I have a 70-200VR and feel that the reach is a little short for what I need. Ideally, and cheaply, I would rather get a TC-17 to make my 70-200 f/2.8 a 120-340 f4.8 but wonder how this stacks up against the 80-400 optically. The 340mm vs 400mm I feel I can live with but I do want a good quality result.
I've got the 70-200VR , the 80-400 plus the 1.7 converter.
It's a difficult question , if i want a shallow D.O.F i use the 200 either with or without the converter , but if i need the reach and versatility i pick up the 400 .
Opticaly there's not much the choose between either combo (the TC wont fit on the 80-400 BTW).
Heard rumours about a new Nikon zoom , up to 400mm , with the newer VR mk2 , the technology on the 80-400 is quiet old now .
I'm happy using either lense , both sharp and although the 80-400 is slower it's a more versatile lense than the 70-200+TC .
I've had the 70-200VR plus the 1.7 converter.. and it did a decent job, I'll show you an example of Borus our house cat.
But I sold the converter it because:
I couldn't live comfortably with the setup. I move around a lot in busy places,
I couldn't stand connecting A to B to C (we only have two hands)
The alignment to the tripod and pressure it puts on the tripod mount on the 70-200 even with that small an extension.
I had to reinforce the tripod mount to accommodate a Quick Release without spending 500 dollars for a Kirk rig.
I'm just going for a 400 prime.
I'm finding out I'm either at 70 or 200 and little in between lately. Same with the 17-55...Funny how when you have the zooms they tend to operate at extremes....It's a Photoshop thing , we know we can crop, so we don't when working quickly crop as much as when we have time.
We didn't have that ease of selection with film.
I also have seen better results from primes, less to move ,less to change, less to go wrong.
The other point is TRIPOD, good and heavy is the key to these extensions, you need solid....
ajacobs2 wrote:
The alignment to the tripod and pressure it puts on the tripod mount on the 70-200 even with that small an extension.
I had to reinforce the tripod mount to accommodate a Quick Release without spending 500 dollars for a Kirk rig.
a lot of people with 400, 500, and 600 lenses shoot with extenders frequently. part of getting an expensive gimbal mount is to reduce the pressure to none because of the use of Arca-Swiss style quick-release plates.
I've used both rigs and quality wise it's hard to tell them apart. The 80-400 requires a bit more care at the long end, but that's typical for any really long lens (better technique = less motion blur). The 80-400 is more versatile as mentioned. At some point I'd like to go back to the 70-200 then add the 200-400, but for now the 80-400 is serving my needs very nicely and produces very saleable shots.
Now, Al. Uhhh, let me be as "diplomatic" as possible here - uhh, there's the matter of a missing Postie that was last seen in your neighbourhood. I don't suppose "Borus" would know anything about this, would he ? Nawww, thought not .
How about the Nikon AF-S 300mm f4 + Kenko Pro 1.4x extender? That way, you get the reach and you get AF-S. You can use the 300mm without the extender. You can also use the extender with your 70-200 VR when you don't want to carry two long lenses.
Alternatively you can get the Sigma 100-300 F4 EX DG HSM for the same money. I am not usre how well the Sigma 100-300 F4 will do with the extender though.
I had both the lenses and the TC.
I think, Image quality wise they both are equally good.
Both have its own good and bad qualities. Depending up on your liking, you should pick one
This is what I learned from my experience with these lenses.
1) 80-400
+compact, hence convenient to carry around
+light weight, again more convenience
- no AFS, so, very slow focusing on non pro bodies
2) 70-200(&1.7TC)
+has AFS
+gives you the option of 200 f/2.8 when you need it
+when you are not shooting wildlife, you get a 70-200 f/2.8 VR AFS,
which is one of the best portrait lenses available.
+easier to manual focus than 80-400
+radius of the lens is smaller than the 80-400 and that is easier to turn
the zoom / focus rings
-Heavier than 80-400
-much longer than 80-400 in size.( so more inconvenient to carry around )
-Once in a while I used to miss that 60mm at the longer end.
good luck
regards,
-Beji
travelingman wrote:
Heard rumours about a new Nikon zoom , up to 400mm , with the newer VR mk2 , the technology on the 80-400 is quiet old now .
Brian
Hey Brian,
I was looking into getting the 70-200, but your rumor is interesting. What else have you heard? Is it going to be similar to the 80-400 but with the new vr?
.