Damien846 From UK - England, joined Dec 2006, 657 posts, RR: 0 Posted (3 years 3 months 4 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 7783 times:
The price..(in the UK) has started to come down. The small problem with a thread inside the lens seems not to be a problem.
So its about time to buy it!
Anyone here using it? Any problems or shall I just go for it.
My old 70-300 is old and full of dust...(but still a good lens) and not realy worth the £100 to get it cleaned (Nikon did it last time and not a very good job!!!!!!!!).
Also which tele converter to use with it?
Alberto Riva From United States of America, joined May 2002, 124 posts, RR: 0 Reply 1, posted (3 years 3 months 4 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 7750 times:
If you shoot DX (i.e. any Nikon digital SLR other than the D3 or D700) the VR II is kind of overkill. The 70-200 VR would be all right and cheaper - Nikon updated the lens essentially to fix the corners on full frame and add one stop of VR. I've shot with the early model and can say it's a five-star lens on a crop sensor.
Cpd From Australia, joined Jun 2008, 4879 posts, RR: 44 Reply 6, posted (3 years 3 months 3 weeks 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 7520 times:
Quoting Scbriml (Reply 5):
I frequently use mine on both those lenses. I've never had any issues.
You know what, I just got a TC-17E II this afternoon. I'm doing some photos tomorrow that need the extra range. I had resigned myself to accepting the Nikon claim that with 200-400mm F/4.0 VR AF-S lens, I'll have no autofocus.
The result? Autofocus actually works perfectly with no difference to normal, and, funnily enough, the maximum focal distance is 650mm, not 630mm. Maximum aperture drops to F/6.7, which in daylight is no problem at all.
The quality seems reasonable too. I know that the 1.4x is good on the 200-400, but I never expected the 1.7x to also work very well.
That 1.7x TC-17E II was a very pleasant surprise. I was going to do some aerial photography tomorrow, but threatening thunderstorms would have had us grounded anyway (Bell 206B3) - so I got the TC and will do the photos from the top of a building. Worth the expense - and I'll try the aerial stuff at another time.
Alberto Riva From United States of America, joined May 2002, 124 posts, RR: 0 Reply 7, posted (3 years 3 months 3 weeks 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 7497 times:
Quoting Cpd (Reply 6): The result? Autofocus actually works perfectly with no difference to normal,
And you know what will blow you away even MORE? That the TC-20e will autofocus too! At least some of the time. (More than 50% in my experience with the AFS 300/4.) Slow focus, no doubt, but it works. I was amazed. As for the quality, it's good enough to get shots accepted here, which is a good test of lens sharpness
iamlucky13 From United States of America, joined Aug 2007, 227 posts, RR: 0 Reply 10, posted (3 years 3 months 2 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 6901 times:
Quoting Viv (Reply 2): Nikon recommend that teleconverters should NOT be used with zooms, only with primes.
You've probably mistaken a recommendation against certain models where the rear element of the lens will contact the front element of the teleconverter if used together. Obviously that's bad. I haven't checked, but I think it tends to be lenses with higher zoom ratios.
Also, they're not really recommended for consumer-grade zooms because the apertures end up being so small that shutter speeds are often unacceptably low and the autofocus systems don't work reliably. Even a 1.4x on a 70-300 F/4.5-5.6 ends up having maximum aperture of F/6.3 to F/8. The AF sensors are typically designed to work at F/5.6 at best. Notice in AirlineCritic's link, all of the F/4 lenses say "Autofocus not Possible." However, CPD's experience demonstrates the autofocus limitation is not an absolute.
yodobashi From UK - Scotland, joined Sep 2007, 214 posts, RR: 4 Reply 11, posted (3 years 3 months 1 week 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 6737 times:
Quoting Damien846 (Reply 9): look forward to hearing how you got on? Where did you get it?
Yes! It's seems marvellous, unfortunately, there has yet to be any decent photography weather whilst I'm not at work since I had the lens delivered, it has therefore been largely untested other than to check it's all in working order
I picked mine up at ParkCameras, cheapest I could find in the U.K. after tireless searching, and two days after I took delivery, the price came down by ÃÂ£100. I sent them an email explaining how much I'd spent with them over the years and they refunded me ÃÂ£100! Now that's customer service!
Hopefully I'll be posting more pictures on a.net now I have my new equipment - all I need now is a little
"The World is a book, and those who do not travel read only a page"
LGW340 From United Kingdom, joined May 2007, 314 posts, RR: 0 Reply 12, posted (3 years 3 months 1 week 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 6730 times:
Quoting yodobashi (Reply 11): I picked mine up at ParkCameras, cheapest I could find in the U.K. after tireless searching, and two days after I took delivery, the price came down by ÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂ£100. I sent them an email explaining how much I'd spent with them over the years and they refunded me ÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂ£100! Now that's customer service!
Well I may very well have dispatched that for you as I work there! Lol. Hope the lens has turned out well for you!
LGW340 From United Kingdom, joined May 2007, 314 posts, RR: 0 Reply 14, posted (3 years 3 months 1 week 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 6680 times:
Quoting damien846 (Reply 13): Thats handy to know...as I was looking at Park as them seem to be the cheapest........do you know if they will discount for cash if I turned up at the shop rather than shopped online?
That would be difficult because believe it or not, we make next to nothing on the cameras and lenses themselves to compete with internet prices however we can do money off filters etc. The lens may be slightly more expensive in store however, if you ask, we will do it for our website price.
yodobashi From UK - Scotland, joined Sep 2007, 214 posts, RR: 4 Reply 18, posted (3 years 2 months 4 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 6238 times:
Oh dear .... after a couple of trips out with mine and bumping into a fellow photographer, I was alerted to a potential problem with this lens. Upon inspection, I found that the problems were indeed present in my copy, and at quite a noticable level. Check out these pictures:
See also the manufacturers statement regarding these problems: