Good Idea or No?

eminart

I started a thread on here somewhere about getting a lens longer than 200mm for wildlife. But, I had an epiphany............

There's absolutely no way I'm going to be able to afford $1800 and up for a new lens any time soon (and it would be quite a bit further on the "up" side to get a good 400mm). So, I've also been wanting to pick up a faster lens than my 70-210 in the same range. I've considered the 70-200mm VR and I'd begun to think about the 80-200mm. I know the 80-200 doesn't have VR, but I've never had a lens with VR and MOST of my shots are done from a tripod anyway. And I could get the 80-200 for about half the price of the 70-200. THEN, what if I bought a 1.4X or 2X teleconveter for it? That would get me out to the 400mm range with a still relatively fast aperture (well about as fast as the 80-400mm anyway).

So, what do you think? Would an 80-200mm f2.8 + a TC be a good economical way to kill two birds with one stone? It would also give me a TC to use with my other lenses (my 100mm macro becomes a 140mm or 200mm!).

Does this sound like a bad idea for any reason? It seems to me that a 80-200mm + a 2X tc would just as good as any of the 400mm lenses in the same combined price range.

ziggy53

eminart wrote:

... I'd begun to think about the 80-200mm. I know the 80-200 doesn't have VR, but I've never had a lens with VR and MOST of my shots are done from a tripod anyway. And I could get the 80-200 for about half the price of the 70-200. THEN, what if I bought a 1.4X or 2X teleconveter for it? That would get me out to the 400mm range with a still relatively fast aperture (well about as fast as the 80-400mm anyway).

So, what do you think? Would an 80-200mm f2.8 + a TC be a good economical way to kill two birds with one stone? It would also give me a TC to use with my other lenses (my 100mm macro becomes a 140mm or 200mm!).

Does this sound like a bad idea for any reason? It seems to me that a 80-200mm + a 2X tc would just as good as any of the 400mm lenses in the same combined price range.

First, you have to qualify which Nikon lens you wish to consider. I do not believe that a Nikon teleconverter will fit the AF-D version because that lens uses a screw drive focus mechanism. I believe that some of the third-party teleconverters may fit but I am not sure which ones. The AF-S version should allow a Nikon teleconverter, but I think only the TC14B and TC14E II are recommended.

Unfortunately combining a 2x teleconverter to a zoom lens will always be a compromise. Most consider a 2x teleconverter to have too much compromise to be useful, except used with very particular prime lenses in very good light. Besides a reduced image quality due to the enlargement of the central area of the lens, there is also a drop due to the extra elements of the teleconverter and rather poor optic coupling with the host lens (in the case of zoom lenses in particular).

Most agree that the Nikon TC14x series is about the maximum teleconverter you should purchase for the 70-200mm or 80-200mm (AF-S) zoom lenses. Beyond that and image quality and focus speed suffer more than most consider acceptable.

eminart

ziggy53 wrote:

First, you have to qualify which Nikon lens you wish to consider. I do not believe that a Nikon teleconverter will fit the AF-D version because that lens uses a screw drive focus mechanism. I believe that some of the third-party teleconverters may fit but I am not sure which ones. The AF-S version should allow a Nikon teleconverter, but I think only the TC14B and TC14E II are recommended.

Unfortunately combining a 2x teleconverter to a zoom lens will always be a compromise. Most consider a 2x teleconverter to have too much compromise to be useful, except used with very particular prime lenses in very good light. Besides a reduced image quality due to the enlargement of the central area of the lens, there is also a drop due to the extra elements of the teleconverter and rather poor optic coupling with the host lens (in the case of zoom lenses in particular).

Most agree that the Nikon TC14x series is about the maximum teleconverter you should purchase for the 70-200mm or 80-200mm (AF-S) zoom lenses. Beyond that and image quality and focus speed suffer more than most consider acceptable.

:cry Thanks for the reply. As you can see, I'm a newbie. I've been reading through the wildlife lens thread over in the wildlife area and I'd pretty much changed my mind anyway. There's too many choices out there and I'm flat broke right now, but I'll eventually decide on something. I'll probably still get the 80-200mm to replace my 70-210, but I'll look for something longer for wildlife.

ziggy53

eminart wrote:

:cry Thanks for the reply. As you can see, I'm a newbie. I've been reading through the wildlife lens thread over in the wildlife area and I'd pretty much changed my mind anyway. There's too many choices out there and I'm flat broke right now, but I'll eventually decide on something. I'll probably still get the 80-200mm to replace my 70-210, but I'll look for something longer for wildlife.

If this is still about wildlife photography, you don't have to purchase an awesome and expensive long telephoto lens. You can always use a combination of "blind" and lure to get animals closer to your position.

It takes more patience and more understanding of the quarry but getting the critters close is a valuable technique and often doesn't require much investment.

Take a look at some of the tips in this thread:

http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?p=797068

jonh68

If you want a fast lens in the 70-200 2.8 range, get the Sigma 70-200 2.8 and the Sigma 1.4 and 2.0 TC's for your birding needs. Brand new, that would cost around $1200. It will be cheaper if you buy a used 70-200 which can be had in the 550-700 range.

For the Nikon version, you will have to buy a used copy of the 80-200 AFS in order to use TC's.

Qarik

test

darkdragon

If you go with a 70-200 2.8 & 2xTC you will be getting a 400mm 5.6 - why not go with a Sigma 170-500 or 150-500 which is 5.6-6.3, you can pick up used around $500. Great for budget long glass IMHO.

Cygnus Studios

Go with the Bigma in quality light it is as sharp as you need.

darkdragon

Cygnus Studios wrote:

Go with the Bigma in quality light it is as sharp as you need.

As long as you can handle the weight

Cygnus Studios

darkdragon wrote:

As long as you can handle the weight

But consider all the money you will save at the gym

darkdragon

Cygnus Studios wrote:

But consider all the money you will save at the gym

jonh68

darkdragon wrote:

If you go with a 70-200 2.8 & 2xTC you will be getting a 400mm 5.6 - why not go with a Sigma 170-500 or 150-500 which is 5.6-6.3, you can pick up used around $500. Great for budget long glass IMHO.

But then you wouldn't have a 70-200 2.8 fast glass.