My final lens poll for the big zooms. Using the Nikon 70 or 80-200 and a Nikon 2X TC gives me 400mm at f/4.8 (on a DX body over 600mm) Uses would include air shows and Birds, both static and in flight. I'd like to keep my overall budget under $2000 of possible, buying used on the Nikkor VR1, I can just barely do that. Regarding the VR II, is it really worth the added cost? What would I gain?
If you look at photozone you can check all 3 lens. The 70-200mm vr1 also has resolution spec with the 2x TC's.
The vr1 & tc 2x beats the 80-400mm at 400mm center and edge.So that should rule out the 80-400mm. Sadly the 80-400mm is your cheapest option and slowest focusing one.
Next the vr II is sharper f/2.8 at 200mm it is a draw at f/4 and advantage in the center to the vr1 and from f/8-16 on the vr I is better.
With a 2x converter your starting at f/5.6 If your shooting f stop is 5.6-8 then get the vrII. IF you don't care about shutterspeed the vrI.
You cant go to far wrong on either.
This is strictly resolution numbers . THis isnt vignette or CA. still give the advantage to the VR II on the look of images. http://www.photozone.de/reviews
Another couple of lenses you might want to consider is the Sigma 120-300 f/2.8 or 100-300 f/4 with sigma 1.4x TC. Of course, if you don't like Sigma, then read no further.
You might be able to find a used 120-300 for under $2k and certainly the 100-300 for under $1k. I've had both lenses for years and wouldn't ever want to give them up. The 120-300 isn't really for hand held use though, unless you're like Arnold or Trenchmonkey.... It's big and heavy. I've always used it on a tripod or monopod.
Edit: Forgot that you'd mentioned the 80-400. I've had one since 2004. When I first got it, I really liked it. But, it's very old tech and is a disgrace that Nikon still has it for sale at $1500. I wouldn't recommend it to anyone that I liked.
BrianJarvis wrote:
My final lens poll for the big zooms. Using the Nikon 70 or 80-200 and a Nikon 2X TC gives me 400mm at f/4.8 (on a DX body over 600mm) Uses would include air shows and Birds, both static and in flight. I'd like to keep my overall budget under $2000 of possible, buying used on the Nikkor VR1, I can just barely do that. Regarding the VR II, is it really worth the added cost? What would I gain?
Which lens with TC 2.0 would give you 400 AT F/4.8? That's an unusual aperture...
trenchmonkey wrote:
Are you still shootin' with the D80 You will not like the AF with TC's, period. Now if you have a D300(s) or D7K
the VR II and the TC-20E III is the combo FTW in decent light. Good copy of the Bigma would be my 2nd choice. Now,
if you had a D2X(s) you could get results like this at effective 600mm and 800mm (w/HSC) Both handheld SOOC. Not too
shabby for "old" technology, eh?! Either way...the VR II handles the TC's better, much much better.
For now I still use the D80 but plan to upgrade to a D300 replacement assuming Nikon releases it this year, If they don't I may go D7000 or save up more $$ for the D800
As you probably noticed I'm really looking for that 400mm + reach and really want it to be a zoom. The worst part about this hobby is making a damn decision, especially when you are on a budget. I was initially thinking of going NIKKOR 70-300 VR and the Bigma 150-500. Then I thought about the combo above.
BrianJarvis wrote:
As you probably noticed I'm really looking for that 400mm + reach and really want it to be a zoom. The worst part about this hobby is making a damn decision, especially when you are on a budget. I was initially thinking of going NIKKOR 70-300 VR and the Bigma 150-500. Then I thought about the combo above.
Get 600mm f/4.0. That's the lens.... Pay half for it cash and take rest for some payments... I don't know but just get this one as it is still cheap. The $9999 lens soon will be $12,000 dollars lens. How do i know that?
Look at Canon. These are prices they have now. Older (still produced) cost even less than Nikon's lenses but new are 2-4 thousands more expensive....
Gregg B. wrote:
Get 600mm f/4.0. That's the lens.... Pay half for it cash and take rest for some payments... I don't know but just get this one as it is still cheap. The $9999 lens soon will be $12,000 dollars lens. How do i know that?
Look at Canon. These are prices they have now. Older (still produced) cost even less than Nikon's lenses but new are 2-4 thousands more expensive....
trenchmonkey wrote:
Are you still shootin' with the D80 You will not like the AF with TC's, period. Now if you have a D300(s) or D7K
the VR II and the TC-20E III is the combo FTW in decent light. Good copy of the Bigma would be my 2nd choice. Now,
if you had a D2X(s) you could get results like this at effective 600mm and 800mm (w/HSC) Both handheld SOOC. Not too
shabby for "old" technology, eh?! Either way...the VR II handles the TC's better, much much better.
You could shoot a horse taking a shit with a disposable camera and it would look great monkey! I'm looking for something with accurate fast AF, decent reach, decent speed (I live in WA so good bright light it hard to come by) Maybe I should stick with my original plan of the 70-300 VR and the Bigma 150-500? Anything will be better than what I have, I'm not looking for the best, but the best bang for my buck. I want to have my cake and be able to eat it
Chris Dees wrote:
I voted for the Sigma 150-500, great value for your bucks.
Thom Hogan has à Nice review of this lens.
I've been eyeballing that for a while, but I've had a hard time finding high rez samples of photos taken with it. A lot of the images I've seen posted on here using the Bigma, were soft or even slightly out of focus.
Feb 17, 2012 at 10:15 AM
Andre Labonte Offline • • • • • • Upload & Sell: Off
BrianJarvis wrote:
I've been eyeballing that for a while, but I've had a hard time finding high rez samples of photos taken with it. A lot of the images I've seen posted on here using the Bigma, were soft or even slightly out of focus.
Lens or lack of proper support? Often times when people go for less expensive long lenses for cost and/or weight reasons, they also forget the tripod / monopod at home as well. So is the lens soft, or the lack of support the cause?
Andre Labonte wrote:
Often times when people go for less expensive long lenses for cost and/or weight reasons, they also forget the tripod / monopod at home as well. So is the lens soft, or the lack of support the cause?
That is what I'm trying to find out. I'd like to see some good handheld shots along with tripod/monopod shots. It would help my decision immensely
BrianJarvis wrote:
For now I still use the D80 but plan to upgrade to a D300 replacement assuming Nikon releases it this year, If they don't I may go D7000 or save up more $$ for the D800
A D800 is full frame and you will lose the crop factor, which I find very useful for what you say you are shooting. Yes, you can crop down a shot from a D800 but to me that just seems dumb. Why spend $3,000 on a camera and then shoot it as if it were a $1,200 D7000? A D400 (d300 replacement) would be a much better fit for both what you are doing and your budget. I have the Nikon 80-400mm VR and it's actually a good general purpose lens. It's not a good choice for birds in flight though. I have tried TC 1.4x on it and the results were worthless. I also own a Nikon 70-200mm f2.8 VR and use a TC-17e on it. I tried the TC-20E on it (not current version) and results were softer than my 80-400mm VR. For you, the ideal set up might be a Nikon D400, Nikon 300mm f4 AFS, and either Nikon TC-14e or TC-17e. I'd just wait for the D400, and meanwhile get the 300mm now.
It's big and heavy. I've always used it on a tripod or monopod. 
You will not like the AF with TC's, period. Now if you have a D300(s) or D7K
