Going tele: DX or TC

[SMV78]

Hi, I have a D700 and I'm thinking in buying a tele prime for wildlife (not birds), and I'm also considering a 2nd body.

The biggest/heaviest/longest lens that I'm willing to carry and I can afford is the AFS 300mm f2.8 VR. The other exotics are too heavy (hiking) and expensive for me.

Well, the problem is that 300mm on FX is too short, so I should buy a TC: probably the TC17 to get enough reach (510mm f4.8) ...

But, I could also buy a DX camera and get a 450mm f2.8, or a 630mm f4.0 with a TC14.

It seems that with the TC17 you loose too much IQ and the AF is slower, meanwhile the TC14 is ok.

So my question is: which is better to get enough reach? a TC on FX or a DX camera? Maybe FX + TC17 or DX + TC14?

I'm assuming that the ISO/IQ advantage of FX is 1 stop and it is lost because of the TC.

Thank you.

 

[bikinchris]

If you need the reach a D300s would be a great choice for you. Use the TC14 with the 300mm for the view of a 620mm lens.

Hi, I have a D700 and I'm thinking in buying a tele prime for wildlife (not birds), and I'm also considering a 2nd body.

The biggest/heaviest/longest lens that I'm willing to carry and I can afford is the AFS 300mm f2.8 VR. The other exotics are too heavy (hiking) and expensive for me.

Well, the problem is that 300mm on FX is too short, so I should buy a TC: probably the TC17 to get enough reach (510mm f4.8) ...

But, I could also buy a DX camera and get a 450mm f2.8, or a 630mm f4.0 with a TC14.

It seems that with the TC17 you loose too much IQ and the AF is slower, meanwhile the TC14 is ok.

So my question is: which is better to get enough reach? a TC on FX or a DX camera? Maybe FX + TC17 or DX + TC14?

I'm assuming that the ISO/IQ advantage of FX is 1 stop and it is lost because of the TC.

Thank you.

--
Don't take yourself so seriously. No one else does.
Chris, Broussard, LA

 

[Leonard Shepherd]

I'm assuming that the ISO/IQ advantage of FX is 1 stop

At 200 and 400 ISO the FX advantage is close to indistinguishable and at 800 it is slight. It is only at 1600 and higher the gap widens.
So - what ISO's are you planning to use?

For the same viewfinder crop DX gives 1 stop more depth of field or (when not shooting wide open) the option of 1 shutter speed faster for the same dof.
This can be a useful advantage for bif.
Bokeh is extremely good on the 300 - without Tc's.
It falls off with Tc's

Image quality with a TC attached to the 300 can be easily good enough for an A3 print with the 2x, and good enough for an A2 with the 1.7 or 1.4.

"Pixel peepers" might be able to detect differences through a low power microscope at around 80x - which is what viewing at 100% from 24 MP with either DX or FX with a 1.4 means.

--
Leonard Shepherd

Practicing and thinking can do more for good photography than buying or consuming.

 

[Chuck Yadmark]

Outside the box here, as long as you're pondering getting a second body anyways, how about a Canon SLR and their 400 5.6?

Ducking my head now
--
http://www.sportsshooter.com/cyadmark
Ann Arbor, MI USA

Equipment in profile

 

[SMV78]

I switched from Canon in January and I had the 100-400 VR because of the flexibility.

The 400 5.6 is too slow and it hasn't VR/IS. I prefer Nikon for now ...

Thank you.

 

[SMV78]

Thank you. Probably it's the better option.

 

[SMV78]

I often shoot at dawn or in deep forest, so it's easy to shoot at 1600/3200 ISO ...