70-200 VRii plus a teleconverter

[toby_swank]

<p>

<p >I have never used a teleconverter and am considering picking up the new 70-200 VRii plus a 2x to replace a Tamron 70-200 2.8 and a Nikon 80-400. I would appreciate and benefit from the faster afs of the new lens. I rarely use focal lengths over 200, primarily shoot a d700 but have a d-90 that I use for the crop factor when advantageous. I also have the Nikon 70-300, but it is not my favorite lenses (I know people love it but I just haven't been satisfied with the contrast and sharpness...probably just me). If I were to do this, I would be trading the above 3 lenses in for a partial credit towards the new 70-200 VRII. My question is how well the teleconverter will work with the lens when I want the extra reach and if this sounds like a reasonable plan.</p>

</p>

[dpbours]

<p>There are already quite some threads on the combination of the VRii and teleconverters. And the VRii performs well with the new teleconverters. See here for some threads:<br>

http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00W4o6<br>

"I have also tested version 2 + the TC-20E and it is similar to the 200-400mm/f4 AF-S at 400mm."<br>

http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00VhlF</p>

<p>And here one on Dpreview: http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1030&message=34649376</p>

[Ed_Ingold]

<p>I have the original 70-200/2.8 VR, and find it gives useable results with a 1.4x Nikon TCx. It doesn't come close to the contrast and sharpness of a 300/4 AF-S, with or without the TC.</p>

<p>The 70-300 is a mid-level consumer lens. It is probably sharp enough, but definitely on the slow side. You might like the results better if you used a tripod.</p>

[frank_skomial]

<p>In the DPReview they mention test results provided by "Marianne", that show VR 1 with tele converter, being sharper than VR 2 with tele converter.</p>

<p>Who is Marianne?, and why her conclusions are important ?</p>

 

[ramon_v__california_]

<p>use a 1.4x teleconverter. you might be compromising too much with a 2x.<br>

if that's not going to be long enough, i'd keep your lenses. and tripod the 70-300mm as suggested above.</p>

[dpbours]

<p>@Frank.<br>

I think it's good to collect as much opinions and then make your own choice. It's up to everyone to value everyone's results in using the teleconverter and make their own choice on whose opinion is important and whose is of lesser importance...</p>

[dpbours]

<p>Here a test of the 2.0 III new teleconverter. With prime lenses as well as the 70-200 VRii.<br />http://www.naturalart.ca/artist/fieldtests/tc_series3.html<br /><br />More test shots on the TC2.0 III with the 70-200 VRii:<br />http://www.fotografie.fr/fotoforum/viewtopic.php?f=54&t=576#p2058<br />http://www.fotografie.fr/fotoforum/viewtopic.php?f=54&t=577#p2071<br /><br />At the bottom of the last link you will find various links to test shots under various conditions. <br />Very interesting to see the performance and I might be considering getting rid of my 80-400mm VR now...</p>

[benjaminm]

<p>There is also an interesting article:<br>

<a href="http://www.naturalart.ca/artist/fieldtests/4waysto400.html">http://www.naturalart.ca/artist/fieldtests/4waysto400.html</a></p>

[frank_skomial]

<p>" make their own choice on whose opinion is important and whose is of lesser importance..."</p>

<p>In order to make my own choice of opinion, I need to know about people who publish reviews, and only then I will be able to make proper choice.</p>

<p>Is Marianne a nut case? or does she have good professional record ?</p>

<p>Only knowing reviewers reputation proper chooice can be made. I would prefer opinion of reputable reviewers, like Thom Hogan, Moose Peterson, Photo.net moderators/experts, or even Ken Rockwell, but not sure about unknown opinion givers like Marianne.</p>

<p>Anyone knows if Marianne's review is any good ?</p>

[ilkka_nissila]

<p><em>In the DPReview they mention test results provided by "Marianne", that show VR 1 with tele converter, being sharper than VR 2 with tele converter.</em><br /><em></em><br /><br />The quote is about long distances. At short to intermediate distances the 70-200 II is excellent.</p>

<p>BTW Marianne Oelund's web site is <a href="http://actionphotosbymarianne.com/">http://actionphotosbymarianne.com/</a>.</p>

[frank_skomial]

<p>Thanks Ilkka,</p>

<p>This is information I was trying to find out.<br>

Perhaps is too soon to dump old VR1 for new VR 2, if there are legitimate revews that there are trade offs, and not always a clear winner.</p>

 

[ShunCheung]

<p>My test results are exactly the opposite. The new version of the 70-200mm/f2.8 AF-S VR is a sharper lens and works much better with teleconverters.</p>