Hi All,
I'll try to respond to the last three (or so) posts in this one posting....
Lance Wrote: ---> Dave, there is no doubt about it, you're a wealth of knowledge and I take my hat off to you! (if I wore a hat, that is, LOL)
I shall get the 1.4x TC and be on the lookout for a version III of the 2x TC. I think this will be good for the short term until I can sort out some decent long lenses !
Thanks again, buddy. You're a great help.
Oh, and by the way, I think I am going to order the D700 + 24-70 na d 70-200 f2.8 VRII tomorrow.
You're most welcome Lance! LOL...nope not fond of wearing hats (except when skiing
The 70-200 f2.8 VR II is a superb lens but whether it's use with teleconverters (both optically and convienience wise) is satisfactory, differs with everyone. I am of the school of thought that use of converters is something I try and avoid (no matter how good), unless absolutely necessary....except on single focal length telephoto primes. If one has to go with one on a zoom..the 70-200 f2.8 VR II is definitely a worthy candidate, especially with the 1.4x.
A good sampel of the 24-70 f2.8 is excellent, but if using a kit for myself, from wide to telephoto...I much rather have a wide angle (or wide angle zoom), the Sigma 50mm f1.4 (not the Nikon), and then either fast single focal length telephoto or the telephoto zoom, depending on uses for that particular outing. Everyone though has their needs, style and desire, so there is no one right or wrong answer. I love low light work and shallow depth of field...so fast primes have filled my needs/bags more often than zooms these days..except when the job makes it manditory for the zoom for shifting focal lengths fast. Keep us posted but sounds like a great start. I see you are maybe on the fence on what to do on the wide end (wider than 24mm)..and if so, its understandable.
Your very next step is to send me a RT ticket to Australia , so I can instruct you on how to mount those new lenses....it's backwards from mounting Pentax lenses and you wouldn't want to get any of those new beauties stuck perminantly
Zorpie Wrote ---> > > > Seeing as you have helped the OP out here - can I pose another related question for your opinion ?
I have the Nikon 70-200mm VRII plus the Nikon TC17EII. Would you consider that this combination at 300mm outperforms the Sigma 100-300mm at 300mm ?
I've not used a Sigma 100-300mm so don't have a clue. But I was considering one before I purchased the Nikon 70-200mm VRII. I wondered if a TC would suit my limited requirement for 300mm or above.
Thats a difficult call as I explained in a previous post to Lance (see some of my posts above in this thread). The 1.7x (simply in my opinion), is sort of an ugly duckling when one considers the new 2x just released. It generally (the 1.7x) performed less satisfactory in most cases than the 1.4x on many lenses, especially zooms. The reason it was tolerated was that it was passable and was better than the TC-20 EII which rarely worked well. Now that we have the new TC-20 EIII which performs superbly, I'd even say in many circumstances, that the new 2x performs better than the 1.7x. To answer your question directly....there will be good shooting circumstances where the 70-200 f2.8 VRII with the 1.7 may equal or even edge out the Sigma 100-300 f4 without converter..but equal number of circumstances (or maybe more), where it doesn't. A lot is going to depend on Subject distance, lighting and shooting conditions. At close range your combination will be better...but when the distance increases...the Sigma will probably excel. I personally would go with the Sigma 100-300 f4 is doing a lot at 300mm....but thats just me. Now, if you throw in flying birds in the equation, things might change a bit.
dportal wrote---> > > > Hi Lance and Dave
I pulled the trigger on the D700. I bought it together with 14-24f2.8, 24-70f2.8 and.....yes, the 100-300f4 Sigma, with 1.4xTC.
The use I intend to give this lens is 80% landscape where I need the reach. The 70-200VRII is undoubtedly stunning but the VR is not critical for me and 200mm (effective 165 or so) long end is just too short for my needs. Plus at 1100 it's really hard to beat in terms of value. Highly rec everywhere I looked, little room for a mistake, I think.
I've considered primes, but I prefer zooms for this kind of use.
I've also considered the other Nikon options 80-200, 70-200VRI, but again, felt short for my needs. I guess there is really not an obvious choice here.
Hope you enjoy your lenses, Lance, and I look forward to sharing photos with the forum and of course seeing your great photographic eye shine with Nikon.
I agree, I still find 70-200 f2.8 VRII a bit short and don't want to rely on a 2x converter on it all the time as that negates the beauty of the optics of the 70-200 f2.8 VRII. Taking on and off teleconverters all the time is also not my cup of tea. Keep in mind its also not about absolute shapness but how a lens captures an image. The Sigma is not always the asbolute sharpest when compared to the native Nikon 70-200 f2.8 VRII..but has other attributes that make capturing the shoot desirable. Too much empasis is often put on equipment and not other essential ingrediants that make an image notable.
Dave
