SNATH From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 3232 posts, RR: 24 Posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 4863 times:
Hi all,
I'm considering getting the Nikon 300mm 2.8 VR II to use on my D700. Does anyone here use it / have experience with it? I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on its performance (IQ and AF) with the two TCs: 1.4x II and 2x III.
Thanks,
Tony
Nikon: we don't want more pixels, we want better pixels.
SNATH From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 3232 posts, RR: 24 Reply 2, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 4804 times:
Hi,
Thanks for the links. I read Thom's site regularly, I'll check out the other one. For the record, there's also good analysis on the lens + TCs here:
SNATH From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 3232 posts, RR: 24 Reply 4, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 4764 times:
RonS From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 761 posts, RR: 24 Reply 5, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 4759 times:
SNATH From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 3232 posts, RR: 24 Reply 7, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 4720 times:
Quoting RonS (Reply 5): it only took him one spotting session to see me with my 300+2x on a FF to make him want to buy the Nikon version
Yeah, it looked beautiful and elegant.... wrapped in that black LensCoat it looked kinda, but not quite, the Nikon. Are you sure you don't have some secret desires you're not sharing with us?
Quoting vishaljo (Reply 6): Now where's my get-rich-quick marketing scheme
Helpline for Canon users who want to switch sides? I can help.
But, let's now get back to the main topic of the thread...
Tony
Nikon: we don't want more pixels, we want better pixels.
geezer From United States of America, joined Aug 2010, 1414 posts, RR: 1 Reply 8, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 4635 times:
Tony.................
If you're already reading Thom Hogan, you're already getting as good advice as is available, IMO
My only thoughts on the 300mm / 2.8.........it will definitely make your wallet a lot thinner !
Charley
Stupidity: Doing the same thing over and over and over again and expecting a different result; Albert Einstein
interstate From Canada, joined May 2007, 2 posts, RR: 1 Reply 9, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 18 hours ago) and read 4593 times:
Hi Tony,
Based on my experience, the images with the 300 f/2.8 + 1.4x TC are similar to what a bare 500 f/4 VRII would produce in terms of sharpness and vignetting. I've used both the 1.7x and 2.0x TCs on the 300 f/2.8 VR and wasn't satisfied with the results.
SNATH From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 3232 posts, RR: 24 Reply 10, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 2 hours ago) and read 4557 times:
Quoting geezer (Reply 8):
My only thoughts on the 300mm / 2.8.........it will definitely make your wallet a lot thinner !
Damn, that's what it was... I was wondering why my bank account looked empty on Friday morning...
Quoting interstate (Reply 9): Based on my experience, the images with the 300 f/2.8 + 1.4x TC are similar to what a bare 500 f/4 VRII would produce in terms of sharpness and vignetting. I've used both the 1.7x and 2.0x TCs on the 300 f/2.8 VR and wasn't satisfied with the results.
Hi Kavin, thanks for the feedback. Can you confirm that your experience was with the latest 2x TC (ver III)? I've read mixed reviews on it. I'm not expecting it to be near the 1.4x IQ (especially wide open). On the other hand, better ways to get near 600mm (say 400mm f2.8 + 1.4x, 500mm f4 + 1.4x, or 600mm f4) would be even more expensive, larger, and heavier. So, as long as I get more resolution with the 2x compared to 1.4x and cropping I would be OK with it. Anyway, I'm starting with just the 1.4x and I might rent the 2x at some point to do some testing with it.
Tony
Nikon: we don't want more pixels, we want better pixels.
soon7x7 From United States of America, joined May 2006, 2798 posts, RR: 14 Reply 12, posted (1 year 4 months 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 4481 times:
You can't go wrong with the Nikon 300mm 2.8 VR...Even the older versions are the best optics Nikon has ever produced. Older versions were a bit slower and would not accept TC-ll,1.4. 2x converters pretty much crap out any lens, 1.4 is about it while still expecting excellent results. If you are shooting for a publication 1.7's and 2x's are fine as magazine quality these days is terrible. I had the 200-400VR and went back to the 2.8 300 prime. You just can't go wrong...the images are worth every penny.
SNATH From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 3232 posts, RR: 24 Reply 13, posted (1 year 4 months 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 4432 times:
Quoting LGW340 (Reply 11): Very few shots were good from using the 2x converter
Hi Chris, just curious: was it due to IQ or due to inaccurate AF?
Quoting soon7x7 (Reply 12): I had the 200-400VR and went back to the 2.8 300 prime.
I did consider the 200-400 but, apart from being more expensive, it's also 10% heavier and 50% longer than the 300mm 2.8. It also has the (well documented) attribute of its IQ degrading the further away you focus.
Tony
Nikon: we don't want more pixels, we want better pixels.
SNATH From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 3232 posts, RR: 24 Reply 15, posted (1 year 4 months 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 4366 times:
Hi Chris,
Quoting LGW340 (Reply 14): AF wasn't really an issue, it was the IQ. They were quite a bit softer. This was with the Mark 1 version of the AF-S 2x though
Yeah, the mk III version of the 2x is supposed to be a big improvement over the previous versions (this is also the case for the Canon one too). When I get round to trying it I'll report back.
Tony
Nikon: we don't want more pixels, we want better pixels.
lrv890 From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2011, 2 posts, RR: 0 Reply 16, posted (1 year 3 months 3 weeks 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 4142 times:
Hi I have some images was taken with a 300m f2.8 AF-s not the Mk 2 version with a tc-20eiii
its looks ok to me
I only got it at the end of last session so only managed one airshow
I do know that the tc-14e is practically invisible as far as image loss
try this link http://s844.photobucket.com/albums/a...action=view¤t=Duxford113.jpg
This site won't let me upload photos unless I pay !!!
Hope this helps
Sponsor Message: 
From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 3232 posts, 
From Germany, joined Jun 2004, 111 posts, 
From India, joined Aug 2006, 440 posts, 
I hear folks who change sides like this are easily influenced. 
From Canada, joined May 2007, 2 posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined May 2007, 314 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
