CloudBoyGee From New Zealand, joined Apr 2005, 55 posts, RR: 1 Posted (6 years 1 month 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 2351 times:
Hi There
I wasnt so happy with the 80-400VR I took to the Avalon Airshow... I found it ti be abit 'soft' at full extension, and very slow on the autofucus. But the focal length was lovely...
Would a combination of Nikon 70-200 f.2.8 VR + 1.7x converter be better than an 80- 400?
Does any body here use this combination?
Is there anything else other than the 200-400 which is way out of my reach?
CalgaryBill From Canada, joined May 2006, 686 posts, RR: 6 Reply 1, posted (6 years 1 month 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 2344 times:
I use that combination and it works pretty well. FWIW, when I bought the 70-200 I did some unscientific comparisons of the 70-200 + 1.7 vs the 80-400 (handheld, in-store). I found the 70-200 was comparable, if not slightly sharper than the 80-400. Of course, focusing was still faster than the 80-400, and if you go with the combination of lens/TC, you get an unbeatable lens when not using the TC.
If you don't want to spend that much money, take a look at the 70-300 AFS VR that just came out. It doesn't have the wide aperature of the 70-200, but the quality is pretty good, especially for the price. Or, keep saving your pennies for the 200-400, it's worth it!
Billsville From Australia, joined Feb 2005, 80 posts, RR: 0 Reply 2, posted (6 years 1 month 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 2337 times:
I use that exact combo and have no problems with it at all. Focus is quick and you don't loose too much of the sharpness that the 70-200 has. Even opening it wide up to do some night shots handheld using the VR it still holds up well. It's better range is to keep it up around f8, especially if your going to be zoomed right out a lot. But still a good combination.
Billsville From Australia, joined Feb 2005, 80 posts, RR: 0 Reply 4, posted (6 years 1 month 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 2321 times:
I also have the 2x and unless its an extreme situation i don't use it. You really need good light and keep it up over F8 to get good shots. It does diminish the sharpness a lot more than the 1.7x, I was surprised when I tested the two out.
BO__einG From Canada, joined Apr 2000, 2760 posts, RR: 20 Reply 5, posted (6 years 1 month 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 2320 times:
I use that combo too, works excellent IMO.
It takes a bit of trial and error to get the best settings and focuses to set so the shots will come out the sharpness and quailty that you want.
Only compromise is that you won't get the reach as the 80-400 as this combo takes you to 340mm. Then again add the 1.6 or so and it is like.. alot, 510mm or something like that.
Good as it gets for handheld
Expanding my global domination one spotter at a time..
UnattendedBag From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 2241 posts, RR: 1 Reply 6, posted (6 years 1 month 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 2316 times:
Quoting Billsville (Reply 4): The one on the left is with the 2x, the right the 1.7.
CalgaryBill From Canada, joined May 2006, 686 posts, RR: 6 Reply 8, posted (6 years 1 month 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 2302 times:
Quoting Viv (Reply 7): Nion recommend that teleconverters be used only wth prime lenses, not with zooms.
Maybe as a rule of thumb, but Nikon engineered the second generation (the II's) specifically to work with most of their AF-S, fixed-aperature zooms. More important to remember is that TC's exacerbate any flaws in the lens, so better quality lenses will suffer less with a TC. I'd put the 70-200 AFS VR F2.8 with TC 1.7 II up against most of Nikkor's older primes.
From Nikon's website (the TC 1.7 II page):
"Compatible with AF-S and AF-I Nikkor lenses except AF-S 17-35mm f/2.8D IF-ED, 24-85mm f/3.5-4.5G IF-ED, VR 24-120mm f/3.5-5.6G IF-ED, 28-70mm f/2.8D IF-ED and DX Nikkor lenses."
Beechcraft From Germany, joined Nov 2003, 828 posts, RR: 45 Reply 9, posted (6 years 1 month 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 2294 times:
Hi,
i hardly used my 70-200 with the 2x TC, as Billsville said before, i als was a lot happier with the 1.7x TC.
However everything was stolen shortly i got the 1.7 so i don´t have any good photos for you to compare.
Meanwhile i got a refurbished 200-400 at Adorama, which was basically brand new, but came with a 500$ discount.
There simply are no suitable words for this lens....
However, i´d recommend the 1,7x TC over the 2x.
Cheers,
Denis
That's it! You people have stood in my way long enough. I'm going to clown college!
IngemarE From Sweden, joined Mar 2005, 285 posts, RR: 5 Reply 11, posted (6 years 1 month 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 2252 times:
Quoting CloudBoyGee (Thread starter): Is there anything else other than the 200-400 which is way out of my reach?
I use a Sigma 120-300 2,8EX HSM and it's really sharp with the Sigma 1,4EX extender. No optical stabilization though, so you must get a drink or two first , especially if you plan on using the Sigma 2X EX on the lens.
It does produce really good results even with the 2X extender on, but as I mentioned,...you need a steady hand shooting at 600mm. When I do, I use a monopod for it, since it weighs a wee bit more than most glass.
CloudBoyGee From New Zealand, joined Apr 2005, 55 posts, RR: 1 Reply 12, posted (6 years 1 month 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 2152 times:
After correspondance here and else where, it is clear to me that the extra reach of the 2x converter is not worth the loss in f-stops and slowing of the autofocus... So its 70-200 VR + 1.7x for me!
Sponsor Message: 
From New Zealand, joined Apr 2005, 55 posts, 
From Canada, joined May 2006, 686 posts, 
From Australia, joined Feb 2005, 80 posts, 
How much slower will the 2x converter make it? or Do you think I should stick to the 1.7?
From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 2241 posts, 
From Ireland, joined May 2005, 3109 posts, 
From Germany, joined Nov 2003, 828 posts, 
From Sweden, joined Mar 2005, 285 posts, 
, especially if you plan on using the Sigma 2X EX on the lens. 
Printer friendly format 
