Nikon 300 f2.8vrii w/ 2x TCIII

I am sure this has been discussed here but I could not find a specific thread.
I currently use the 70-200 w/ 2X TC but would like more reach (don't we all?).
Since I have the 2.0 TCIII, Is the 300 f2.8 W/ the extender a decent lens?
I know it is subjective and I really can't justify it, but it would be $3000 less than the 500mm F4 and a bit longer (600 vs 500).
Is it comparable?
I see that most people here use the 500 w/ a 1.4 for 700mm reach with excellent results.
Will the 300 w/ TC be as good, just a bit shorter (600, f5.6 vs 700 f5.6)?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dankearl

I see that most people here use the 500 w/ a 1.4 for 700mm reach with excellent results.
Will the 300 w/ TC be as good, just a bit shorter (600, f5.6 vs 700 f5.6)?

---

Of course it will not be as good. Any time you add a TC the image quality degrades. 2xTC is the worse. Period.

IMO, one thing you should ask yourself is: what do I use the photographs for? How will the photographs be looked at, i.e., would you print them large or just for web viewing? If you're like many today who don't print anything out, then 300f2.8 + 2xTC will be fine for your purposes. It will be good enough even for posting (like here) for review and sharing (you do post-process?) If you insist that you have to zoom into your image (non-crop original size) 100% and compare it with those shot with a 500 or 600, then you may be disappointed. But, is that how you view your photographs, how other people look at your photographs??

Your call.

Thanks Desmond for responding.
Most posts here use TC's, most people with 500mm lens use 1.4 tc's.
Do they not print them?
You didn't really answer my question which is fine, but, since I really can't justify a 600mm prime and even most people here with 500mm lens still use a TC, will the 300 with a TC be decent for not only posting but printing?
If is isn't, I won't bother, it is a lot of money and if it just is not that good, as you imply, thanks for your input.
I do print my photos and the 70-200 w/ the 2.0 TC makes really good prints.
The D7000 16MP prints look better than the images on my monitor.
It is a big monetary upgrade, so I do appreciate the input, which is why I asked.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dankearl

Thanks Desmond for responding.
Most posts here use TC's, most people with 500mm lens use 1.4 tc's.
Do they not print them?

---

Well, you can ask them. These days, many people do not print their photographs. But, the important question is: do you, and how large?

Quote:

---

You didn't really answer my question which is fine,

---

I think I did. Anyhow, my point is you should determine how you view and show your photographs first. Based on that answer, then you should know if 300f2.8 +2TC is good enough for you given your tight budget.

Quote:

---

lens still use a TC, will the 300 with a TC be decent for not only posting but printing?

---

Again, if you add TC, the resulting image quality is not going to be as good as without the TC. You can ask: how bad? It depends on how you view and show your photographs and could also how good you post-process. The image quality needed for a 20x30 print likely is very different from one for showing on a web with a resolution of 640x480. The smaller it is, the easier it's to hide the defects (what you can see when zoomed in 100% likely is not noticeable when it's small as a 640x480 image shown on a website.

Quote:

---

If is isn't, I won't bother, it is a lot of money and if it just is not that good, ...

---

Then you may have jumped to your conclusion.

Quote:

---

I do print my photos and the 70-200 w/ the 2.0 TC makes really good prints.
The D7000 16MP prints look better than the images on my monitor.
It is a big monetary upgrade, so I do appreciate the input, which is why I asked.

---

How large do you prints? How do you know 300f2.8 +2TC is not good enough for the size of prints that you make? I'm simply saying that combo is likely not as good as a 600f4 naked as far as image quality (resolution, contrast, tonal gradation, etc) is concerned (there's a reason why one costs much more than the other you know); I'm not saying the file from a 300f2.8+2TC is not good enough for any good print. They are not the same thing you know.

I recently tested this option and am very surprised at how good the quality is - it is much better than the 70-200/TC 20EIII combination, which can have a strange bokeh.
It has the advantage over the 500mm f4.0 that it is much more portable and even allows for hand held birds in flight shots. Naturally a naked super tele will be better....
For a pro review refer to: http://www.naturalart.ca/artist/fiel...c_series3.html

You may like to look at the thread here on BPN:

http://www.birdphotographers.net/for...-2-version-111

My 400/2.8 VR is stellar with the TC 20E III.

Giulio

"Since I have the 2.0 TCIII, Is the 300 f2.8 W/ the extender a decent lens? "

I have this combo (300 f2.8g VRII and the new TC2.0eIII ) and together they work good together and serve my needs well. There is no way I can afford dropping $8000+ on a lens like some on here with really deep pockets.