Register · Search · Software · Join Upload & Sell · Hosting

	Moderated by: Fred Miranda
	Username   Password FM Forum Rules Nikon SLRs, primes, and zooms lenses reviews FM Forums | Nikon-mount SLRs | Join Upload & Sell    Search Used end    Archive 2009 · Some Nikon tele with TC's tests

cbfabbri Offline Upload & Sell: Off p.1 #1 · Some Nikon tele with TC's tests We spent some hours with good friends on the farm last saturday, good talk, beers, tons of gear... great moment with the team. I would like to thanks Groba (200-400VR), Abdo (200VR and TC's) and Beto Smera (50mm 1.4 G, 300 2.8 VR, 300 F4 AFS and D3) for borrowing all gear. This is not a scientific test neither a 100% crops comparison. It's just my amateur impressions on using some lenses and tcs combinations handheld with some usual targets, nothing more. Some shots (resized and sharpen for web - exifs available) will just illustrate the moments and exemplify the use of some lenses. Let's go then : 200-400 VR with 1.7x tc I tested it only with 1.7x TC since I know its performance when naked - Don't like it with 1.7x TC. Details were gone away. This lens is heavy but it's wonderfull when naked, also a very good performer with 1.4x, but, in my humble opinion, 1.7x or 2x TC are not its world. 300 f/4 naked Stellar, I don't need to tell, it's not new. Lens is great. (no pics available) 300 f/4 AFS with 1.7x tc this is a very nice surprise, excellent performance considering the killer TC. AF slow with D3... but usable. Difficult to handhold and get sharp images, very sensitive to minimum movements. Not good for handheld but very nice IQ performance. Monopod can help, and attention with the shutter speed. 300 f/4 AFS with 2x tc - other good surprise. It's not bad, in fact it's much better than I expected. But, almost impossible to handhold and get decent hit-rate sharp shots. Tripod is a must in my opinion. 200VR naked Oh men.... this thing is pure magic. It was difficult to return it to Abdo... Perhaps the best lens I had ever used in my life, out of this world performance even fully open. 200VR with 1.4, 1.7 and 2x tcs Great performance, this lens seems to not feel the tc's. Even with 2x its performance is heroic. But.. mainly 1.7 and 2x seems to take out some of its magic (isolation, bokeh, contrast)... so, it's a must have lens, when using it naked mainly. with 1.7x with 2x 300VR 2.8 naked Amazing, some magic also available ;-), the best 300 2.8 I've used so far, wins from Canon sister when fully open. AF is super. I found it light and small, great for me. 300VR 2.8 with 1.7x tc the best performance x range I could find that day. Great performance, not so bad AF impact, still very sharp even wide open, excellent if closed 1 point, not so heavy, not so big, great for handholding... a great set to deliver my needs and even over-achieve it. 300VR 2.8 with 2x tc Still very good. You can feel the tc killing the beauty and AF speed slowing down, but, still, better than my canon 300+2x setup. So, I am happy with the results. My conclusion (considering my main use, $, etc.) : I will get the 300 2.8VR with 1.7x TC. I felt this is the best way in terms of portability (size and weight), AF speed still great on D3 body, good 510mm range, and still very sharp. It seems to me the best cost x benefit I can get this time and I am very happy with the overall results. Thanks all Nov 17, 2009 at 06:29 PM

Rodolfo Paiz Offline Dedicated FM Upload & Sell: On p.1 #2 · Some Nikon tele with TC's tests Max reach of a 200-400 with 1.4x TC: 560mm at f/5.6 Max reach of a 300/2.8 with 1.7x TC: 510mm at f/4.8 So the zoom gives you 50mm more but the other gives you a half-stop wider aperture. You seem to be very happy with both of these lens setups. From your personal point of view, how would you compare these two? And if the difference in image quality is not very large, how useful (or not) is the ability to zoom for your needs? Nov 17, 2009 at 06:49 PM

cbfabbri Offline Upload & Sell: Off p.1 #3 · Some Nikon tele with TC's tests Rodolfo, I had the 200-400 in the past. It's a fantastic zoom lens when naked. The performance with 1.4x is also very good but you can feel some impact in AF speed in my opinion. I remember missing a 2.8 sometimes and a more light lens, that's why this time I am going for 300. This way I will have a stunning 300 at 2.8 when needed, and a very good (also light and cheaper) 500 at 4.8. Nov 17, 2009 at 09:31 PM

Rodolfo Paiz Offline Dedicated FM Upload & Sell: On p.1 #4 · Some Nikon tele with TC's tests Yes, I can feel some reduction in the AF speed with the 200-400, although I don't find it to be a real factor. I can also feel a similar effect on the 300/2.8, especially with the 1.7x, but again I don't find it to be a big factor. Your need for f/2.8 at some points in time makes the prime the logical choice, of course. Nov 17, 2009 at 10:03 PM

Elan II Offline Upload & Sell: Off p.1 #5 · Some Nikon tele with TC's tests Hey there Chris! I didn't know you visited here. Nice to see you I'm thinking very hard about my future fast tele. The 300/2.8 and 200-400/4 are always at the forefront of these thoughts. Although a 300/2.8 plus a 500/4 with one set of TCs is probably the setup I really want. Anyway, nice real world test! Nov 18, 2009 at 12:23 AM

vchowdhary Offline Upload & Sell: On p.1 #6 · Some Nikon tele with TC's tests Thanks for the great post. I've got a 300mm 2.8 AF-S II, and am contemplating purchasing a 1.7 TC.. Only concern is the lack of VR. Handholdable... ? Nov 18, 2009 at 12:41 AM

trenchmonkey Offline Dedicated FM Upload & Sell: On p.1 #7 · Some Nikon tele with TC's tests vchowdhary wrote: Thanks for the great post. I've got a 300mm 2.8 AF-S II, and am contemplating purchasing a 1.7 TC.. Only concern is the lack of VR. Handholdable... ? Yes, hours at a time. I use a modded BushHawk but lots of my shootin' buds just hold the foot. Nov 18, 2009 at 12:50 AM

ishootsports3 Offline Upload & Sell: Off p.1 #8 · Some Nikon tele with TC's tests great shots, nice set of jawbones too Nov 18, 2009 at 12:55 AM

vchowdhary Offline Upload & Sell: On p.1 #9 · Some Nikon tele with TC's tests trenchmonkey wrote: vchowdhary wrote: Thanks for the great post. I've got a 300mm 2.8 AF-S II, and am contemplating purchasing a 1.7 TC.. Only concern is the lack of VR. Handholdable... ? Yes, hours at a time. I use a modded BushHawk but lots of my shootin' buds just hold the foot. Thanks for the update.. appreciate first hand feedback. Going to try and get a good 1.7x Nov 18, 2009 at 01:12 AM

cbfabbri Offline Upload & Sell: Off p.1 #10 · Some Nikon tele with TC's tests Thank you all guys !! I believe with 300 2.8 is possible to get sharp shots with TC handheld (it's a more robust and heavy set), just pay att. to the speed. With 300F/4 is pretty difficult since the lens is so small and light that it's not easy to find a good and steady grip with that. Nov 18, 2009 at 02:03 AM

90 5.0 Offline Upload & Sell: Off p.1 #11 · Some Nikon tele with TC's tests cbfabbri wrote: Thank you all guys !! I believe with 300 2.8 is possible to get sharp shots with TC handheld (it's a more robust and heavy set), just pay att. to the speed. With 300F/4 is pretty difficult since the lens is so small and light that it's not easy to find a good and steady grip with that. I rented the 300 f/4 last weekend to test before purchase and I agree It was more difficult to use hand held with the tc than I had imagined, I ended up turning the foot to the top when I was hand holding it, was quite manageable on the mono though. I liked using it but wasn't as impressed with it vs my 70-300 bare as I thought I would be and wasn't as happy with the performance with the tc as i thought I would be either. I'm going to rent the 300 2.8 and 400 2.8 on my next two planned outings respectively and see how much I like them with and without tc's. The test will be how hard they are to hike with for me with the rest of my gear. And they are out of my budget for purchase. But even though this is my needed focal range the most it's the range I shoot the least with. It might possibly just be better for me to rent either the 300 or 400 2.8 when I know I will be needing them vs purchase. Plus I found a rental house that's on my way to my real job and they have very good weekend rates. I can pick up on the way home from work on fri and drop off on the way to on mon. This might just be the way I go in the future since I only really need a lens like this periodically when I get the opportunity to go somewhere. For everything else the 70-300 works just fine when i need a long lens but my primes see the most abuse on a week to week basis. Thanks for the info as It's along the lines of what i'm going through right now. I'm glad I did rent the 300 f/4 before purchase though because I really don't know if I will buy it any more and I have been contemplating the purchase for a while. Edit: I also just noticed you're in Brazil, I'll be there next month for work. Can't wait to have another caipirinha haven't had one in forever Nov 18, 2009 at 03:38 AM

cbfabbri Offline Upload & Sell: Off p.1 #12 · Some Nikon tele with TC's tests hehe... If you need something in Sao Paulo, just let me know. Good luck on lens decision. One thing : I had a 70-300VR and found it a nice lens. But, for me, the 300 f/4, even with 1.7x attached, beats 70-300 bare easy (when I can hold it steady). Perhaps a copy issue here or there...(?) Thanks ! Nov 18, 2009 at 10:25 AM

Rodolfo Paiz Offline Dedicated FM Upload & Sell: On p.1 #13 · Some Nikon tele with TC's tests 90 5.0 wrote: I'm going to rent the 300 2.8 and 400 2.8 on my next two planned outings [...] If you're willing to carry a 400/2.8, then definitely rent a 200-400 on one of those outings as well. Much more portable than the 400, just one pound heavier than the 300, and with all sorts of zoom goodness. Definitely worth a try. 90 5.0 wrote: It might possibly just be better for me to rent either the 300 or 400 2.8 when I know I will be needing them vs purchase. If you don't need them a lot, or if you need different big lenses each time, then yes. But always run the numbers! Let's say the weekend rate for a 400/2.8 is $200 and the purchase price is $9000. If you rent one six times a year (every two months), you spend $1200 annually on rentals which is 13.3% of the purchase price. 1. There's not many investments where you can get a 13% return on your money consistently. 2. You'll use it a lot more if you own it. 3. You could always sell it in a few years for a large chunk of the purchase price and make your effective "rental rate" a lot lower, probably half of what you currently pay or less. Obviously sometimes we don't have the capital to make such an investment anyway, but just run the numbers carefully. There's a big difference between an investment and an expense, and you can treat something like a big lens in either way, you just get different results. I'm presenting the opposite side of the coin here, but I don't mean to imply that buying is always better. Depends on need, frequency, tax implications, and other factors. Nov 18, 2009 at 01:41 PM

90 5.0 Offline Upload & Sell: Off p.1 #14 · Some Nikon tele with TC's tests hehe... If you need something in Sao Paulo, just let me know. Good luck on lens decision. One thing : I had a 70-300VR and found it a nice lens. But, for me, the 300 f/4, even with 1.7x attached, beats 70-300 bare easy (when I can hold it steady). Perhaps a copy issue here or there...(?) Thanks ! Could be, but I don't have the 70-300vr I have the af-d ed, wide open there is negligible difference in sharpness from what i've found in my limited use of the lens. But this could be technique. I did however shoot some tripod shots to get a feel of true sharpness in bad light but mainly hand held or mono pod. I did like the lens just not sure if it's enough better than what i have already for me. I will definitely rent it again to give it a fair trial. It's hard to compare a few hundred shots looking for the best one next to the best ones out of thousands I have shot with the 70-300. I don't believe I'll be in Sao Paulo this trip, only Rio, Macae and possibly Catu. Where were those pictures taken? They remind me of a place in Teresopolis. Rodolfo Paiz wrote: 90 5.0 wrote: I'm going to rent the 300 2.8 and 400 2.8 on my next two planned outings [...] If you're willing to carry a 400/2.8, then definitely rent a 200-400 on one of those outings as well. Much more portable than the 400, just one pound heavier than the 300, and with all sorts of zoom goodness. Definitely worth a try. 90 5.0 wrote: It might possibly just be better for me to rent either the 300 or 400 2.8 when I know I will be needing them vs purchase. If you don't need them a lot, or if you need different big lenses each time, then yes. But always run the numbers! Let's say the weekend rate for a 400/2.8 is $200 and the purchase price is $9000. If you rent one six times a year (every two months), you spend $1200 annually on rentals which is 13.3% of the purchase price. 1. There's not many investments where you can get a 13% return on your money consistently. 2. You'll use it a lot more if you own it. 3. You could always sell it in a few years for a large chunk of the purchase price and make your effective "rental rate" a lot lower, probably half of what you currently pay or less. Obviously sometimes we don't have the capital to make such an investment anyway, but just run the numbers carefully. There's a big difference between an investment and an expense, and you can treat something like a big lens in either way, you just get different results. I'm presenting the opposite side of the coin here, but I don't mean to imply that buying is always better. Depends on need, frequency, tax implications, and other factors. Yup, the max budget for me right now would be the 300 f/4 or 80-400vr to buy straight up. The infrequency of use would definitely go up some if I owned the other lenses but thinking of how much I actually use the 70-300 compared to my primes and wide zooms it's not much. And to top it off I have been getting requests from friends with businesses to do product shoots for them which need wide angle. So for that aspect I might have to allocate the tele-budget on a 17-35 or 14-24 depending on how much more paid work i get from that. I have planned on renting for that but if it becomes more frequent purchase will make more sense. For the tele aspect of it. renting now allows me the opportunity to try them all 300/400/200-400 etc . Plus my local rental house only charges me one days rent if I pick up fri afternoon and drop off first think mon morning. So the 300 2.8 af-s cost me 45 for the whole weekend and the 400 60. It's hard for me to argue with that math especially when I can get different ones for different uses. I'm going to have a motor sports shoot end of January and trying to figure the best lens for that as well. I've only done drag and Motocross before road racing will be new to me but i'm thinking a zoom would be beneficial, 80-400/200-400. But I could always rent a 400 2.8 and have my 70-300 with me as well Decisions decisions arg , Nov 18, 2009 at 06:21 PM

trenchmonkey Offline Dedicated FM Upload & Sell: On p.1 #15 · Some Nikon tele with TC's tests vchowdhary wrote: Thanks for the great post. I've got a 300mm 2.8 AF-S II, and am contemplating purchasing a 1.7 TC.. Only concern is the lack of VR. Handholdable... ? trenchmonkey wrote: Yes, hours at a time. I use a modded BushHawk but lots of my shootin' buds just hold the foot. vchowdhary wrote: Thanks for the update.. appreciate first hand feedback. Going to try and get a good 1.7x Sweet...don't dismiss the TC1.4 I took it out for a spin this morning. Handheld Bushhawk/ SOOC   NIKON D300    420 mm    f/5.6    1/2000 sec    400 ISO    -0.3 EV   Nov 18, 2009 at 07:48 PM

Rodolfo Paiz Offline Dedicated FM Upload & Sell: On p.1 #16 · Some Nikon tele with TC's tests 90 5.0 wrote: So the 300 2.8 af-s cost me 45 for the whole weekend and the 400 60. It's hard for me to argue with that math especially when I can get different ones for different uses. No, that math compellingly says you should rent. For motorsports, you rarely have the time and/or opportunity to put one body down and pick another up. I would personally take the 200-400, a normal lens like a 24-70 for car "portraits", and a wide-angle for the close-ups and details. Nov 18, 2009 at 08:11 PM

90 5.0 Offline Upload & Sell: Off p.1 #17 · Some Nikon tele with TC's tests Rodolfo Paiz wrote: 90 5.0 wrote: So the 300 2.8 af-s cost me 45 for the whole weekend and the 400 60. It's hard for me to argue with that math especially when I can get different ones for different uses. No, that math compellingly says you should rent. For motorsports, you rarely have the time and/or opportunity to put one body down and pick another up. I would personally take the 200-400, a normal lens like a 24-70 for car "portraits", and a wide-angle for the close-ups and details. Yeah, that does sound like a good Idea. Checking their online inventory though I don't see the 200-400. hopefully their list is just not updated. the only bodies they show for rent are the D1x and the F100 in Nikon Nov 18, 2009 at 09:12 PM

cbfabbri Offline Upload & Sell: Off p.1 #18 · Some Nikon tele with TC's tests It's a farm near Sao Paulo. Enjoy your trip ! 90 5.0 wrote: I don't believe I'll be in Sao Paulo this trip, only Rio, Macae and possibly Catu. Where were those pictures taken? They remind me of a place in Teresopolis. Nov 18, 2009 at 11:32 PM

Rodolfo Paiz Offline Dedicated FM Upload & Sell: On p.1 #19 · Some Nikon tele with TC's tests 90 5.0 wrote: Checking their online inventory though I don't see the 200-400. hopefully their list is just not updated. If they don't have it, stick to the 300/2.8. Shorter, lighter, and easier to swing around. Plus, if you happen to misjudge the ideal focal length, it's "less bad" to crop than to miss shots because stuff doesn't fit in the frame. Nov 19, 2009 at 01:46 AM

90 5.0 Offline Upload & Sell: Off p.1 #20 · Some Nikon tele with TC's tests Rodolfo Paiz wrote: 90 5.0 wrote: Checking their online inventory though I don't see the 200-400. hopefully their list is just not updated. If they don't have it, stick to the 300/2.8. Shorter, lighter, and easier to swing around. Plus, if you happen to misjudge the ideal focal length, it's "less bad" to crop than to miss shots because stuff doesn't fit in the frame. Very true, I also need to find out what focal length is the best for that track, the cost to rent the 300 2.8 and 1.4tc(my only tc's are ai-s) and the 400 is like five bucks. I'll prolly go the 300 + tc route but i'd hate to know I skimped 5 bucks and needed 400 the entire time. Nov 19, 2009 at 01:50 AM

	FM Forums | Nikon-mount SLRs | Join Upload & Sell end

You are not logged in. Login or Register

Username   Password   Lost your password?