> Not the 18-200mm VR, but another quite hard to find Nikon lens.
> http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=productlist&A=details&Q=&sku=3
00488&is=USA&addedTroughType=search
>Ed Ruf (REPLY to E-MAIL IN SIG!) wrote:
>
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>Overpriced and easy to find. Cameta has been selling them factory sealed
>new for $4995 everyday for the last six months. Did you buy one?
Actually they've only had a couple in the last couple of months. Nothing in
stock now. These lenses last less than a day or two in stock in most places
from what I've seen. Yes, I now have one. Bought from neither Cameta nor
B&H. It is a beast to be sure, but puts the 70-200mm f/2.8vr + tc20eii
combo to shame given my initial use. I'll still use the 70-200 +2x while
walking the dog or hiking though. This is definitely a lens you set up to
use at specific locations.
--
Ed Ruf (Usenet2@EdwardG.Ruf.com)
http://edwardgruf.com/Digital_Photography/General/index.html
Rita Ä Berkowitz - 23 Jul 2006 20:40 GMT
Ed Ruf (REPLY to E-MAIL IN SIG!) wrote:
> Actually they've only had a couple in the last couple of months.
> Nothing in stock now. These lenses last less than a day or two in
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> still use the 70-200 +2x while walking the dog or hiking though.
> This is definitely a lens you set up to use at specific locations.
Congratulations!! I'm glad you got it. Did you buy it new, though I'm sure
you did? I have been keeping a watchful eye on the new and used market for
these and it seems there is no savings on buying these used. I know Cameta
has/had them listed every day one after another with a $4995 BIN. I haven't
checked them in the last three weeks so I'm assuming they still have them
available, maybe not. They'll always be available for decent pricing, if
not at Cameta, elsewhere.
Rita
Rita Ä Berkowitz - 23 Jul 2006 22:01 GMT
Ed Ruf (REPLY to E-MAIL IN SIG!) wrote:
> Actually they've only had a couple in the last couple of months.
> Nothing in stock now. These lenses last less than a day or two in
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> still use the 70-200 +2x while walking the dog or hiking though.
> This is definitely a lens you set up to use at specific locations.
I forgot to ask you in the last post if you had tried the TC-20E II on the
new lens yet? If so, how well did it optically perform for you? I know AF
isn't going to be a problem at f/8. Oh, Cameta just sold two on the 19th
and the 21st so their stock is back up and they should be listing more this
week at the $4995 price for the brand new factory sealed USA version if
anyone else is interested.
Rita
Ed Ruf (REPLY to E-MAIL IN SIG!) - 24 Jul 2006 00:52 GMT
>I forgot to ask you in the last post if you had tried the TC-20E II on the
>new lens yet? If so, how well did it optically perform for you? I know AF
>isn't going to be a problem at f/8. Oh, Cameta just sold two on the 19th
>and the 21st so their stock is back up and they should be listing more this
>week at the $4995 price for the brand new factory sealed USA version if
>anyone else is interested.
FWIW, on my D200, AF with the TC-20EII works, despite Nikon's stating it
will not. Have not tried it with my D70 yet. In is quite sluggish. More so
than the 70-200 f/2.8 VR + TC20EII. Will post some samples soon. There
appears to issue with a core line in NYC that is making connections to my
web site problematic.
--
Ed Ruf (Usenet2@EdwardG.Ruf.com)
http://edwardgruf.com/Digital_Photography/General/index.html
Rita Ä Berkowitz - 24 Jul 2006 01:56 GMT
Ed Ruf (REPLY to E-MAIL IN SIG!) wrote:
> FWIW, on my D200, AF with the TC-20EII works, despite Nikon's stating
> it will not. Have not tried it with my D70 yet. In is quite sluggish.
> More so than the 70-200 f/2.8 VR + TC20EII. Will post some samples
> soon. There appears to issue with a core line in NYC that is making
> connections to my web site problematic.
Great! I know the TC is slightly soft on the 70-200, but nothing drastic.
The TC is killer sharp on the 105mm VR. My gut feeling is it is going to
optically suck on the 200-400mm. I might have to pick up a 1.4x
Rita
Ed Ruf (REPLY to E-MAIL IN SIG!) - 24 Jul 2006 02:22 GMT
>Ed Ruf (REPLY to E-MAIL IN SIG!) wrote:
>
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
>The TC is killer sharp on the 105mm VR. My gut feeling is it is going to
>optically suck on the 200-400mm. I might have to pick up a 1.4x
Unless you care about AF speed I might not be so quick to condemn....
http://edwardgruf.com/Digital_Photography/N_200-400vr/
DSC_2857-01.jpg
DSC_2864-01.jpg
DSC_2865-01.jpg
with the TC20EII. All converted with RSE, just EV compensation, all other
settings default.
--
Ed Ruf (Usenet2@EdwardG.Ruf.com)
http://edwardgruf.com/Digital_Photography/General/index.html
Rita Ä Berkowitz - 24 Jul 2006 11:06 GMT
Ed Ruf (REPLY to E-MAIL IN SIG!) wrote:
>>> FWIW, on my D200, AF with the TC-20EII works, despite Nikon's
>>> stating it will not. Have not tried it with my D70 yet. In is quite
[quoted text clipped - 14 lines]
> with the TC20EII. All converted with RSE, just EV compensation, all
> other settings default.
They look like they have a lot of promise. I'm guessing with the high ISO
and a little bit of flatness the pics have you shot these in low light? I
agree, the TC does show a lot of promise with this lens, especially under
better lighting conditions. Thanks for sharing your observations.
Rita