASIOC!

70-200 2.8L II w/ 1.4 and you're good to go!

[Max Archer]

Didn't realize you were shooting Nikon or I would've answered.

My 70-200 VR1 is brilliant with the TC-14EII. The VRII should be even better. I'm dubious about the TC-17, though, and I would definitely make sure to get the TC-14EII and not the original version. Instead of buying used, you can get a grey-market ("imported") one from B&H and save quite a bit, and at least you get B&H's warranty, unlike a used one which will probably be long past its warranty period anyway.

[Gregger]

Didn't realize you were shooting Nikon or I would've answered.

My 70-200 VR1 is brilliant with the TC-14EII. The VRII should be even better. I'm dubious about the TC-17, though, and I would definitely make sure to get the TC-14EII and not the original version. Instead of buying used, you can get a grey-market ("imported") one from B&H and save quite a bit, and at least you get B&H's warranty, unlike a used one which will probably be long past its warranty period anyway.

I think for the second time I thought he was shooting Canon... lol

[Chainsaw_Willie]

That test I linked to seems to show excellent results with the 1.7...???

Guess I should've mentioned Nikon in the first post. Just figured y'all knew I was a Nikon fanboy.

[mtcham]

CW- I have most of the lenses you are looking at and the 1.4 TC, the 2.0TC and had but sold the 2.0III TC.

Most of the TC's aren't worth the money. The only one that performs well is the 1.4II. IQ loss is substantial with the 1.7, 2.0II and the 2.0III. However the 2.0III is supposed to work very well with the 300mm f2.8.

The 70-300mm is a good lens and has the VR which you will lose going with any of the 300mm f4 primes. So good technique, a tripod and/or fast shutter speeds handheld are necessary.

The 70-200mm is a great lens and will work well with the 1.4TC. I noticed a substantial difference bumping to the 70-200mmVR II model as far as IQ goes. This combo gets you very good IQ at an effective 420mm fl. The 2.0III TC was adequate on this lens but autofocus suffered a bit.

I would probably stick with what you have and save up for some faster glass but if you're really itching the older 300mm f4 is supposed to be pretty good.