Used on a tripod, with good technique, the images are almost identical. Once you go up to 400mm lenses and beyond, the 17 isn't as sharp as the 14. On both 500mm and 600mm there is virtually no loss of IQ with the 14 untl you attempt billboard size images. The 17 will start to show IQ loss at about 11" X 17" prints.
Pretty much what DGC said. You get more reach with the 1.7, but it comes at a cost. The 1.4 is almost perfect on most teles, where you do start seeing a quality loss with the 1.7. I only put it on when there is no other way to get a shot. I generally won't hesitate to use the 1.4x if I need a little extra with my 500 or 300.
With a 300mm lens, the 1.4 ==> 420mm f/5.6 and the 1.7 ==> 510mm f/6.3. It's like two totally different lenses. Which one is more useful to you. Or get both!
Avi B wrote:
. Which is why it shows up as 500mm f/6.3 on the EXIF data...
If you download software capable of reading Nikon's 120 items of EXIF or use the EXIF link on Flickr the correct focal length is shown plus the distance to more accurate than half an inch up to about 30 meters focus distance using several AF-s lenses.
Here is an example (not with a converter) of the data on flickr http://www.flickr.com/photos/clean_mud/3663694644/meta/
I have no idea why the full (and in some cases correct) EXIF data is not available via Nikon.
One difference between 1.4 and 1.7 is the 1.7 front element protrudes slightly more with slightly less protection than the 1.4.
My advice is get one of each if you can afford it.
Scott Grant wrote:
and remember the AF will be much slower with the 1.7X vs. the 1.4X.
Using a 300 2.8 I don't seem to notice much difference at all between the two. It's a long ways from being much slower, maybe a little, but not much slower. I've shot BIF close in many times, coming straight at me. The D300 300 2.8 +1.7 nails it everytime if I do my job. I have no complaints whatsover about slow focus.
Which lens are you using with the 1.7 that yours is so slow?
geniousc wrote:
Using a 300 2.8 I don't seem to notice much difference at all between the two. It's a long ways from being much slower, maybe a little, but not much slower. I've shot BIF close in many times, coming straight at me. The D300 300 2.8 +1.7 nails it everytime if I do my job. I have no complaints whatsover about slow focus.
Which lens are you using with the 1.7 that yours is so slow?
+1 but previously I had the f4 and, great lens that it is it's AF doesn't handle the 1.7 as well as the f2.8 esp in less than ideal light which was why I got the 2.8
geniousc wrote:
Using a 300 2.8 I don't seem to notice much difference at all between the two. It's a long ways from being much slower, maybe a little, but not much slower. I've shot BIF close in many times, coming straight at me. The D300 300 2.8 +1.7 nails it everytime if I do my job. I have no complaints whatsover about slow focus.
Which lens are you using with the 1.7 that yours is so slow?
I think Scott uses both the 1.4 and the 1.7 on a 500 VR with a D300.
As others have mentioned I'm having no problems with the 1.7 mounted to the 300 2.8 VR on either my D300 or D700.
Gregg Heckler wrote:
They're both good on the 70-200VR. The 14 is sharper wide open but stopped down 1 stop the 17 is very good.
+1, the 1.7 needs to be stopped down on the 70-200VR and is soft tacked all the way out to 200mm. Pull in slightly and all is good. I need to get a 1.4.
Andre Labonte wrote:
+1, the 1.7 needs to be stopped down on the 70-200VR and is soft tacked all the way out to 200mm. Pull in slightly and all is good. I need to get a 1.4.
I wouldn't exactly call the 70-200 VR soft at full zoom with the 1.7 mounted. Sure it's not as sharp as the naked lens but I'll take it over the 1.4 for a more usable reach with very minimal image degredation over the naked lens. Here's one from the archives...
D70, 70-200 VR wide open at f/4.8 with the 1.7 mounted and racked out to 340mm.
