photos by kiem Posted June 2, 2006 Share Posted June 2, 2006 I know the TC converter would degrade some image quality if attached to my70-200mm zoom lens. The question is would the quality be decent compare togetting the new Tamron? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Crowe Posted June 2, 2006 Share Posted June 2, 2006 I would much rather have the superb optics, and more useful range, of the 70-200 and add a 1.4x for when a little more reach is necessary. I do not know if the 1.7x degrades the image too much like a 2x or not. I don't mind using a 1.4x with exceptional glass. The Nikon also has VR which many regard highly and which may come in handy for your photography. You will have to ask yourself if the 70-200 will do most of what you want with and without the converter. Perhaps you need much more reach that the Tamron offers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
richard_liu2 Posted June 2, 2006 Share Posted June 2, 2006 What is it for? i can only think of sport and birding,if you consider the Tamron 200-500mm, which is what I'm considering too. There are some pretty good shots from the Tamron 200-500mm on photosig. I don't know much about it though. The other one is the sigma 50-500mm. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hique Posted June 2, 2006 Share Posted June 2, 2006 If you'll be using the lens for wildlife and birds, probably the extra reach of the Tamron would be a greater benefit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ky2 Posted June 2, 2006 Share Posted June 2, 2006 If you have the VR, start with TC. I held and tried out the 200-500 today. I couldn't tell much of the optics, but the build is sub-average for these types of lenses. Might be a good investment if you take good care of it, and don't care about the small aperture. It's a nice investment for the casual photographer that wants to do wildlife, but won't dish out multiple grands on a 400/2.8. Perhaps the 300 AFS is a better investment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dave_dube Posted June 2, 2006 Share Posted June 2, 2006 The enclose photo was taken with my 70-200 + TC 17 at settings of 1/320; ISO 800; f/4.8 with focal length of 340. You can view the large version on my page. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
photos by kiem Posted June 2, 2006 Author Share Posted June 2, 2006 This is for ocassional wildlife shots so its not going to be used as much. I've seen people using the 500mm at that same location where I'm going, dont know if 340mm would be long enough with the TC. Dave, thanks for sharing - the shot looks great. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dave_dube Posted June 2, 2006 Share Posted June 2, 2006 Your welcome but, don't forget that you get a 1.5 bump up on that focal length based on 35mm to digital giving you essentially 510mm. The only reason I mention this is that the 70-200 is a super piece of glass and has VR. Since you mention only "occasional" wildlife photos then why a longer lens? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now