Nikon 200mm f/2 VRII + TC vs 300mm f/2.8 VRII in autofocus speed

[Brian Hirschfeld]

Does anyone have any thoughts on using the 200mm f/2 with a TC (I own the 2x but could easily buy the 1.4 or 1.7) vs the 300mm f/2.8 for autofocus speed, thanks,

[fotometria gr]

Does anyone have any thoughts on using the 200mm f/2 with a TC (I own the 2x but could easily buy the 1.4 or 1.7) vs the 300mm f/2.8 for autofocus speed, thanks,

Hi Brian, if you own the 2x (tc-20eiii) and you are satisfied by its performance (optically & AF speed), the 1.7x is better and the 1.4x much better, you will certainly be able to use the lens at full aperture with the 1.4x and retain fast AF (maybe just a bit of reduction). Optically you will have that much of a difference from the 300, that you wouldn't notice, ....unless you shoot with both at the same time for testing purposes. If testing, you may find the 300 a little better than the combination. Regards, Theodoros.

[Brian Hirschfeld]

So basically unless I am comparing them side by side, no not noticeably small?

[fotometria gr]

So basically unless I am comparing them side by side, no not noticeably small?

Although "noticeable"  may differ from one user to another, I would say "yes" IMO. Note though that the Nikon TCs (which I know all well from the E-series and later) are even better with longer focal lengths and are matched like nothing I know with the 400mm f2.8 (which is what I own), there, the performance is breathtaking with or without a T/C (even with the old TC-20e or Eii which is the worst of the series), to an extend that I would never buy a 600mm f4, the 560mm f4 that results from the 400+1.4TC lets you have the 600, while you keep your 400! Even better the 800mm f8 that results from the 400+2.0tc combination, is better than than the 840 f5.6 (600+1.4tc combination). Regards Theodoros.

[Brian Hirschfeld]

So you'd say get the 200mm f/2 so I can have that crazy f/2 while still having a 400mm f/4 and a 300 f/2.8? I occasionally shoot a soccer game or something, but do a lot of portraiture and stage photography.

[fotometria gr]

So you'd say get the 200mm f/2 so I can have that crazy f/2 while still having a 400mm f/4 and a 300 f/2.8? I occasionally shoot a soccer game or something, but do a lot of portraiture and stage photography.

That's up to the individual really, what I would do is keep the 70-200 vrii and get the 300 which is better than the 200 with TCs, I would sacrifice a stop at 200, but would be able to reach 600 if I need to... and would have the same handheld ability as the 200. It really has to do with the type of photography you do and the subject distance that suits you, IMO the 200 and 300 can be used for the same purposes while the 400 is a real tele which aims for real reach, that's why I use more often APS-c than FF with it. Now I've listed the lens (here in Lula) and will replace it with a 300. It's just that my needs don't justify its use.., with the 300 I will be using FF more and I can cover (just) whenever I need a 600. If I was doing wildlife or football or racing photography, I would never let the 400 go. The thing is that with the 200, I would need a second (longer) telephoto and this can be a real pain... Regards, Theodoros.