Nikon AF-S Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8G ED VR II
- Thread starter Belo
- Start date
I use it with the TC-20e III. However my d800 will not allow me to AF fine tune it enough to get it spot on. I use the Reiken software to tune it and it wants -23 setting which is out of range. If I use live view with its contrast AF it is very good.
As I think the 800 body is out of spec I sent it off last week to be checked.
On my D300s this combo is ok.
Here are some test shots with the 800.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/teerecks/sets/72157632916146546/
One problem you will have is the 70-200 is so good it sets a very high benchmark!! When I used liveview to focus with the TC I was impressed.
As I think the 800 body is out of spec I sent it off last week to be checked.
On my D300s this combo is ok.
Here are some test shots with the 800.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/teerecks/sets/72157632916146546/
One problem you will have is the 70-200 is so good it sets a very high benchmark!! When I used liveview to focus with the TC I was impressed.
I use the 24-120 more than anything else, it's as close to a replacement for my DX 18-200 (now sold although I keep regretting it) that I have at the moment.
Your next question is probably how good is it. Well, I'm very impressed. I tried it against a 24-70 2.8 the other day. Pixel peeping the 24-70 resolved more detail on my test (not massively), but it has less range and no VR.
I chose the 24-120 over the 24-70 when I went FX and it wasn't the cost that swung it. So far I'm pleased with the results and my decision. I'm probably going to get the 28-300 at some point as a true travel lens, even though I surprise myself that I don't miss the range that often.
Depending on your requirements the 24-70 may be the better choice, but not for my current use.
I went through a similar thought process between the 14-24 and the 16-35. I chose the latter because it better fitted my needs including taking filters and it's also a very sharp lens.
Your next question is probably how good is it. Well, I'm very impressed. I tried it against a 24-70 2.8 the other day. Pixel peeping the 24-70 resolved more detail on my test (not massively), but it has less range and no VR.
I chose the 24-120 over the 24-70 when I went FX and it wasn't the cost that swung it. So far I'm pleased with the results and my decision. I'm probably going to get the 28-300 at some point as a true travel lens, even though I surprise myself that I don't miss the range that often.
Depending on your requirements the 24-70 may be the better choice, but not for my current use.
I went through a similar thought process between the 14-24 and the 16-35. I chose the latter because it better fitted my needs including taking filters and it's also a very sharp lens.
Cowleystjames
Senior Member
I'm using it on a D7100 and tc1.7, damn awesome.
Belo
Senior Member
I actually have a 24-120mm at the moment and was hoping you would have mentioned the 24-70mm. I do a fair bit of low light shooting and must be honest I like the range of the 24-120. I guess I would have to loan/rent a 24-70 to understand how it differs from the trusty 24-120.
Picked up my 70-200mm last night, OMW I am blown away with the image quality. I will put it to test this weekend but very happy I did not end up going with the Sigma.
Getting back to TC`s, I am shooting with a D800 is it not worth while cropping images to get the same result as a TC?
Picked up my 70-200mm last night, OMW I am blown away with the image quality. I will put it to test this weekend but very happy I did not end up going with the Sigma.
Getting back to TC`s, I am shooting with a D800 is it not worth while cropping images to get the same result as a TC?
If you want to hand hold in low light the 24-120 is probably better due to VR. If you want shutter speed the 24-70 will have the edge. I couldn't see me owning both (famous last words).
If you crop the D800 you will have an image roughly like that from a D7000 1.5 crop. That may or not be enough. For me I want to try to fill the FX frame to the same extent as I would a DX frame as that will result in lots of detail.
If you crop the D800 you will have an image roughly like that from a D7000 1.5 crop. That may or not be enough. For me I want to try to fill the FX frame to the same extent as I would a DX frame as that will result in lots of detail.
Not always. Some cameras allow you to set an autofocus adjustment for each lens you use. So if you have a lens that tends to back or front focus a bit you can add an adjustment to the camera and it will remember it and apply it when you use that lens. It does require a camera with AF Fine Tune and solid testing procedures.
I use the D800E with Nikon 70-200mm f2.8 VRII + 1.4 TC and it works great. The combo gives you a f4 with the TC.
You'll start seeing a little loss in IQ once you start entering the 1.7 and 2x TC and a lot of light. The images are not bad if you view them on the web but once you start pixel peeping, you'll see the difference.
Geoff - I agree and that is just my preferrence. I have the 300mm f4 also and the 1.4 TC also goes with it and which is why I don't have a need to get the 2x TC. I have the 2x TCII and it sucks.
daredevil123
Senior Member
The ver II and ver III 2x TC are worlds apart actually.
They are but in most cases, I prefer to shoot "naked" with my long lenses.
2x TC is ok as long as you have good light. Once it gets darker, you'll start noticing that you'll need to ramp up your ISO and then you'll start dealing with noise.Less vignette and sharper images corner to corner compared to the VRI. This is less of an issue when used with a DX camera.