Question for Nikon owners
Nov 11, 2011 16:34:05 #
silver wrote:
quote=lvphotog quote=LostHawaiian Just wanted to... (show quote)
The 1.5x is the camera sensor conversion.Thank you.
Nov 11, 2011 18:40:52 #
wow what are you shooting Martians on the moon?
You need alot of light with those extentoins for sharp focus.
You need alot of light with those extentoins for sharp focus.
Nov 11, 2011 20:13:33 #
ahzwizerd2 wrote:
wow what are you shooting Martians on the moon?
You need alot of light with those extentoins for sharp focus.
You need alot of light with those extentoins for sharp focus.
I guess I was not clear.I apologize.The 1.5x is the sensor conversion not! another teleconverter.
More than likely I would get the 1.4 if there is any question of loosing autofocus on the 1.7x and just crop.
As other reply's have said there is almost no loss in quality with the 1.4x and a 300 f/4 together.I'll check out Thom Hogan and any other's before making a decision.
So far every review of that lens has been positive.You expect 1 or 2 negative comment's as always.I could find only one and he could have got a bad lens.
I think you ahzwizard2 was the one who suggested a gimbal which I checked out at B&H and they have a gimbal attachment that works with my Benro ballhead for 204.00,almost twice what I paid them for the Benro but if it makes following wildlife easier then it would be worth it I think.
I've never used one but the reviews seem to say alot!.Since I have to sit and shoot more than most,"broken back"I use the Benbo tripod alot as it can be set in almost any position.It"benbo" is a pain in the ass to set up compaired to most but they can't get in those positions!.
With a gimbal attached I should have the best possible chance to catch the whales as they come up and go down or in following any wildlife.The distance to the whales is 1/8 to 1/4 mile "depending"therefore the need for as much reach as possible.Hopefully with the 300 f/4 and 1.4x plus the sensor and a little crop and I should be able to get high quality images for around 1000.00 "used" ofcourse!.
I will probably shoot some Surfing event's also only because I love the images you can get. I don't even want to aim at humans anymore as it seems more trouble than it's worth these days IMHO.
Anyway thank you for the input,all of you!!!.
MAHALO and ALOHA
Nov 13, 2011 22:09:55 #
Rufus
Loc: Puget Sound area, WA
In 1991, I bot a 70-200, f2.8 for my F4, now use on a D700, and it has been almost the standard lens. I've shot big weddings, travel scenes, portraits, whatever. At 70 mm, it is just right for portraits. At weddibgs, I stand across the room and 'portrait' everyone. No IS but good, sharp lens.
Nov 13, 2011 22:22:06 #
It doesn't have VR, but I would check the reviews of the Tamron 70-200 on slrgear.com. It's considerably lighter (in weight & in the wallet!)
Jan 8, 2012 14:33:39 #
Jan 8, 2012 14:39:23 #
michaelgem wrote:
To amplify on: IF you have a crop or DX camera, the 70-200 will reach 510 feet. 200X1.5X1.7= 510 feet. So it will be the lighter combo for you. ephraim Imperio
Just in case you had not factored this in, the smaller than 35mm DX sensor on your D7000 turns the 70-200 zoom into a 105-300 lens.
michaelgem
Just in case you had not factored this in, the smaller than 35mm DX sensor on your D7000 turns the 70-200 zoom into a 105-300 lens.
michaelgem
I really do think you mean 510mm rather than 510feet.
Jan 8, 2012 19:57:35 #
Rufus
Loc: Puget Sound area, WA
My D700 does have a 36 x 24 sensor so the 70 x 200mm works fine. I would like to get a good deal on a Prime 400mm.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.