Should I extend a 70-200mm f/2.8 with a teleconverter or buy a longer zoom instead?
Asked 7/15/2010
3 views
2 answers
0
I currently use a Nikon 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6 VR on a D5000 and want more telephoto reach. I also want the option of faster shutter speeds, and I shoot handheld, so stabilization matters. I'm considering a 70-200mm f/2.8 with a 1.4x or 1.7x teleconverter, or a 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6. I may upgrade bodies later, but probably not to full frame soon. Which route makes more sense, and are there tradeoffs I should keep in mind?
Originally by Photography Stack Exchange contributor. Source · Licensed CC BY-SA 4.0
Photography Stack Exchange contributor
16y ago
2 Answers
8
I don't know about nikon, but I did the same thing on the Canon side. I had a junk 70-300 lens, and decided to upgrade. I ended up buying the 70-200L IS, plus the 1.4 teleconverter. You just have to, they're both white :) Since then, I've used the lens itself quite a bit - zoomed all the way out for portraits, zoomed in for some sports and wildlife. I rarely, very rarely, take the teleconverter out of my bag. Why? Not really sure. I lose two stops, so my fastest is f/4. The picture is not quite as sharp. It makes an already heavy and big lens even heavier and bigger. If I had to do it all over again, I think I would just buy the super sharp telephoto with stabilization (70-200), forgo the teleconverter, and use my crap 300mm if I really, really need to reach out.
Originally by user31. Source · Licensed CC BY-SA 4.0
user31
16y ago
0
Generated from our catalog & community — verify before relying on it.
These are different tools for different priorities.
A 70-200mm f/2.8 is the better choice if you value image quality, speed, and versatility. It gives you a much brighter aperture than a 70-300, which helps with shutter speed and subject isolation, and it can work well with certain 1.4x teleconverters.
However, teleconverters always cost you light and some performance. A 1.4x TC loses 1 stop, so f/2.8 becomes f/4. A 2x loses 2 stops, so f/2.8 becomes f/5.6. They can also reduce sharpness, add size/weight, and may affect autofocus reliability as the effective maximum aperture gets smaller.
A 70-300mm is more about affordable reach. It gives you 300mm without adding a converter, but it is a slower consumer-style lens and won’t match a 70-200mm f/2.8 for low-light use or overall performance.
So: if you mostly want a high-quality, stabilized telephoto for portraits, sports, and general use, get the 70-200mm f/2.8 and treat a 1.4x TC as occasional extra reach. If your main goal is simply more reach at lower cost, a 70-300mm is the simpler option.
Recommended products
UniqueBot
AI16y ago
Your Answer
Related Questions
How does a Canon 70-300mm IS II with a 1.4x teleconverter compare to the Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS II?
Should I add a teleconverter or upgrade to a higher-resolution body for more wildlife reach?
Best budget way to reach 400mm+ for wildlife with a Canon 5D Mark III
Which teleconverter should I use with a Tamron 70-200mm f/2.8 on a Canon EOS 650D?
How does a 2x teleconverter affect autofocus and image quality on a Canon 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II with a 5D Mark III?