Bigger lens or Teleconverter?

[martinangus]

<p>I'm looking to get closer. Whats the consensus? 300MM f4 AF-D or add a TC-17e to my 70-200mm VR?<br /> The latter would effectively give me a 340mm f4.8? About the same cost for each (used). I suspect the prime option would produce the better image...but no vr or AF-S.<br /> I'm using a D700. Subject matter is nature - deer, birds etc.</p>

[Jerry_]

<p>A suggestion: try a few shots with your D700 in *DX* mode, and see if that helps any?</p>

<p>The f4.8 kind of takes a bit way from a f2.8 lens, but if you push the ISO up, that may work for you.</p>

<p>Good luck.</p>

[Two23]

<p>I sometimes use a TC-17 on my 70-200mm f2.8 VR-1. It's OK, not great. This is on a D300. You might be ahead to buy a D7000 for wildlife and shoot the lens you already have. </p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>

[martinangus]

<p>Kent,<br>

Wouldn't buying a DX body simply pre-crop the image for me? You have the impression of closer with DX but in fact glass is glass and you can't get closer unless you increase the lens size.</p>

[nsfbr]

<p>Are you using the VRI version or VRII? I would not use the 1.7X teleconverter on the VRI. The 1.4x is just okay with that lens, so I have to believe that with the 1.7x it is not going to be pretty.</p>

<p>I do not have the 300 f/4, but have used it on a D300, and with a monopod or tripod it is very nice. I can not use it hand held on that camera terribly effectively, but your mileage may vary.</p>

[lornesunley]

<p>300mm f/4. If you want to get even closer, get a tc-14 as well (and a tripod)</p>

[Two23]

<p>The D7000 would have better pixel density than simple crop mode on D700. Remember, D700 is only about 13mp to begin with. A D7000 would also only be using the center of the lens, the sharpest part.</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>

[Two23]

<p>If your wildlife isn't moving really fast, how about a refurb D5100 (same sensor as D7000) AND a TC-14 for your 200mm? You'd have about the equiv. of a 500mm f4 lens compared to D700, with more resolution so you could crop some too. A refurb D5100 and used TC-14e would be a bunch cheaper than a 300mm f4, and would likely give you better results.</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>

[studio460]

<p>I'm seriously considering the Sigma 120-300mm f/2.8 OS for my next lens purchase. It's got both speed and decent reach. Plus, the convenience of a zoom. I rarely use either my 70-200mm f/2.8 VR I (too short), or my 80-400mm f/4.5-5.6D VR (too slow). I wish I had bought neither, and just bought the Sigma initially. At a sort-of-affordable, $3,199 selling price, it's actually cheaper than buying both a brand-new 70-200mm VR, and an 80-400mm VR (although, both of mine were purchased as refurbs for considerably less).</p>

[evannorth]

<p>a 300mm f4 and 1.4tc is on my wish list, the one thing stopping me getting one is a; cost. b; lack of vr. by the time i had saved and bought them i am sure a vr version, which is overdue as canon have had an os version for years would be planned. personally, i think something like 200-400mm vr would be a better option if shooting in good light.</p>

[mvihava]

<p>I have D300 and I had a Sigma 150-500. It was quite good in good light and reasonable lightweight for hand held. I just changed it for Sigma 120-300/2.8 OS. It is good, but heavy (over 3 kg). I have also Sigma 2x extender, it softens a bit, but with a decent tripod looks like to bee reasonable good.</p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>Marin,</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Wouldn't buying a DX body simply pre-crop the image for me?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>As does a TC, basically - it crops and magnifies the center part of the lens. A DX body would be a quite good solution, as the D700 lacks resolution to crop very aggressively. Personally, I found 200mm on DX still short for many animals (certainly deer), and for birds, also 300mm on DX is still a tad short often. All in all, considering 'bang for your bucks', in my view, Kent's advice makes the most sense - and ultimately you'll find "long" is never quite long enough.<br>

I have no personal experience with the AF-D version of the 300 f/4, if I understand well, it's not very fast to AF - that might be annoying.</p>

[ofer_brill]

<p>Martin, I have both Nikon 70-200 VR2 and the 300 f4, and I have 1.4, 1.7 and 2.0 TC's. The 300 with no TC is much better than the 70-200 (on 200mm) with 1.4 TC (all by Nikon). For me ( I mainly shoot birds) the 1.7 and 2.0 TC's are waste of money, I don’t use them at all. Oh, forgot to add: I have only FF cameras. </p>

[ilkka_nissila]

<p>The 300/4 AF-S would give better image quality than using the 70-200 on a TC if you use a tripod and/or a high shutter speed, but since the former doesn't have VR and the latter does, it may be that in some practical situation the zoom + TC may give a better hand-held result (i.e. at 1/300s). However, the prime is easily better optically and you can use it with high pixel density cameras and get extremely good results.</p>

<p>In general, the smaller TC factor you use, the better the image quality, and using a high pixel density DX camera is a bit better than using a lower density FX camera and TC to get similar framing. </p>

[elliot1]

<p>A used D7000 for about $800 is the best TC you can buy and is only marginally more expensive than any of the Nikon TCs available.</p>

<p>Nikon's newest teleconverter, the tc-20e iii, is the only one I would recommend. It would also bring you up to 400mm (f5.6) with your 70-200mm lens.</p>

[carl_becker2]

<p>A D7000 using a Nikkor 300mm f4 then add a TC1.4 if needed on a good tripod would be the path I would take.</p>

[ant_nio_gomes]

<p>The 70-200 VR II works fine with the TC-1.7E II but as any lens+TC will never be as good as a fixed focal like the 300mm F:4 that Nikon may "update" (adding VR) not long from now.<br /> Maybe using the zoom+TC for the time being and buying the 300 when Nikon comes out with a VR version can be an interesting solution as this way you would also "have" a 300 x 1.7 = 510 mm by then (the D800's autofocus supports F:8, so when you buy another body it will most likely do the same).</p>

[ilkka_nissila]

<p>If Nikon updates the 300/4 to VR, it may or may not be a better lens than the current version. Canon's 300/4 IS is generally tested to be a bit less sharp at f/4 than the earlier 300/4 USM (non-IS). Also, there has been a report on a Nikon patent for a diffractive optics 300/4 with VR; with physical length of only about 150mm. Diffractive optics in those Canon lenses that have it, have somewhat reduced contrast and slightly busy bokeh compared to non-DO versions in the same price class. If indeed Nikon does make a diffractive optics 300/4 VR, it may be a great lens for travel and hand-held photography but it's not a given that it will work well with TCs nor that the optical quality is as good as with the current 300/4 AF-S. Of course, it is possible that optical technology has evolved in the last ten years to bridge the gap in the optical quality between traditional refractive and diffractive optics for the purposes of photography.</p>

<p>For me, I would love a compact VR 300/4. It would be great to bring along for locations that require air travel. However, such a lens may not be a good substitute for a 400mm or 500mm if that's what you really need.</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>A DO VR 300 f/4 would have been handy for the Olympics (with its size limits), but to be honest I'd sooner see DO used to make a kit lens smaller (or at least, more collapsible), especially for mirrorless systems. Maybe there's a reason it has to be expensive (Canon's 400 f/4 was going to be expensive however it was done, but their 70-300 DO IS was conspicuous for being more expensive and mostly worse than the non-DO version). I can see Nikon releasing a DO 300 f/4 VR mostly to distinguish it from the 300 f/2.8, but unless they do DO better than Canon, I'd be thinking of buying the non-VR version instead. Sigma's 120-300 does look like a bit of a bargain, although I'd hope the on-brand primes have better edge-of-frame sharpness, so Nikon might want to be a bit careful about going more expensive than that.</p>

[dave_l.]

<p>Lots of good advice. I will only add two things:</p>

<ul>

<li>I use a 300 f4 on DX with and without a 1.4 tc for wildlife, and I wouldn't want anything shorter.</li>

</ul>

<ul>

<li>My 300 f4 is NOT a Nikon lens, and has repeatedly given me wonderful results, although autofocus could be better. I only mention it because the cheapest option might be a used, off-brand prime 300 f4.</li>

</ul>

[sebastianmoran]

<p>I use a 300 f/4 on a D300 shooting birds and I like the results very much. </p>

[dan_mccarty1]

<p>I thought for years on which TC to buy. Eventually, I decided that the TC 1.4 is the best compromise for me since the TC 1.7 and TC 2.0 decrease image quality too much as well as the loss of light. I have used the TC 1.4 on my 70-200mm/2.8 VR II and a rented 300mm/F4.0 with a D700. Remember, that AF on a D700 needs F5.6 or better. Having said that, I often used F8.0 which works most of the time. </p>

<p>I used the TC 1.4 and 300mm/F4.0 on both a D700 and D800. The lens is slow focusing. It is slower with the TC 1.4. What I did noticed is that the D800 focuses much faster than the D700.</p>

<p>For wildlife, butterflies, bugs, birds, etc, the 300mm/F4.0 with a TC is much better than the 70-200mm/2.8 VRII and TC 1.4. Better meaning more magnification. I captured some great images with the 300mm/F4.0 and TC 1.4. I will buy the 300mm/F4.0 when it has VR, in the mean time, I will rent the lens. On the rumors website there is a conversation about when the VR version of the 300mm/F4.0 will be available. It is supposed to be announced in a photo show in the fall or by XMAS. Of 2010! lol lol lol</p>

<p>So maybe the lens will be available in the fall or XMAS of 2012! lol lol lol</p>

<p>Later,<br />Dan</p>

[john_narsuitus]

<p>When I need something longer than my 80-200mm for deer, bird, and other nature type shots, I use the following:</p>

<p>400mm f/5.6 IF-ED<br>

500mm f/4 IF-ED P<br>

1000mm f/11 mirror</p>

<p><a href="

<div></div>

[rjmelone]

<p>Here is an example from a Nikon 300 f4 and 1.4 tc handheld on DX. I wouldn’t recommend this combo on lower res FX for birds as I don't think you will have enough reach to get enough pixels on the bird to crop effectively.</p><div></div>