First, I love my new 70-200 F/2.8 VR. Thanks to the photo forum for the words of encouragement to hold out for the faster autofocus (compared to the 80-200 F/2.8).

My next step will be to get the TC-14E II teleconverter (1.4x) to effectively turn the lens into a 100-280 F/4 VR.

That has my thinking about going to beyond 300mm.

These are the options I have come up with:

1) 2.0 Teleconverter ($400)
plus: inexpensive way to make the 70-200 into a 140-400mm F/5.6 VR
minus: the 2.0 teleconverter softness.

2) 300mm F/4 ($1000)
plus: inexpensive compared to the 300mm F/2.8
plus: could be used with the 1.4 converter to get a 420 F/5.6
minus: without the teleconverter there is no reason to use this lens on it's own, since I'd have 280 F/4 VR ability with my 70-200 and a teleconverter.

3) 300mm F/2.8 VR (~$4000 )
plus: one stop quicker as a 300mm than a 1.4x 70-200
plus: with a 1.4 converter it's a 420mm F/4 VR, which again is one stop faster than the 2.0 converter on the 70-200
minus: I could pay off my MINI for the price of this lens

4) 80-400 F/4.5-5.6 VR ($1400)
plus: Get up to 400mm and F/5.6 VR with no teleconverter
minus: From 80-280mm, my 70-200 would be a quicker lens by over one stop. From 280 to 400, I could get F/5.6 from a $400 2.0 teleconverter, so why spend another $1000 for essentially the same thing?

Of those four, #1 and #4 appeal to me the least. #2 is "ok", but it seems strange to buy a lens knowing it's only granting additional capability when used in combination with a teleconverter.

That downselects to option #3, the 300mm F/2.8 VR.

Are there any options I'm leaving out? MarkS? Dan?

Thanks in advance!
Dave

 

3) 300mm F/2.8 VR (~$4000 )
plus: one stop quicker as a 300mm than a 1.4x 70-200
plus: with a 1.4 converter it's a 420mm F/4 VR, which again is one stop faster than the 2.0 converter on the 70-200
minus: I could pay off my MINI for the price of this lens


Dave,
Do you absolutley have to have VR? With this lens you should be on a monopod anyway. ( Mark... sush! ) How about a used 300 2.8 AF-S ? This lens with the TC-14 is great! TC-20 is a bit soft and slow. Haven't tried the TC-17 yet. Gotta quite buying crap for the MINI!!!
Jim Williams

 

Lots of options! Like you say, the 2.0 on the 70-200 would be the least expensive way to go though I also would worry a bit about losing some sharpness and of course you're limited to f/5.6. But you'd have VR.

I am currently using option 2. I've got the 300 f/4 IF in the older, non-AF-S version and it's a really sharp lens. With the tc14b it's still quite sharp with the downsides being, again, f/5.6 and, in my case, losing autofocus and (on the D100), autoexposure. Whether this happens with you depends on which 300 f/4 you've got, which teleconverter, and which camera body. Oh, and no VR. And I would think the 300 f/4 by itself would be sharper than the 70-200 with the teleconverter, though whether it's enough of a difference is probably open to debate.

Option 3 is a very popular one. Very flexible and high quality. You could also use the 2x teleconverter with it and have a reasonable 600 f/5.6. Don't forget that Nikon now has a 1.7x teleconverter, too, which probably wouldn't be too useful with the 300 f/4 since you'd lose too much light but it would be workable with the 300 f/2.8. But, like you say, it's a $4000 lens.

Option 4 is interesting. The 80-400 is a funny lens: people either seem to love it or hate it. I've never tried it. I know one very widely-published motorsports photographer who uses it constantly and I know another who calls it "junk". I agree that, if you have the 70-200 f/2.8 (or the 80-200 f/2.8, like me), the bottom half of the zoom range is duplication and not even very good duplication at that since it's more than a stop slower and isn't an AF-S lens.

Want two more options?

5) The new 200 mm f/2.0 AF-S VR. A stop faster than your 70-200 and you'd have a 300 f/4 with the 1.4x tc and a 400 f/5.6 with the 2.0x tc [edit: no, dummy, 300 f/2.8 and 400 f/4!] (and, again, there's the 1.7 now, too). From what I've read, the 200 with the tc14E II is nearly, but not quite, as good as the 300 f/2.8.

6) The new 200-400 mm f/4.0 AF-S VR. I've heard nothing but good things about this lens. Nice range of focal lengths and a good companion to the 70-200, f/4 is decent (especially on the 400 mm end), and you've got a 280-560 f/5.6 with the 1.4x tc. It's about $5000, though.

If money wasn't a constraint, I'd say option 6. If money was something of a constraint, 3 or, for about the same price 5. I'd lean towards 5 is you have a use for a very fast 200 mm and 3 if you don't. If you want a reasonable, (relatively) low-cost option, I think 2. I've been working with the older 300 f/4 for years with and without the teleconverter and it's a great lens, especially for the price, and the new AF-S version would be even better. No VR, though, which is especially unfortunate since it's small and light enough to be reasonable hand-holdable. I think I'd eliminate option 4 for the reasons you give. And option 1 is definitely the low-cost winner. You could try that for now and, if you don't particularly care for it, you aren't really out anything since you can use the 2x tc if you do something like get the 200 f/2 or 300 f/2.8 later.

And all that probably isn't going to help you decide one bit! It's nice that Nikon gives us so many options but it's hard to choose.

Mark

 

Jim,

I don't have to have VR, but I was just figuring that if I were buying new VR wasn't that much more (relatively ).

Any ideas how much a used 300 F/2.8 would go for?

 

As my good buddy Jim says, used is definitely a viable option. Since Nikon just started selling the new 300 f/2.8 VR, I bet there are a lot of very nice examples of the previous, non-VR version around for good prices. Call it option 3.5.

As for the lack of VR, I'll "shush!" Actually, I agree with Jim. I think VR on a lens that you're not likely to handhold anyway is a bit less useful than it would be on something like the 70-200, though I'm not speaking from experience since I don't own a VR lens.

Mark

 

KEH has a few in "Excellent" condition right now for about $3000.

Mark

 

Thanks Mark. That's a lot to chew on!

So what you're saying is Nikon has at least 6 ways to take my money. That makes it sound like Vegas.

One quick question

Wouldn't the 200 F/2.0 VR be a 300 mm F/2.8 with the 1.4 and a 400mm F/4 with the 2.0?

 

You're welcome. Always glad to complicate things. As for the 200 with the 1.4 and 2, yep, I screwed that one up!

Mark

 

Has ever Nikon made a 400mm F/4? That seems like a logical lens that solves a lot of problems here.

 

Have you looked at any 3rd parties? I think the Sigma 50-500mm f4-6.3 is a fairly economical alternative coming in at under $1000, although it is a tad slow on the aperture side of things. I've read some good reviews of it on nikonians and seen some pretty sharp shots that claim to be at 300+mm. Judging by the ludicrous range of focal lengths however, it may not be the sharpest lens out there... but Sigma EX glass is generally very high quality.

Just another option for you to enjoy!

 

I know they made a 400 f/3.5. I imagine the thought is that the 300 f/2.8 with the 1.4x has that covered, though I'm not sure I would agree. Canon has a 400 f/4 with a DO (diffractive optics) element. I saw someone using one at Road America last year and I thought it was a 300 f/2.8 from the size. It's about $5000, I think.

Mark

 

The glass may be good, it's the overall build quality you have to be careful of. You'll see very few full-time motorsports photographers using 3rd party lenses.
Mark, sorry about the "sush".. I know you know I hand hold the 300 a lot. Like those "in the cockpit" pan shots at Laguna.

Jim

 

That seems like an invitation to ask for pictures. Could you post one or two of them?

 

I really haven't considered 3rd party for lenses. My thinking being that I'm trying to invest in lenses I'd like to hang on to for a long time.

The life cycle for D-SLR bodies is just so short (12-24 months?). At the end of that time, the only things to carry value forward are the lenses. Therefore, I really don't mind saving for high quality Nikon glass.

 

Since I'm one of those Luddites who still shoots film, I don't have anything readily available to post. However, you can take a look at my Gallery here:
http://www.photo.net/photodb/user?user_id=190470
Hope you like them.
Jim

 

Obviously not a 300+mm lens.






Great shots. I picked just three to post back here, but jeez, there are so many photos of yours that I like a lot.

 

Dave - I have the Nikon AF-S TC-20EII 2X converter here at the office, and I've used it on the 70-200 2.8. With the D1X conversion factor, your at almost 600MM with the converter on there! This is probably the most economical way to go - the loss in sharpness is not as bad as the old days, when teleconverters were of dubious quality.


FWIW, my dream lens has always been a 300mm 2.8. For now, I'm content with this beast:







a 180mm f 2.0...the depth of field is minuscule, but that tends to be my shooting style. I don't often need more than 200mm right now, and if I do, I borrow the Nikon stuff from the office. If it's possible, I always try and acquire the fastest optics I can.

 

As a side note - Nikon made a lens of mythical proprtions 20 years ago. It was a 300 mm F 2.0 Designed for the '84 Olympics, it was a low production lens. It is massive. I had the pleasure to assist a photographer back in college who had done some work with National Geographic, and had this lens with him for a shoot.

 

Thanks Dan!

I'll have to check out a 2x converter and hope it can hold me over until some point I'm flush with cash for a 300mm 2.8.

From what I have read, D-SLR's get improved results with teleconverters (compared to film) because the teleconverters tend to be softest at the edges and those edged are getting cropped off because of the smaller sensor size.

Interesting that Nikon made a lens for the Olympics like that. The impression made on me by Nikon in 2004/2005 is that something like that wouldn't happen again. Maybe I'm wrong there.

As for that Leica 180 F/2, that looks like a little beast. Are there any pictures you have up taken with that lens?

 

Dave, these were taken at Limerock at their Ferrari days event, all were shot on Koadak Ektachrome 200, Leica R9 and the 180 f2.0

 

This one was also shot with that lens...and I'm sure this is the millionth time I've posted it

 

Don't hesitate to post those again. They're beautiful.

 

Out of curiosity I did a search for this lens to see what it looked like and found this page. Looks huge and well suited for astrophotography...amoung other things :smile:

Mark

 

Thanks Dave!

 

Mark,

I just pulled the trigger on the TC-17E II. I'll post results once it shows up from B&H.

Also, as my options go right now, I'm leaning towards the 300 F/2.8, but that's going to have to wait a bit.

Dave