Comparison of Nikkor 70-200mm/2.8 VRII with TC-2.0III to newly released 200-500mm/5.6? Has anyone compared the sharpness and other aspects of Nikkor 70-200mm/2.8 VRII with TC-2.0 III...

Richard HZ Loc: Indiana, US

Has anyone compared the sharpness and other aspects of Nikkor 70-200mm/2.8 VRII with TC-2.0 III to newly released Nikkor 200-500mm/5.6? Thanks!

Rongnongno Loc: FL

err...

You seem to be comparing apples and oranges here...

Different zoom range, different maximal aperture...

As to sharpness, you should be looking at the DXO analysis for each and then compare the charts.

Richard HZ Loc: Indiana, US

Thanks for the comment! What I want to know what the result might be if TC -2.0 III is added to 70-200mm and compare to 200-500mm. Just for lenses, 70-200mm is very good as I have a copy. I just received a new copy of 200-500mm today. I will do my own comparison soon. I just wonder if anyone else has done this already. Thanks!

oldtigger Loc: Roanoke Virginia-USA

Richard HZ wrote:

Thanks for the comment! What I want to know what the result might be if TC -2.0 III is added to 70-200mm and compare to 200-500mm. Just for lenses, 70-200mm is very good as I have a copy. I just received a new copy of 200-500mm today. I will do my own comparison soon. I just wonder if anyone else has done this already. Thanks!

If 70-200/2.8 plus 2x extender was any good then nikon could have just bolted them together and sold it as a 140-400.
There must be a reason they didn't.

billnikon Loc: Pennsylvania/Ohio/Florida/Maui/Oregon/Vermont

oldtigger wrote:

If 70-200/2.8 plus 2x extender was any good then nikon could have just bolted them together and sold it as a 140-400.
There must be a reason they didn't.

210-600mm on the D7100

Bram boy Loc: Vancouver Island B.C. Canada

I'm thinking that there is no extender for that lens . It could be another
Lens that I read about ? Any one know for sure .

MakuaMan Loc: Waianae, Hi.

Bram boy wrote:

I'm thinking that there is no extender for that lens . It could be another
Lens that I read about ? Any one know for sure .

All three TC's work on that lens.

Aloha M.M.

Bram boy Loc: Vancouver Island B.C. Canada

MakahaMan wrote:

All three TC's work on that lens.

Aloha M.M.

Goodt daggen

joer Loc: Colorado/Illinois

Richard HZ wrote:

Thanks for the comment! What I want to know what the result might be if TC -2.0 III is added to 70-200mm and compare to 200-500mm. Just for lenses, 70-200mm is very good as I have a copy. I just received a new copy of 200-500mm today. I will do my own comparison soon. I just wonder if anyone else has done this already. Thanks!

I'm very interested in the results even though I'm not fond of the TC20E III.

I shoot with two 36MP Nikons and a 300 2.8 VR II with and without the TC14E II. I crop heavily most of the time and get good results.

I'm on the fence with the 200-500 and have been reviewing images whenever available. The IQ so far is all over the place so I'm hesitant about making a purchase.

moonhawk Loc: Land of Enchantment

joer wrote:

I'm very interested in the results even though I'm not fond of the TC20E III.

I shoot with two 36MP Nikons and a 300 2.8 VR II with and without the TC14E II. I crop heavily most of the time and get good results.

I'm on the fence with the 200-500 and have been reviewing images whenever available. The IQ so far is all over the place so I'm hesitant about making a purchase.

You can always return it if not satisfied. I get more consistently sharp photos with mine, handheld, than I do with any other of my long lenses.

Apaflo Loc: Anchorage, Alaska

oldtigger wrote:

If 70-200/2.8 plus 2x extender was any good then nikon could have just bolted them together and sold it as a 140-400.
There must be a reason they didn't.

What makes you think that isn't essentially what the 200-500mm is!

moonhawk Loc: Land of Enchantment

Apaflo wrote:

What makes you think that isn't essentially what the 200-500mm is!

The results...

Apaflo Loc: Anchorage, Alaska

moonhawk wrote:

The results...

Which you have not yet seen!

It compares very well against other lenses, such as the 80-400mm, and probably isn't far behind the new 200-500mm. I'd expect the newer lens to be at least measurably sharper, if not visibly so.

moonhawk Loc: Land of Enchantment

I have both the new 200-500, and had in the past the original 70-200 VR, with the Nikon TC 2.0--not sure which version, as it was such an awful combination I sold it.

I doubt the newer versions are much better. The 200-500 has proven far better than that combo, and the VR seems vastly improved.

So I have seen THOSE results--technically, not the ones with the newer versions.

Also having much better luck with the 200-500 than the 80-400, newest version. Maybe it's just me, or the copies I have.

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

You might find this helpful regarding the performance of the 70-200 with all of Nikon's current TCs.

https://photographylife.com/reviews/nikon-70-200mm-f2-8g-vr-ii/4

Have nothing that compares it to the new lens.

It seems to be useful as a 400 F5.6 as long as you stop down at least one stop to an effective F8, or even better to an effective F11.

A big difference from the original 70-200 F2.8 VR, btw.