[spock999]

As a newcomer to N-Photo, I was interested in your Nikon 70-200mm f2.8 review in the December 2012 issue. I have been looking to buy the lens for quite a while so your review did not tip the scales in its favour.


However, having just taken delivery of the lens, I am surprised to note a couple of inaccuracies in the brief description compared with the manual:
1. Focus limiting is only available for autofocus not for manual as indicated by yourselves.

2. Nikon state that for tripod use VR should be switched OFF. But ON for monopod or usnsecured tripod head (not sure what is meant by that!)

These weren't major issues for me but it does make me slightly wary of your reviews!



Having said that, one thing I have tried to research is exactly how much use are teleconverters to see:
1. If they are of use which of the three nikons teleconverters is best in what circumstances.

2. Which lenses are they most suited to

Looking on-line it is virtually impossible to come to a conclusion as there are so many conflicting views. So far it seems to me that:
1. The 1.4 is not too bad as it doesn't degrade the image quality significantly - but is it worth it for just a 1.4x improvement

2. Much disagreement about the 1.7 and whether it is better than the 2.0 with proponents of both

3. f 2.8 Prime lenses are better than zooms especially the Nikon 300mm 2.8 and 200mm f2 (and presumably the 400 2.8!).

4. f4 (or greater primes) tend to suffer too much image degradation for the teleconverters to be of value

5. Nikon 70-200 f2.8 is better than most zooms but there is image degradation. Much disagreement about whether it is acceptable.

As I struggled to buy the 70-200mm, there is little likelihood of me buying a longer prime. It would be good to introduce some quantitative element to this debate rather than leave it as subjective so that people like myself can make a more informed judgement.

That is the challenge N-Photo but can you do it?