|Quoting vishaljo (Reply 3):|
Tony u traitor
|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
|Quoting vishaljo (Reply 6):|
Now where's my get-rich-quick marketing scheme
|Quoting geezer (Reply 8):|
My only thoughts on the 300mm / 2.8.........it will definitely make your wallet a lot thinner !
|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.
|Quoting LGW340 (Reply 11):|
Very few shots were good from using the 2x converter
|Quoting soon7x7 (Reply 12):|
I had the 200-400VR and went back to the 2.8 300 prime.
|Quoting SNATH (Reply 13):|
Hi Chris, just curious: was it due to IQ or due to inaccurate AF?
|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