jonsommer Loc: Usually, somewhere on the U.S. west coast.

I'll convert to jpeg as soon as I have a chance and post. Thanks for asking.

mborn Loc: Massachusetts

I use all three Nikon converters with my Nikon 70-200 f2/8 and get great results

with 1.7


with 2x


with 1.4

jonsommer Loc: Usually, somewhere on the U.S. west coast.

Nice shots, mborn, thanks for posting. For me, going from very serious in-studio portrait photography to outdoors, natural light bird photography has opened a door to having fun with my camera gear, but it sure is different, and there's a different learning curve, as well.

VJs Loc: Tampa

I must say mborn you have set the bar high !!! I could not pick a favorite photo. All were so beautiful. I have a 50-300 Nikon lens and I have taken some pretty shots. I don't have that wide variety of birds in my back yard though. Thanks for sharing!!!

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

No, but Bull Drink Water does.

bull drink water Loc: pontiac mi.

go to search and type in " mirror lenses" for samples.

bull drink water Loc: pontiac mi.

yo jonsommer, i have 2 mirror lenses. a phoenex cheapie, and a minolta auto focus. the minoltait auto focuses well and gives good images. paid $425.00 used for mine. i shoot sony alphas so i have other options.

joer Loc: Colorado/Illinois

What will a gimbal do that a ball head or conventional head
will not. I notice they are quite expensive.

bullfrogs Loc: Chico, Calif.

Here is a website on the Swarsky scope used as a birding platform. I have seen this for years and lusted over the photos they are capable of. English birders swear by this spotting scope as a telephoto.
Do any Hoggs have any experience??
If you have to ask.......just make it a short view....LOL
http://10000birds.com/new-swarovski-scopes-the-atx-and-the-stx.htm
bullfrogs

jeryh Loc: Oxfordshire UK

Having had this problem, and doing a lot of research, I bought a 1.4 APO converter for my 400mm F4.5 minolta lens; I can only say- wow! What a difference ! But do not make the mistake of going for the two times converter- you will lose the autofocus function, and two stops of light. And it really isn't necessary. The 1.4 does exactly what it says on the tin!
go for it, you will not be disappointed.

wcuster Loc: The Sea Ranch, CA

The Nikon 70-200 f/2.8G ED VRII coupled with a Nikon TC-20 E III is a nice combo. My wife uses this with her D800E for much of her wildlife photography.

Twardlow Loc: Arkansas

I have one that lives on my 70-200 2.8. No problems at all. Thom says no degradation in image, perhaps a little improvement at the corners.

Will try to find that and post it.

speters Loc: Grangeville/Idaho

I'm a Canon shooter, but in this instance I don't think it'll make a lot of difference. I shoot with a 70-200/2.8 also, and I frequently use a 1.4x teleconverter with this lens. The purchase was definitely worthwhile, I can not detect any loss in IQ and AF is speedy and snappy too. I also use that converter on the 400mm lens, were it gives me the same results.

Clynro Loc: South Jordan, UT

I've been watching these threads for quite some time now, as I'm kind of in your boat with a 70-200mm lens and a desire to be able to better fill the frame without cropping so much. Though there are people who have made comments to the contrary, and though some of the pictures posted are quite nice, what I've consistently come away with from all the threads I've followed, is that teleconverters are a cheaper option, but you do pay a price in terms of IQ, you lose a couple of stops of light, and you often (depending on the lens and teleconverter) lose lens functionality.

All of these have led me to feel that if I am serious about accomplishing the goals I have and listed above, I'm probably going to have to pony up and get the longer lens rather than go the route of the teleconverter. I was disappointed to have come to that conclusion for myself, and it will be different for everyone depending on personal expectations and how critically you will judge your work. As a serious but amateur photographer, I decided to go with the longer lens. Though I haven't yet put my money where my mouth is just yet--still saving--so you'll have to take that with a grain of salt.

jonsommer Loc: Usually, somewhere on the U.S. west coast.

Hi jeryh, thanks for the recommendation, I'm leaning towards the 1.4. It'll take my 200 to 280, which doesn't sound like enough at first blush, but I'm more interested in maintaining image quality and autofocus than in trying to get absolute "morrrrre powerrrrrr" as Scotty used to say.