Nikon AF 55-200mm VR AFS-G2.8

davetucker · #1 (**permalink**) 23-05-2007, 09:39 AM

Hi every one,
New to the forum and stumbled upon it by chance! Seems packed with good advice, so can I ask the following: has anyone tried the Nikon AF 55-200mm VR AFS-G2.8 (£1148) with a Nikon x2 convertor? My main passion is for wildlife photograpy, but never quite get the results needed with the lens supplied with my Nikon D50...Thanks for any help.
Dave

eeyore · #2 (**permalink**) 26-05-2007, 01:42 PM

i'm a canon man so i cant comment of the specific lens , but based on experience with similar canon kit i would suggest that although a 200mm f2.8 is a very useful lens to have , if you intend to use it principaly with a 2xtc you might be better off with the corresponding 400mm f5.6 , in your case the 80-400VR f5.6.

pressld2 · #3 (**permalink**) 26-05-2007, 11:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by eeyore

... you might be better off with the corresponding 400mm f5.6 , in your case the 80-400VR f5.6.

Seconded! This will give you the same reach at the long end for less money. You can pick up the 80-400 for around £1000, possibly just under, and you don't need to but the converter. I have had this lens for just over a year and I still think it's the bee's knees and the mutt's nuts rolled into one.

One thing to watch out for though is that according to Nikon (who ought to know) this lens is not compatible with the 1.4X, 1.7X and 2X teleconverters (TC14E II, TC17E II and TC20E II respectively). I haven't investigated exactly what they mean by "not compatible" - could just mean that AF won't work. They do make a 2X converter (the TC-301) which they say is compatible but a) it's manual focus b) it's pretty expensive and c) it's not easy to find anywhere that has it in stock. It's no longer listed in the products section of Nikon's web site so it may well have been discontinued.

Dave P.

AndyM · #4 (**permalink**) 29-05-2007, 11:41 AM

Hi There, I'm a newbie on this site but find it great. I use a Nikon D200 with the 80-400 f4.5 VR. I also have a convertor which is a Kenko Pro Plus 1.4. This has the necessary contacts and I have had no trouble with it - AF etc all work... BUT I do find this is a bright light only combo as you are starting to push the limits. Also the AF may hunt a little if you have no clear definition for it to lock on - all in all it is a great lens, but also a great weight. Monopod/tripod needed.
Hope this helps
Andy M.

pressld2 · #5 (**permalink**) 30-05-2007, 09:46 AM

Hi Andy and welcome to WAB. We need more Nikon users!

That's very interesting about the Kenko. When I looked into teleconverters briefly I was hoping to get a 1.4X as I felt that a 2X would be pushing it too far. I looked only at Nikon because many years ago I bought a Vivitar converter for use with my film cameras but didn't like the results at all. Very soft, particularly around the edge but there was noticeable loss of sharpness even in the centre. How do you rate the quality of the images with the Kenko?

Dave P.

AndyM · #6 (**permalink**) 31-05-2007, 10:17 AM

Hi Dave,
There is a little loss of sharpness if you are printing on a wall or going in to examine every pixel as some do when looking for faults. However it gives very acceptable prints for me up to A3 though I more commonly print A4. I use Ken Rockwell as my guru for all things Nikon and have set the sharpening in the D200 and I use JPEG large/fine with optimal quality. I don't use RAW at all. I have a picture of a flamingo to post taken with this combination - at Martin Mere. It is 80-400 plus convertor hand held without VR being active. I would recommend this combo but as I say only for good lighting. The lens on its own works well in most conditions and is very sharp.
Hope this helps
Andy M

"I photograph what I like, if someone else likes it - that's a bonus"

AndyM · #7 (**permalink**) 31-05-2007, 08:46 PM

Hi again, If interested there is a photo in my Gallery of a flamingo taken at Martin Mere with the Nikkor 80-400 + Kenko 1.4 convertor. The VR function was not active
Andy M.

peterjclarke · #8 (**permalink**) 31-05-2007, 11:03 PM

Do you not mean the 70-200 F2.8 VR as I think this is the lens you mean. I have one and am very pleased with it. I also looked at the 80-400 VR but was not convinced by it and opted for the 70-200. Its one of the sharpest of the telephoto Nikon lenses along with the 300 F2.8 and the 500 F4. I use the 70-200 with at TC17 IIe and the results are very good. You do get a very slight softness due to the extra elements in the TC but with it on a D200 I have a 510mm F4.8 lens with VR. I've heard that the 80-400 is not a very fast focusing lens and why Nikon did not put a silent wave motor in it is beyond me. I also bought the Sigma 50-500mm and for the price its a very good lens. With an effective aperture of F6.3 at 500mm it is slow and needs lots of good technique and often using mirror lock and a heavy Gitzo tripod does give good results. Most of my recent portfolio for college was shot using my Bigma. Have a look at the results. Graded Unit - Natural History Portfolio

pressld2 · #9 (**permalink**) 01-06-2007, 09:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AndyM

Hi again, If interested there is a photo in my Gallery of a flamingo taken at Martin Mere with the Nikkor 80-400 + Kenko 1.4 convertor. The VR function was not active
Andy M.

Thanks Andy. I've already broken my "Nikon glass only" rule by buying the Sigma 150mm macro and I'm very impressed with it. It's looking like the Kenko converter is the way to go too. Any particular reason why you switched off the VR?

Quote:

Originally Posted by peterjclarke

I also looked at the 80-400 VR but was not convinced by it and opted for the 70-200. Its one of the sharpest of the telephoto Nikon lenses along with the 300 F2.8 and the 500 F4. I use the 70-200 with at TC17 IIe and the results are very good. You do get a very slight softness due to the extra elements in the TC but with it on a D200 I have a 510mm F4.8 lens with VR. I've heard that the 80-400 is not a very fast focusing lens and why Nikon did not put a silent wave motor in it is beyond me.

I've been extremely pleased with my 80-400. It's the only autofocus tele-zoom I've ever owned though so can't comment on its performance in comparison with others re speed of focusing. No complaints regarding sharpness from me, far from it! I estimate about 80% of the images in my gallery were taken with this lens, including all the bird photos (except the Mute Swans) and many of the butterflies and wildflowers too. I agree with you about the lack of a silent wave motor - crazy decision.

Dave P.

Zebethyal · #10 (**permalink**) 01-06-2007, 11:58 AM

With regards the Kenko 1.4x converter, I had one for a while that I used with my Nikon 70-210mm f/4-5.6 AF-D (before I sold it for a 18-200mm f/4-5.6 VR AF-S) and was less than impressed with the images it produced and the light loss at the viewfinder.

It did autofocus though hunted a lot but I also found that my camera (Fuji S2 Pro) did not allow the extra stop when metering so tended to under expose.

In the end I sold it and bought a Nikon TC-200 that I occasionally use with my 105mm f/2.8 Micro AF-D in manual mode to great effect (cost me £20.00 s/h).

The problems I was experiencing could have been down to a bad converter or incompatibilities with my camera, it just did not work for me.

Regards

Tim