Abusing the 70-200 VRII - Some thoughts and queries

[Xebadir]

Well, I've been thinking about lenses for some time to address some issues i've had with my telephoto in some of the darker places (Churches, and a few other locales). Long story short the 70-300VR isn't cutting it for jobs and I think I need to face the inevitable.
I want a Nikon 70-200 VRII.

The one thing however that I will miss is the focal length available, on my crop factor its been very useful for doing some stealthy stuff, getting that extra yardage in lightning composition, framing that tornado, and is a good performer in nice light. So I got thinking...how can I abuse the potential new lens and wanted to ask those who own it, who uses it with the TC-20EIII, TC-14EIII to ask what the performance is like?

Realistically on a crop sensor (my second camera, which is deployed when I'm being greedy about focal length) we are talking a 600 F5.6 (if my maths works), I believe it works as: 70-200 x 2 (loosing two stops from 2.8) = 140-400...multiply by crop factor to get effective 210-600 F5.6? Naturally with focal breathing (which this lens is known for) I know I won't get that at sub infinity, but I'm thinking here of the poor mans way to get that long focal length for some ideas and applications I have in mind. Compare this with the 70-300, an F4-5.6 notionally I loose nothing on the aperture, AF-S is probably a mite slower, and probably loose a bit in resolution/IQ.

Note that this focal length foolery isn't the prime reason for wanting the lens, its more to compensate so I give up my 70-300VR and not feel like I am loosing anything because of it. The majority of use where this lens is important will be on the D700/FX anyway, hence why I would prefer the VRII despite the cost difference. How do people find the image compression using the VRII?

Note: It is unlikely to sway me from buying the lens, more just thinking about the little accessories to go with it.

[rellik666]

I use it with the 1.7 T/c and love it. This is an excellent lens, so just get it.

This is taken with the 70-200 + t/c

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6124/6020972167_ed0a757aaf_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/pommi/6020972167/)
PI6Hr-51 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/pommi/6020972167/) by australianminiadventure (http://www.flickr.com/people/pommi/), on Flickr

Exposure 0.002 sec (1/500)
Aperture f/4.8
Focal Length 340 mm
ISO Speed 400
Focal Length In35mm Format 510 mm

Not sure if this helps.....:umm:

[kiwi]

I regularly use my 70-200 with a 1.4Tc and dont notice much (if any) IQ degradation, but a minor AF speed degradation

I have seen plenty of shots with the 70-200 and NEW TCII on an USA based Nikon forum that suggests its a very workable combo too.....SAR NOP comes to mind for having tested this quite extensively too

[JM Tran]

well John if you are having trouble in dark places like you stated, the teleconverter is not gonna do any good to it either! For my own use I dont even find f2.8 that handy and bright anymore for scenes like dark churches etc - a fast prime is a must. The transition from a zoom to a prime is daunting for some but you would soon get used to it and reap the benefits fast.

[kiwi]

Id agree with JM re church and dark work per se outside of the all round goodness of a 70-200

For churches etc Id be going 50 1.4, or preferable 85 1.4 (or even 1.8) in the mid range, or if money's little issue a 200 f/2

[rellik666]

Sorry my understanding was that John wanted the 2.8 for the light issues, but the length for some "other" projects where he needs the extra length that the 300 provides. And he would still have the speed he has with the 300. :o

[arthurking83]

if reach and aperture are a combined issue, then something more along the lines of a Sigma 120-300/2.8 may be more suitable. It gives you 300mm and f/2.8 whilst still allowing some focal length flexibility.
I think the latest version of the sigma lens has OS and sells for approximately the same as a VRII

[Xebadir]

Whoah. Thanks for the call Jackie, but I didn't intend to run a teleconverter in a church ;) . That would be nuts (and kinda dumb lol). Relik is spot on in understanding me (and kudos to you, seriously...nobody understands me normally). The teleconverter is for other applications where light is not as much the issue (though a couple of times under a tornadic storm this year I would've killed for a 70-200 F2.8...helps when the damn things are moving at 70mph)

I agree a fast prime for the darker end of churches would be a good move and I am comfortable with primes...I'm fairly dynamic with my zoom lenses and tend to hold at certain focal lengths and move me. I have however found that I want the reach with fast glass, but perhaps not to the extent of the Sigma at that sort of speed (thanks for the suggestion anyway AK). Unfortunately the 200 F2 breaks the budget (:(), so I think the all rounder of the 70-200 might be the go just for utility. The primes is something I intend to address...just haven't quite got around to it yet...85 1.4 is a tough temptation. The question to throw it back here is I suppose: lash out on the 70-200, or go an 85 F1.4 and a 135 2 DC or a 105? Which would you rather have?

[kiwi]

I think jm and I both got it mate.

Maybe go 85 1.8 and 70-200 :)

[JM Tran]

I understood it John, but I refrained from commenting on the teleconverter in depth as I have no experience or knowledge of them:)

85mm from Nikon or Sigma and a 70-200 is a good foundation to build upon

[Xebadir]

Not totally comfortable now...people are understanding me. I'm loosing my perspicacity!

Seriously though, thanks for the opinion guys, looks like a small addition to my shopping list ;).

[rellik666]

The 85 1.4 is high on my list the price however is low......

[cupic]

For 1 stop down to a 85mm f/1.8 its a bargain

cheers

[Tommo1965]

ive a 70-200 VR II and I sometimes use it with a nikon 1.7 TC..other than a slight slow down of AF..Im very pleased with the combination..