I am looking at which of these situations would be better for me. I would ask that you take into consideration the price of the 300 F4 compared to the 2.0 converter, as I do not own either of these yet, but my focus of this question is to have someone give me first hand information on these two situations in reference to image quality. I am prepared to buy the 300 F4, and another 1.4x converter, but if I can achieve the same image quality with the 70-200 and a 2.0 tele plus maintain autofocus and VR then that seems like a much smarter, and might I add, cheaper alternative.
The effective distance would be very similar 600mm versus 630mm so in terms of image quality (publishable image quality) which of these will I be better off with.
I know the first response here will be to go with the long primes, but I am looking for the cheaper route right now as the primes will come later this year or next year.
Thank you in advance
Tom W
The 70-200 VR is an excellent lens which still gives very good results with the 1.4X and Acceptable to Good results with the 1.7X. I tried the 2X with it but to me it was unacceptable, the images were soft. You can not get even close to image quality of the 300mm + 1.4X compared to any combination of extenders with the 70-200 VR.
Tom, Trust me.... I have ( had ) both of these. Hands down the 300 + TC14E is the winner by ten times. The 70-200 + 2X can't come close. I know....... by ten times.
