03-15-2011, 10:53 AM
[quote name='Frank' timestamp='1300161311' post='6785']
Yes, then it seems that the TC-17e II is more appropriate.
Currently I have the following lenses: AF-S 16-35 f4G vr, AF 24-85 f2.8-4D, AF 80-200 f2.8D, AF 50 1.8D, AF 85 1.8D. If the AF 80-200 f2.8D were not too heavy for travel I would not consider another long FL lens.
If the 70-300vr is soft in the range 200-300mm as many have said, then I am not very interested in buying it since then it will add little to my lens set.
So far it seems the AF 105 f2.8 vr macro is the most appropriate one to consider. It is a very good macro lens, has vr and a not so big weight, and with TC-17e II I will have too Fls: 105 and 180.
Many thanks to all who have given me valuable advices.
Frank
[/quote]
Frank, I don't understand you! You have a 16-35 f4, a 24-85 and a 80-200. If you buy a 70-300 Tamron, which is sharp through the range (check the tests), you get a lens weighing 750g instead of you your 80-200 at 1400g. Bingo!!<img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='
' /> IMO much better and much more practical than a 105 with an extender. Also half the price. You already have the 85mm, so a 105 seems pretty marginal in terms of usability.
Yes, then it seems that the TC-17e II is more appropriate.
Currently I have the following lenses: AF-S 16-35 f4G vr, AF 24-85 f2.8-4D, AF 80-200 f2.8D, AF 50 1.8D, AF 85 1.8D. If the AF 80-200 f2.8D were not too heavy for travel I would not consider another long FL lens.
If the 70-300vr is soft in the range 200-300mm as many have said, then I am not very interested in buying it since then it will add little to my lens set.
So far it seems the AF 105 f2.8 vr macro is the most appropriate one to consider. It is a very good macro lens, has vr and a not so big weight, and with TC-17e II I will have too Fls: 105 and 180.
Many thanks to all who have given me valuable advices.
Frank
[/quote]
Frank, I don't understand you! You have a 16-35 f4, a 24-85 and a 80-200. If you buy a 70-300 Tamron, which is sharp through the range (check the tests), you get a lens weighing 750g instead of you your 80-200 at 1400g. Bingo!!<img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='
' /> IMO much better and much more practical than a 105 with an extender. Also half the price. You already have the 85mm, so a 105 seems pretty marginal in terms of usability.