70/80-200 options with teleconverters.

[BLWNHR]

I made a post a few months ago mentioning I'm going to move from Pentax to Nikon in the next fear future. This is definitely something that is going to happen and I'm now nailing down the gear I'm going to purchase.

The issue I've got is running a 70/80-200 and teleconverter. I am definitely buying a lens in this focal length, but for some of the subjects I shoot I need more length. This is where the TC comes in. I've looked over the EXIF from the longer shots I've taken with my K10D and Bigma and use 100-400mm a lot.

My initial thought was to get the Nikkor AF-S 80-200mm f/2.8 IF-ED (http://nikon.com.au/productitem.php?pid=792-74eba6f338) and the Nikkor Teleconverter TC-17E II (http://nikon.com.au/productitem.php?pid=680-47037f18fe) to give me 70-340mm which would be fine, but I've been told the 80-200 will not work with this TC.

Now I have a bit of a quandary, I don't have the budget to get the Nikkor AF-S VR 70-200mm f/2.8G IF-ED (http://nikon.com.au/productitem.php?pid=88-38b05c950e) (a brand change is costing me enough as it is), so need to explore other options.

Can I please have peoples thoughts on which combinations of the following will actually work, and give the best results.

Nikkor AF-S 80-200mm f/2.8 IF-ED (http://nikon.com.au/productitem.php?pid=792-74eba6f338)
Sigma APO 70-200mm F2.8 II EX DG MACRO HSM (http://sigmaphoto.com/lenses/lenses_all_details.asp?id=3340&navigator=3)
Sigma APO 1.4x Tele Converter EX (http://sigmaphoto.com/lenses/lenses_tele.asp#specs)
Nikkor Teleconverter TC-14E II (http://nikon.com.au/productitem.php?pid=123-bfae9651f4)


My local camera store recommends get the Sigma APO 70-200mm F2.8 II EX DG MACRO HSM (http://sigmaphoto.com/lenses/lenses_all_details.asp?id=3340&navigator=3) with Sigma APO 1.4x Tele Converter EX (http://sigmaphoto.com/lenses/lenses_tele.asp#specs), but I'm wondering would the Nikkor Teleconverter TC-17E II (http://nikon.com.au/productitem.php?pid=680-47037f18fe) work with this lens? This would give me some handy extra length.

I'll be shooting motorsport so retaining good AF speed is essential. I will be buying a D300 initially, with a D200 as a backup body later in the year.

[Rooz]

did you find the bigma focussed fast enough ? reason i ask is that maybe you could consider the 300f4 afs with a tc.

[BLWNHR]

did you find the bigma focussed fast enough ? reason i ask is that maybe you could consider the 300f4 afs with a tc.

Thanks for the suggestion Rooz, but I need the 70/80-200 anyhow and can't splurge on the 300 f4 as well. A TC is as far as the finds will stretch.

As far as the Bigma focus speed goes, it is darn hard to say. AF speed is one of the big reasons why I'm changing, the Pentax isn't fast enough for what I do. I can't find out what it is like with long fast glass because it isn't made.

[Rooz]

well personally, i would go the 80-200AFS. the 1.4TC gives you nicer quality, the 1.7 gives you longer length but you do lose a little in IQ. not much though mind you. they combine really well. i havent noticed a massive AF speed difference with the 70-200 with and without the tc. i'm sure there is a speed difference, but not really that significant.

the reason i say the 80-200 is that the AF is gonna be very fast. havent tried the sigma but every sigma lens i have used/ owned doesnt compare with the AF sped of af-s.

btw: i dont think the newer nikkor TC's will work with the sigma lens's due to the protruding element.

come up to sydney and try mine.

[BLWNHR]

Sorry Rooz, been flat out this past week.

I knew the 1.7 gave a slight quality drop, and from all reports I've heard it is negligible.

The 80-200 that I used was an older screw-drive one, I didn't even notice that the 80-200 was AF-S!

I would love to come to Sydney and try it, but I need the D300 and kit before I do that (need to make the trip pay for itself, haha).

Anyone else got an opinion on this?

[Rooz]

no one on the forum i know of has the 70-200 sigma. all owners happy with the 70-200VR. someone just bought the 80-200f2.8 af-s and is very happy with it but cant remember who now.

[XaiLo]

Unfortunately what he said, I'm going to suggest if you're switching because of preformance. You may just have to completely bite the bullet and go top shelf all the way. I know easier said than done but in the long run I believe you would be a much happier camper.

[BLWNHR]

Unfortunately what he said, I'm going to suggest if you're switching because of preformance. You may just have to completely bite the bullet and go top shelf all the way. I know easier said than done but in the long run I believe you would be a much happier camper.

Yes I am switching because of performance. Namely ISO and AF. Currently I miss about 30% of shots because of the AF which is well documented at being a bit tardy in the K10D cameras. I know the D300 will be light years ahead (I've used one already) and have been impressed by the speed even with the screw-drive 80-200. So, given that I think the AF-S 80-200 will easily suffice for the medium term. I simply cannot justify the extra $1200 when I'm already spending $7k.

The only reason I'd buy the VR is for the small amount more AF speed, I very rarely use shake reduction, even on my current format.