jimlarson

<div></div>

<div></div>

<div></div>

<div></div>

<div></div>

<div></div>

<div></div>

<div></div>

<div></div>

I use a TC-17 with my 70-200 2.8 VR. I've had the lens for several months and recently aquired the teleconverter. The lens by itself is tack sharp. I haven't had much occasion to use the TC-17 until a few weeks ago at a horse jumping event. The first day was dark and dreary and I missed the speed of the lens while using the teleconverter, but I needed the reach. I was shooting as wide open as I could (f4 or 4.8, can't remember) and still getting decent shots. The next day was bright and sunny and I was up in the f8 and 11 range. I think I was also using a Moose Peterson polarizer which also saps a little lens speed. In any case, when I finally got these images downloaded to my computer, I was somewhat surprised to see that I had very sharp images from both days of shooting. I love this lens!! I had read about image degradation using a TC prior to getting one, but really haven't found it to be the case on this setup. I haven't tried the TC-14 or the TC-20, but don't have any complaints with the TC-17.

Ouch!<div></div>

<div></div>

<div></div>

<div></div>

<div></div>

<div></div>

<div></div>

<div></div>

<div></div>

<div></div>

<div></div>

<div></div>

<div></div>

IMHO you just can't beat the Nikon 105/2.8 Micro MF. I've had mine for years, and it's still one of the sharpest lens's I own. Who needs AF anyway when you're doing macro work?

My measurements also indicate an inconsistency. I measured 131.4 cm and 154.3 cm fully extended. Gitzo claims 133 cm and 156 cm. Interesting...