daniel_curtis

Everyone, thank you for your thoughts on the subject, this has helped me get a clearer idea of which direction to go. I've noticed a lot of you have great wildlife photos more than likely taken with telephotos. If you don't mind, can you share what your favorite telephoto lenses or combos have been? I feel like I'll get a much more honest response here than in a retail store. Thanks!

Dieter, I have the first version, just VR. Shun, thanks for this. Cost is a sticking point for me which is why I've been leaning toward the TC for brighter images, but if I have to stop down to f6.3 anyway for decent images, then it sounds like the 2 choices are the roughly the same other than extra length with the sigma. I'm just curious, what makes you say that the slow tele is not useful for you? Is it lack of contrast, image clarity? That 80-400 is on my wishlist. I'm just trying to find something to bridge me to it.

Hello all, I am enjoying nature photography currently in Panama and have a Nikon 70-200 VR f2.8 that I'm shooting birds and wildlife with. Here in Panama, conditions are hot, humid and sometimes rainy, some birds I can get close to and others have been very challenging. I want to extend my focal length a bit and am contemplating either adding a TC17 or one of the new Sigma 150-600 lenses. IQ is a big deal for me as I'm shooting on a D800e. I've figured that if I shoot the 70-200 with a TC17 in DX mode, I'll effectively be at 510mm and f4.8, and with the Sigma 150-600 in DX mode, I'll be at an effective 900mm and f6.3. I'm basically looking at a fast setup that is shorter vs a slower one that is longer. I've not actually used a sigma lens yet, but have read that the IQ is less desirable than that of a pro Nikon lens. However, by adding a teleconverter to the 70-200, am I effectively nullifying this difference since there is a degradation in IQ when using a teleconverter? Thank you in advance to any information that you may provide that can clarify what to expect from these two setups.