Sponsor Message:
Aviation Photography Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Nikon 300mm 2.8 VR II + 1.4x/2x TCs: Any Thoughts?  
User currently offlineSNATH From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 3238 posts, RR: 22
Posted (2 years 6 months 1 week 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 7881 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.
16 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlinetravelralf From Germany, joined Jun 2004, 111 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (2 years 6 months 1 week 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 7845 times:

I do not have this lens but I recently considered this lens for my D700 also. I found both articles interesting to read:

http://bythom.com/nikkor-telephoto.htm

Not on a D700 but on a D300 (I think the D700 FX sensor is a little bit more forgiving than the DX sensor especially with TC's):

http://www.nikoncafe.com/vforums/showthread.php?t=323784

(-> post #6)


User currently offlineSNATH From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 3238 posts, RR: 22
Reply 2, posted (2 years 6 months 1 week 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 7823 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:

http://mansurovs.com/nikon-300mm-f2-8-vr-ii-review

Tony



Nikon: we don't want more pixels, we want better pixels.
User currently offlinevishaljo From India, joined Aug 2006, 462 posts, RR: 4
Reply 3, posted (2 years 6 months 1 week 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 7796 times:

Tony u traitor   

User currently offlineSNATH From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 3238 posts, RR: 22
Reply 4, posted (2 years 6 months 1 week 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 7783 times:

Quoting vishaljo (Reply 3):
Tony u traitor

It was finally time to join the dark side.  

Tony



Nikon: we don't want more pixels, we want better pixels.
User currently offlineRonS From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 762 posts, RR: 22
Reply 5, posted (2 years 6 months 1 week 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 7778 times:

Quoting vishaljo (Reply 3):
Tony u traitor

V man, 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  



All opinions expressed by me are my own opinions & do not represent the opinions in any way of my employers.
User currently offlinevishaljo From India, joined Aug 2006, 462 posts, RR: 4
Reply 6, posted (2 years 6 months 1 week 6 days ago) and read 7764 times:

   I hear folks who change sides like this are easily influenced.
Now where's my get-rich-quick marketing scheme   


User currently offlineSNATH From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 3238 posts, RR: 22
Reply 7, posted (2 years 6 months 1 week 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 7739 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.
User currently offlinegeezer From United States of America, joined Aug 2010, 1479 posts, RR: 2
Reply 8, posted (2 years 6 months 1 week 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 7654 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
User currently offlineinterstate From Canada, joined May 2007, 2 posts, RR: 1
Reply 9, posted (2 years 6 months 1 week 3 days ago) and read 7612 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.

Hope it helps,

Kavin


User currently offlineSNATH From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 3238 posts, RR: 22
Reply 10, posted (2 years 6 months 1 week 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 7576 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.
User currently offlineLGW340 From United Kingdom, joined May 2007, 315 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (2 years 6 months 1 week 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 7534 times:

I used the older Nikon AF-S 300mm F/2.8D (Non VR) for a bit. Here is one from it with a 2x TC


View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!
Photo © C J Goodwin - AirTeamImages



Very few shots were good from using the 2x converter but the 300mm by itself was INCREDIBLE... and that was the oder version.

Chris Goodwin



Live life from the window seat...
User currently offlinesoon7x7 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 12, posted (2 years 6 months 1 week 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 7500 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.

User currently offlineSNATH From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 3238 posts, RR: 22
Reply 13, posted (2 years 6 months 1 week 3 hours ago) and read 7451 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.
User currently offlineLGW340 From United Kingdom, joined May 2007, 315 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (2 years 6 months 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 7434 times:

Quoting SNATH (Reply 13):
Hi Chris, just curious: was it due to IQ or due to inaccurate AF?

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



Live life from the window seat...
User currently offlineSNATH From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 3238 posts, RR: 22
Reply 15, posted (2 years 6 months 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 7385 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.
User currently offlinelrv890 From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2011, 2 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (2 years 5 months 3 weeks 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 7161 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&current=Duxford113.jpg
This site won't let me upload photos unless I pay !!!
Hope this helps


Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Nikon D3s And 70-200 F/2.8 VR II Samples posted Tue Nov 10 2009 21:07:35 by Cpd
Nikon 70-300mm VR And Teleconverter posted Wed May 27 2009 13:21:02 by Alasdair1982
RE: Nikon 70-300mm Vr Lens? posted Fri Mar 7 2008 09:41:26 by Soon7x7
NEC MultiSync LCD2490WUXi2: Any Thoughts On It? posted Tue Feb 23 2010 12:16:30 by SNATH
LensRental.com - Any Thoughts? posted Mon Mar 23 2009 11:54:48 by 797
Any Thoughts Or Criticism? posted Mon Apr 16 2007 22:11:19 by Madjones
Canon EF II 1.4x Teleconvertor Dust Cap Question posted Wed Mar 14 2007 15:42:40 by Deaphen
Any Thoughts On Improving These Shots? posted Sun Mar 26 2006 22:35:33 by D L X
Changing My Canon L Lens...any Thoughts Or Help? posted Fri Jan 20 2006 18:53:49 by Danpio
Any Thoughts On This Please posted Wed Jul 6 2005 20:47:12 by Mrk25