[IanCD]

Sorry to (slightly) hijack the thread. Would both 70-300s work with a Nikon teleconverter? Or would that be limited to the Nikkor lens?

Ian

[mst]

[quote name='IanCD' timestamp='1300459986' post='6939']

Sorry to (slightly) hijack the thread. Would both 70-300s work with a Nikon teleconverter? Or would that be limited to the Nikkor lens?

[/quote]



Both won't work with a Nikon TC. And results would probably be rather poor anyway. Certainly not better than cropping in Photoshop.



-- Markus

[IanCD]

[quote name='mst' timestamp='1300461016' post='6940']

Both won't work with a Nikon TC. And results would probably be rather poor anyway. Certainly not better than cropping in Photoshop.



-- Markus

[/quote]

Ah, ok. Just a (misdirected!) thought.

[frank]

I am just curious: If the 105 vr is attached a TC-17E II and then mounted to the camera, then the whole set is mounted to a tripod, will there be some problem in balance? The the lens+TC will have a weight 1040g and a length 147mm.



Frank

[Guest]

[quote name='Frank' timestamp='1300764770' post='7004']

I am just curious: If the 105 vr is attached a TC-17E II and then mounted to the camera, then the whole set is mounted to a tripod, will there be some problem in balance? The the lens+TC will have a weight 1040g and a length 147mm.

[/quote]



Hijacking threads is not a very friendly thing to do. But yes, I'd think it will be rather front-heavy.

[mst]

[quote name='BG_Home' timestamp='1300777059' post='7006']

Hijacking threads is not a very friendly thing to do. But yes, I'd think it will be rather front-heavy.

[/quote]



Frank started this thread, Basil <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' /> And I actually suggested this combo on the first page of this thread.



Front-heavy, yes. But if it's an issue depends on the tripod and head used.



-- Markus

[frank]

[quote name='mst' timestamp='1300779810' post='7008']

Frank started this thread, Basil <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' /> And I actually suggested this combo on the first page of this thread.



Front-heavy, yes. But if it's an issue depends on the tripod and head used.



-- Markus

[/quote]



I have an Verbon Camagne 630II tripod and a ball head （QHD 51Q). Is a 3-way head better? I also wonder if the bayonet of the camera and the lens can suffer the torque from the lens.



Frank

[mst]

[quote name='Frank' timestamp='1300781071' post='7009']

I have an Verbon Camagne 630II tripod and a ball head （QHD 51Q).[/quote]



I don't know these two from own experience, so I can't comment. You should just give it a try.



[quote name='Frank' timestamp='1300781071' post='7009']

Is a 3-way head better?[/quote]



I think that's more a question of personal preferences. However, a good and stable 3-way head is certainly a lot bigger than an equivalent ball head.



[quote name='Frank' timestamp='1300781071' post='7009']

I also wonder if the bayonet of the camera and the lens can suffer the torque from the lens.

[/quote]



I don't think so.



-- Markus

[frank]

[quote name='mst' timestamp='1300782983' post='7010']

I don't know these two from own experience, so I can't comment. You should just give it a try.







I think that's more a question of personal preferences. However, a good and stable 3-way head is certainly a lot bigger than an equivalent ball head.







I don't think so.



-- Markus

[/quote]



Thanks, Markus. I see. Then the problem is if the tripod and the head are big and strong enough to support it, not the camera.



Frank

[wojtt]

Frank, I had similar "case" myself I did a trip recently and took a Nikkor 55-200 VR to travel light, it worked quite fine and my only gripe was slow AF, so if you plan on shooting animals you might want to check AF performance of the 70-300 you think about.. Then again, a far more important issue as I found out is reach, I thought 200mm on APS-C would be enough - but this wasn't the case.. so maybe (not lightweight) an option to consider is a 100-400 lens .. ? Just a thought.. <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />