From: RichA on
On Apr 28, 7:17 am, "Tim Conway" <tconway_...(a)> wrote:
> I want one of these.  Hey, it's only $7,000.  dream on.  :-)

Too slow for its cost.
From: Peter on
"me" <me(a)> wrote in message
> On Wed, 28 Apr 2010 12:03:26 -0400, "Tim Conway"
> <tconway_113(a)> wrote:
>>"Peter" <peternew(a)> wrote in message
>>> "Tim Conway" <tconway_113(a)> wrote in message
>>> news:hr95fu$d94$1(a)
>>>>I want one of these. Hey, it's only $7,000. dream on. :-)
>>> Try the new 2.8 70-200 with the new aspherical 2x extender. Yes I know
>>> it's f5.6 and not f4, but the price and weight difference may be worth
>>> it.
>>> But, yup! I like that lens.
>>Definitely more affordable solution. I'll keep it in mind. Thanks
> Definitely a "different" solution. I can't speak to the new versions,
> however I can speak to the originals. I've shot the orginal 70-200mm
> f/2.8 VR + TC-20EII on a D70/D200?D300 for quite a few years. I've now
> also had the orignal 200-400 f/4 VR for several years. Totally
> different worlds and one does get what one pays for. Each has its own
> set of limitations. The 70-200+TC-20 is cheaper, and lighter. It does
> not give the same sharpness on small subjects at range as the 200-400.
> So how valuable the combo might be to you depends not only on, size,
> wt, $$, but maybe also your intended subject. Panning shots of auto/MC
> racers taken with both and compared where shutter speeds where kept
> around ~1/320 s showed aproximately the same sharpness. The bigger
> lens is definitely a lot more difficult to pan, especially if not
> given an easy subject/point to pick up. The combo is much easier to
> get up to panning speed. The combo is slower focusing than the big
> lens. The big lens gives you a shorter focal length range and
> definitely a closer focusing distance.
> All that said, now having both, the 200-400mm pretty much lives mated
> to a TC-14 and the 70-200 gets used by itself of mated to the 1.4x
> also. In good light I will mate the 2x to the big lens. Despite what
> Nikon publishes the D70/200/300 will try to autofocus the 200-400 f/4
> + TC-20 F/8 combo and in bright light the resulting image is stll
> outstanding.

Nice shots.
Have you tested the 70-200 with the new aspherical 2x? Of course you cannot
get the same result as with the 200-400 with any extender.


From: Doug McDonald on
On 4/28/2010 4:12 PM, Russ D wrote:

>> So now, superzooms don't have a large aperture. Instead you now claim that
>> they don't need it because of their small sensors.
> They have larger f/ratios available at long focal-lengths. They don't need
> larger apertures at long focal-lengths because they use smaller sensors.

That's incorrect reasoning. The noise is determined NOT by f/ratio but by amount
of light that gets in ... which depends on lens entrance pupil. Sensor
size does not matter, since all sensors, even crappy ones, are pretty near
photon noise limited.
From: me on
On Thu, 29 Apr 2010 08:49:03 -0400, "Peter"
<peternew(a)> wrote:

>>Have you tested the 70-200 with the new aspherical 2x? Of course you cannot
>get the same result as with the 200-400 with any extender.

If someone were to loan me one for a weekend I'd give it a go.
Otherwise I'm lacking motivation to do so.
From: C J Campbell on
On 2010-04-28 05:17:13 -0600, "Tim Conway" <tconway_113(a)> said:

> I want one of these. Hey, it's only $7,000. dream on. :-)

I think I will stick with the 400mm f/2.8, even though the 200-400 f/4
is arguably more useful. I like having the extra stop to work with when
using teleconverters. If I ever free up enough cash for another
super-telephoto, I am more likely to go even longer rather than getting
the zoom.

I have no doubt, though, that this is a great lens.

Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor