Home · Register · Join Upload & Sell

Moderated by: Fred Miranda
Username  

  New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site
  New Feature: SMS Notification alert
  New Feature: Buy & Sell Watchlist
  

FM Forums | Nikon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

  

Archive 2015 · Nikon 200-500 VR or 300 VR with 1.7 TC

  
 
fdevyatkin
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #1 · p.1 #1 · Nikon 200-500 VR or 300 VR with 1.7 TC


which do you expect to have higher IQ, better AF, color rendition etc?
200-500 is more expensive than a 1.7 TC if you already have the 300
What's your opinion?
Fred



Sep 08, 2015 at 09:00 PM
Lauchlan Toal
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #2 · p.1 #2 · Nikon 200-500 VR or 300 VR with 1.7 TC


Impossible to say without having tried the lens, or even having read many reviews, but I'd guess that the bare 200-500 would be better. Bare lenses usually do better than lenses with teleconverters, and the 1.7x tc is an older design that's not as good as the version 3 designs for the 1.4 and 2x tcs. On the other hand, the 300mm would be a tiny bit faster, and stopping down to f5.6 might even things up a bit. Overall, I think the two lenses would be fairly close, but I'd expect the 200-500 to edge out the 300mm by a slight margin.


Sep 08, 2015 at 09:31 PM
OccAeon
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #3 · p.1 #3 · Nikon 200-500 VR or 300 VR with 1.7 TC


Lauchlan Toal wrote:
Impossible to say without having tried the lens, or even having read many reviews, but I'd guess that the bare 200-500 would be better. Bare lenses usually do better than lenses with teleconverters, and the 1.7x tc is an older design that's not as good as the version 3 designs for the 1.4 and 2x tcs. On the other hand, the 300mm would be a tiny bit faster, and stopping down to f5.6 might even things up a bit. Overall, I think the two lenses would be fairly close, but I'd expect the 200-500 to edge out the 300mm
...Show more


Stopping down? Are you thinking of the 300 f/2.8? I thought the OP meant the 300 PF, but maybe I'm wrong. It seems weird to compare the 300 f/2.8 with a much lower-priced lens.

I'd bet that the 200-500 is a tiny bit better than the 300 PF + TC 1.7, but that the difference isn't big. But I could be wrong.



Sep 08, 2015 at 10:29 PM
Lauchlan Toal
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #4 · p.1 #4 · Nikon 200-500 VR or 300 VR with 1.7 TC


OccAeon wrote:
Stopping down? Are you thinking of the 300 f/2.8? I thought the OP meant the 300 PF, but maybe I'm wrong. It seems weird to compare the 300 f/2.8 with a much lower-priced lens.

I'd bet that the 200-500 is a tiny bit better than the 300 PF + TC 1.7, but that the difference isn't big. But I could be wrong.


For some reason I also thought it was about the new 300mm pf, and was going to say that the 200-500 would have the advantage since it's faster than the 300 f4 with tc. But then I re-read it, and saw no indication either way, and assumed the f2.8 instead. If it is the f4 in question, I'd definitely expect the 200-500 to have the advantage.



Sep 08, 2015 at 10:43 PM
Frogfish
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #5 · p.1 #5 · Nikon 200-500 VR or 300 VR with 1.7 TC


If we are talking about the 300/2.8 VRII then I use it with the TC20EIII and in most cases it's superb, even wide open at f5.6) and I doubt the 200-500 will get close to it (none of the other long zooms from Sigma or Tamron can) and I wouldn't expect them too when the exotic costs 4-5 times more ! That said the 200-500 may make a great travel lens.

If the comparison is with the 300PF then I'm not qualified to comment.



Sep 08, 2015 at 10:58 PM
jyo1
Offline

Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #6 · p.1 #6 · Nikon 200-500 VR or 300 VR with 1.7 TC


I think the 200-500 will be a good lens considering it's low cost---but who really knows until they're out here in our hands...


Sep 09, 2015 at 02:28 AM
fdevyatkin
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #7 · p.1 #7 · Nikon 200-500 VR or 300 VR with 1.7 TC


Sorry I was unclear
I meant the 300mm f2.8 VR I
Fred



Sep 09, 2015 at 05:04 AM
Andre Labonte
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #8 · p.1 #8 · Nikon 200-500 VR or 300 VR with 1.7 TC


I cannot speak to the 200-500. I can speak to the 300 f/2.8 VR I + 1.7 TC as I own and have used that combination extensively; the combination is excellent even wide open.




Sep 09, 2015 at 08:57 AM
WestcoastHD
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #9 · p.1 #9 · Nikon 200-500 VR or 300 VR with 1.7 TC


I would be surprised if the 200-500 is as good as a 300 f2.8 with a 1.7 TC at f5.6. If that ends up being true, I am sure that Nikon will sell a lot of them. I would not consider it to be a "travel" lens, just a low cost zoom telephoto. A travel lens would be the 300 f4 PF. I think it also matters if your talking about a FX or DX body. There are a lot of smaller kits that will get you to 500mm on a D7200 in crop mode.


Sep 09, 2015 at 01:23 PM
morris
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #10 · p.1 #10 · Nikon 200-500 VR or 300 VR with 1.7 TC


It all depends on how much coffee you drink


Sep 09, 2015 at 07:24 PM
Gregg Heckler
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #11 · p.1 #11 · Nikon 200-500 VR or 300 VR with 1.7 TC


The 300 in a heartbeat unless you can't lift it.


Sep 09, 2015 at 08:41 PM
elkhornsun
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #12 · p.1 #12 · Nikon 200-500 VR or 300 VR with 1.7 TC


I have never found a zoom to be the equal of a prime with a teleconverter in any respect. Nonetheless I own the 80-400mm VR II zoom and have a 200-500mm on order. My 500mm f4 is sharper with a teleconverter and autofocus is the same at any give f-stop. The 80-400mm at f5.6 is comparable in AF to the 500mm f4 with a 1.4x teleconverter.

I did notice that the 1.4x TC II was not a terrific teleconverter and images taken with the 1.7x were better and the ones taken with the 2X TC III teleconverter were the sharpest of all. I have since replaced the 1.4x TC II with the 1.4x TC III teleconverter.

But it is lens specific. The original 80-400mm VR lens was terrible in terms of autofocus speed and accuracy and VR was mediocre. The 200-500mm should have a 4th generation VR and better internal motors and perform better than the 80-400mm VR II lens - at least that is my expectation. A 5:1 zoom lens is not going to perform as well as a 2.5:1 zoom lens. I think Nikon wisely chose the 200-500mm zoom range to maximize image quality and to keep the weight done to where the lens will be practical for hand held shooting.

Overall I tend to go with zoom lenses. With the 200-500mm you have a 200, 300, 400, 500mm lens. With the 300mm and a teleconverter you have a 300mm and a 510mm lens and will need minutes to switch between these two focal lengths.

For travel I greatly prefer a zoom lens as it provides a range of focal lengths and requires no lens changes to accomplish. This keeps dirt out of the camera and eliminates missed shots while making changes.



Sep 10, 2015 at 02:07 PM
Andre Labonte
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #13 · p.1 #13 · Nikon 200-500 VR or 300 VR with 1.7 TC



Here's a shot I took with the combo but it's stopped down to f/8 ... I need upload some of my loone shots which were wide open.

https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7641/16394401683_74c4745a6e_b.jpg



Sep 11, 2015 at 02:55 PM
multibit
Online
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #14 · p.1 #14 · Nikon 200-500 VR or 300 VR with 1.7 TC


I've been using the 80-400G with the D7000, its served me well but I'd like something sharper at the longer ranges . I'm thinking of 300mm F/2.8G VRII +TC-17e , has anybody compared this combo against the Nikon 200-500 yet at 500mm ? I expect the 300mm F/2.8G VRII to be much better at 300mm without TC but wondered how well they compare for focus speed and sharpness at 500mm especially shot wide open


Mar 03, 2016 at 05:40 AM
Christian H
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #15 · p.1 #15 · Nikon 200-500 VR or 300 VR with 1.7 TC


Here's an 200-500 on a D700, cropped to about 8 MP (f/7.1, 1/800, 500 mm, ISO 400). In good light you get clean files with plenty of contrast. Has to be fairly close to what you'd get from a 300 + 1.7 combo. A 300 + 1.4 would likely be a different story, though.

great blue heron by Christian Hunold, on Flickr



Mar 05, 2016 at 10:42 AM
GSteele
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #16 · p.1 #16 · Nikon 200-500 VR or 300 VR with 1.7 TC


elkhornsun wrote:
I have never found a zoom to be the equal of a prime with a teleconverter in any respect. Nonetheless I own the 80-400mm VR II zoom and have a 200-500mm on order. My 500mm f4 is sharper with a teleconverter and autofocus is the same at any give f-stop. The 80-400mm at f5.6 is comparable in AF to the 500mm f4 with a 1.4x teleconverter.

I did notice that the 1.4x TC II was not a terrific teleconverter and images taken with the 1.7x were better and the ones taken with the 2X TC III teleconverter were the sharpest of
...Show more

I have to second everything said here by elkhornsun!

I have both the 300 f/2.8G ED and the 200-500mm. I bought the 200-500mm to replace my 300mm for when I travel. You can't recapture a moment missed when trying to change TC's and Composition is more important than pixel peeping.

Gary



Mar 05, 2016 at 11:29 AM





FM Forums | Nikon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

    
 

You are not logged in. Login or Register

Username       Or Reset password



This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.