trenchmonkey wrote:
Hi Louis, you're onto something. I was going to reserve judgement on that aspect of my mini-review
but from what I've seen so far I'm liking the BG "treatment" pretty well. Thank you!
the 200-400 shots with busy backrounds always look to me that i would think twice about printing them.
Hi Wil,
Thank you for the follow up. I sold my 400 2.8 when I moved away from sports coverage so the 200 2.0 VR is my long lens at this point. I picked up a D2xs for the added reach in good light and have been looking at a TC for buying a little more reach. Your shots are very encouraging. I think I'll see if I can track down a TC 2.0 III in the next month or so before spring hits and my son takes to the lacrosse field. Thanks as always.
Jack
Thanks for the review.All the shots look darn good for a 2x attached.I'll be watching for the 300 + 2x review since I just picked up a 300/2.8 VR. I have 1.4x and am looking for the 1.7x right now. Depending how you like the 2x with your 300 I may have to go for one of these also.
allstarimaging wrote:
Hi Wil,
Thank you for the follow up. I sold my 400 2.8 when I moved away from sports coverage so the 200 2.0 VR is my long lens at this point. I picked up a D2xs for the added reach in good light and have been looking at a TC for buying a little more reach. Your shots are very encouraging. I think I'll see if I can track down a TC 2.0 III in the next month or so before spring hits and my son takes to the lacrosse field. Thanks as always.
Jack
Robert Spencer wrote:
Will these examples are well beyond what one normally expects to see as test samples.
You are obviously a "man of high standards" Take care. Bob
Many thanks, Bob! I was fresh out of walls and mailboxes.
Thanks for the review.All the shots look darn good for a 2x attached.I'll be watching for the 300 + 2x review since I just picked up a 300/2.8 VR. I have 1.4x and am looking for the 1.7x right now. Depending how you like the 2x with your 300 I may have to go for one of these also.
Thanks for sharing, Scott
Hiya Scott, thanks! I just shot some tonight....with the 300 and the 70-200 Results thread tomorrow.
Please tell me I don't have to sell my 1.7TC that I just bought for my 300mm F2.8
BTW, so far, I'm thrilled with the results of the 300mm AF-S II, and the 1.7TC. Stunned, is more like it.
Having owned/used a lot of 3rd party stuff, with TC's in the past, this particular Nikon combination blows any other lens I've owned, out of the water.
But, if/when I move to FX, I might seriously have to consider it.
Very nice shots Will.
Will be very interested in seeing what it does on the 70-200mm f2.8 VR-I. The question for me will be, "Is it sharp enough to replace my 80-400mm VR with," or "Will it likely match 300mm f4 + TC-17E?"
havasu_photo wrote:
Please tell me I don't have to sell my 1.7TC that I just bought for my 300mm F2.8
BTW, so far, I'm thrilled with the results of the 300mm AF-S II, and the 1.7TC. Stunned, is more like it.
Having owned/used a lot of 3rd party stuff, with TC's in the past, this particular Nikon combination blows any other lens I've owned, out of the water.
But, if/when I move to FX, I might seriously have to consider it.
Very nice shots Will.
I think you'll be fine, Paul. I'm just shooting FX now....and the 300 w/1.7 is my favorite BIF combo.
I'll be looking for some decent light this morning to try it out. Thanks.
Two23 wrote:
Will be very interested in seeing what it does on the 70-200mm f2.8 VR-I. The question for me will be, "Is it sharp enough to replace my 80-400mm VR with," or "Will it likely match 300mm f4 + TC-17E?"
Kent in SD
Never had an 80-400 Kent but was thinkin' on the way home if it worked well...it would be a nice 140-400 f5.6 VR.
Bonus being of course, taking off the TC and having f2.8 available for the 70-200 range.
I'm going out this morning looking for some good light AND something to shoot.
camerapapi wrote:
Hey Will, those are great shots! I see your images and it makes me think of going back to NM to shoot and learn with you again.
Best regards.
William Rodriguez
Miami, Florida.
Hi William, and thanks! You know you're always welcome in 'monkeyland.
So, on the 200/2, TC20 II v. TC20 III, wide open, a visible difference that your clients might see, or a difference only seen by pixel-peeping internet "critics?"
DennisC wrote:
Thanks for your efforts here, Will.
So, on the 200/2, TC20 II v. TC20 III, wide open, a visible difference that your clients might see, or a difference only seen by pixel-peeping internet "critics?"
What say you?
Hi Dennis, a palpable difference in the BG's (bokeh) and perhaps slightly sharper. Interesting to note...
up until now I preferred the TC-20E over the copies of the TC-20E II I tried. There IS quite a bit
of sample variation with these suckers. It perturbs me to no end, laying out hard earned in hopes
of scoring a good one. There's always AF fine tune with bodies so equipped, but where's the fun in that? Thanks!
trenchmonkey wrote:
Never had an 80-400 Kent but was thinkin' on the way home if it worked well...it would be a nice 140-400 f5.6 VR.
Bonus being of course, taking off the TC and having f2.8 available for the 70-200 range.
Exactly. I love photo gear that is versatile and can do several jobs. It's easier to carry for one thing. I used to have a Nikon 105mm micro, but now just screw a 500D on the end of my 70-200mm. Works great and I have one less lens to carry and freed up several hundred dollars to use on something else.
Thanks. 
Results thread tomorrow. 
I think you'll be fine, Paul. I'm just shooting FX now....and the 300 w/1.7 is my favorite BIF combo.
There's always AF fine tune with bodies so equipped, but where's the fun in that? Thanks!