Very good! I'll be looking forward to hearing all about it. I think it'll go really nicely with the future 300 f/2.8 purchase, too.

Mark

 

I didn't read through this all the way so it may have already been mentioned - but you mention with the 2nd option that there is no reason to use this as teh 70-200 with 1.4x will get you almost there. While yes the reach is close with the 1.4x the image quality you will get from using a prime can not be compared to that of a zoom..especially a zoom with a teleconvertor slapped on.

Now i'm MUCH more familar with the canon line of lenses then the Nikon/Nikkor but i highly doubt that the nikkon zoom lens with a teleconvertor will be anywhere near as sharp. Now it all depends on what you want to do with the images as well as how much your willing to spend (I tend to have a hard time doing this - associating the cost to what i really need - or atleast the wife tells me so)

There is a million sites out there that debate the differences between zooms and primes so I'll leave them to that and i'm sure you have read most of them anyway.

 

Casey,

The Nikon 70-200 F/2.8 with a teleconverter is still very sharp. There are some examples in the teleconverter thread of the 70-200 paired with a 1.7x converter.

I'm still leaning toward a 300mm F/2.8, but that's not a cheap lens ($4000 give or take), so it's some time off in the future.

Are you looking at your options for more focal length after your track day photoshoot?

Dave

 

EF 300mm f/4L IS USM ~$1k

EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM ~$1.2k

Those are the two I'm looking at. I'd love the 300 2.8IS prime but I can't justify that much money for a lens yet(Translations: The wife would shoot me) I am leaning towards the 100-400L simply due to the versatility and extra reach. Really if i got the 100-400L along with my 70-200L and then a new walk around lens - 28-70L maybe or 17-40L I would prolly be pretty set...i rarely shoot in the 40-70mm range anyway and the wide end of the 17-40L would be nice.

 

When picking out my gear I went with the 17-40 f/4L, the 24-70 f/2.8L, and the 70-200 f/2.8L IS. This set up gives me good focal length overlap across the lenses. My next lens will require both kidneys being auctioned on eBay...a Canon 600mm IS prime


Mark

 

600mm?? PFFT! Why not just get the EF 1200mm f/5.6L USM - List on it is around $112k if i remember correctly Lets see ya hold that handheld

 

I chose the 70-200F4L over the 2.8L IS simply due to the weight and the IS really isn't too important to me - I shot the following picture handheld in the middle of the night.

 

Between the Canon 20D's cropping factor and a 1.4 teleconvertor max focal distance will be around 1800mm with the 600mm IS. Given this I think it will be more than enough for what I want to do

Seriously though the reason I want to buy this is that I'll be heading to Alaska and Yellowstone again with my kids this summer and I want to be able to get "visually" close to the wildlife. This should be lens for it Now...to get a second mortgage without my wife finding out

Mark

 

The focal distance won't be 1800mm - this is a common myth when considering the crop factor - a 600mm on a full frame sensor camera or on a smaller sensor camera like the 20d/300d/d70 etc is still 600mm.

The 20d has a crop factor of 1.6 i believe. So even by that math 600 * 1.6(crop factor) * 1.4 (teleconverter) is only 1344mm. But in reality it is only 840mm. If you were to take a picture on a full frame sensor at the same focal distance you would have more of the area in the picture..but with the crop factor you loose a good chunk of the picture and it essentially is the same as taking the picture on full frame sensor - cropping it - and blowing it up.

Now about those trips - you need someone to carry your luggage? I'm available - If it is just for a trip - i'd just rent one...better then forking out 6k. Again about the trip - i've always wanted to goto alaska - i do carry bags very well

 

I have both the 2x and 1.4x teleconverters and like them for the 70-200. I have not tried the new 1.7x teleconverters but the word around is that it is pretty good. The 2x is not as sharp as the 1.4 but if I was choosing between the two I would get the 2x because I am typically trying to get all the zoom I can.

If you are not already digital I would opt for a new digital SLR. You will pick up the 1.5 crop factor and while this will not technically equal a 1.5 zoom factor the end result is very similar and you will not loose any light as you will with the teleconverters. The two stop light loss with the 2x can be a pain in low light situations as I have been spoiled of the great results at 2.8 with the 70-200.