I shoot a pair of D7000s and have been one of the many hopefuls waiting for an 80-400mm VR update with AF-S. Who knows how long we will be waiting on that though. I cannot afford the 70-200 VRII. I see a lot of positive reports on the 70-200 VRII with the new 2x TC III, but what about the original 70-200 VR with the 2x tc III? Any experiences with that specific combo? How are AF and IQ at 400mm and F5.6? Anybody compared to the current 80-400 that I read has deadly slow AF? Hopefully someone has shot with this particular lens/TC combo and can give some words of experience. Cheers -Loren
I have the 80-400, purchased new in 2004. I too, am waiting for Nikon to quit fooling around with the update... I can afford the 70-200vrII, but I've always been happy with the images the vr l produced and have never had a problem with my vr I, so I don't see the need to buy the newer version. I don't use it for landscapes, so I don't care about edge/corner sharpness.
I just got my 2x III last month and have only played around with it in the back yard for one afternoon and the AF on my d7k is a little wonky, so I don't think that my impressions would be of much value, assuming that they ever might be.
If you like, I'll try to get some more shutter time on it and compare it directly to my 80-400 on the d7k and d300 and then get back to you.
I will say this now, though. If you don't already own the 80-400, I think that the 70-200 and 2x TC are a much better value. My 80-400 is a good copy, but it is a flippin crime that they've not updated the dam thing to AF-S. I'm not yet sure that the 2x is the best way to go. It might be more productive to use the 1.4x and crop, assuming that your d7k's are capable of precise focus at long distances.
For now, I'd stick to using the 70-200 VR1 (which is better for a DX camera, anyway) and either the 1.4x or 1.7x TC's. I've had great results from both combos. Borrow or rent the 2x III TC and try it, too. You'll need to make up your own mind.
The 80-400 is tempting at times, but really I want to buy a lens that I can see as an investment and piece of kit that I will be satisfied with for a long time to come. I am pretty sure if I get the 80-400 I will just be waiting to replace it with the 80-400 AF-S replacement which will of course drop the value of the original 80-400 on the used market.
The original 70-200 VR sounds like a fantastic lens and I would love the versatility of having an F2.8 70-200, but really I would use the lens as a 140-400 F5.6 primarily, and a 70-200 F2.8 secondarily. I really want a legitimate 400mm, so am not really interested in the 1.4tc or 1.7 tc. If shorter focal lengths was enough for the wildlife stuff I intend to shoot, I would just get the 70-300 VR, but I need 400mm much of the time. I don't need Nikon 200-400 F4 results; lenses of that class are way past my budget and too big and heavy anyways. I do want "good" IQ and autofocus at 400mm and say F6.3 or 7.1.
Kerry, it would be great if you had the time to take some sample shots at 400mm with the 70-200 VR and 2x TC from F5.6 to F8 and could do the same with the 80-400 at corresponding apertures to compare. Also, it is of course subjective and you have camera body issues, but I would be really curious about AF impressions with the TC.
By the way Kerry, would you elaborate on your D7k AF issues? I have had times when I missed focus when I shouldn't have, but figured it was sketchy Sigma lens AF abilities and never considered the camera bodies.
Hopefully some others can weigh in as well. Thanks all, really appreciate it! -Loren
Sure, I'll try to get some samples for you this weekend, for both lenses.
The issue with my d7k is not nailed down yet. I shot a tennis gig with it and the d3s, using the d7k with the sigma 100-300 f/4 for the long shots. All of the long shots with the d7k were significantly OOF. Yet much shorter shots with it were fine.... All of the d3s shots were sharp. Shutter speeds were min of 1/1000 and higher, so no issues with camera shake or subject motion.
I tried nailing it down a month ago, using a tripod, and it's kind of goofy, Jekyll and Hyde acting. Most, but not all, of the long tele shots that were at/near Infinity, were OOF or at least soft, regardless as to the lens used. Other bodies with the same lenses didn't display the same problem. So, I don't know what is going on....
Regardless, if you're shooting primarily wildlife, I think that the 300 f/4 AF-S with 1.4 TC is a much better value than the 80-400. It's probably sharper and faster to focus as well.
I was just thinking of the 300/4 AF-S (with TC's) as an option when I got to Kerry's last line. This is one you should consider. Great optics, fast AF, and long reach.
As to the 300mm f4 +1.4 tc option, I have thought hard about it but a lot of the time I don't get the chance to pull out a tripod and so VR is invaluable for me at these longer focal lengths much of the time. A zoom is also my preference so I don't miss shots closer in. Since the 80-400 AF-S still doesn't exist, I really hope the 70-200/updated TC combo will be up to par. Damn Nikon for not putting AF-S in the 80-400.....I wonder if they ever will
FWIW, I have no doubt that the 70-200 vrI has better VR than the 80-400. IIRC, the 80-400 was one of the very first lenses to get vr and it's pretty weak in comparison to newer lenses. I quit hand holding it, using either a tripod or monopod, because the vr just doesn't do much at the longer focal lengths. Basically, at 400mm, I treat the 80-400 like it doesn't have vr. I keep the SS up and use support.
In that respect, I still think the 300 f/4 is a better option, assuming that you can at least use a monopod.
But, I certainly agree that Nikon needs to offer an updated, sharper lens with AF-S and vrII.
Really good to know about the VR on the 80-400 Kerry. I think that since the cost is pretty close, I would much rather lose "a bit" of image quality possible with the 300f4 + 1.4 and gain the flexibility of 140-400 zoom plus 70-200 F2.8 when I want it, in addition to weather seals and VR. All that makes the latter option a damn appealing option (at least until an 80-400 AF-S VRII) ....IF the autofocus and image quality are pleasing. I am fine with stopping down to F6.3 or F7.1, as the D7K high ISOs are pretty good and the extra DOF at those longer lengths is nice. Cheers -Loren
Is it possible that your Siggy is the culprit when it comes to OOF images? Somewhere I read that Nikon does not give the recipe of its AF secret sauce to others and companies like Siggy, Tammy etc. need to guess/reverse engineer. This is why Zeiss refuses to build AF for Nikon (and Canon). Just a thought.
Hi Loren, I use the vr1 and the 1.7II and it does still AF and meter which is nice.
I have heard that with the 2 you IQ takes a little more drop than most people like. The 300 F4 takes both the 1.4 and 1.7 very nicely, which someone mentioned above.
Here is a shot in DX mode with the 70-200 VR1 and 1.7II , about a 75% crop.
Is it possible that your Siggy is the culprit when it comes to OOF images? Somewhere I read that Nikon does not give the recipe of its AF secret sauce to others and companies like Siggy, Tammy etc. need to guess/reverse engineer. This is why Zeiss refuses to build AF for Nikon (and Canon). Just a thought.
Sure, it's possible that the sigma is fighting with the d7k. None of the sigmas that I tried, will AF in Live View mode, but they seem to work fine with normal PDAF. All of my sigmas are several years old and have worked fine on all of my other nikons prior to the d7k.
Loren E wrote:
Really good to know about the VR on the 80-400 Kerry. I think that since the cost is pretty close, I would much rather lose "a bit" of image quality possible with the 300f4 + 1.4 and gain the flexibility of 140-400 zoom plus 70-200 F2.8 when I want it, in addition to weather seals and VR. All that makes the latter option a damn appealing option (at least until an 80-400 AF-S VRII) ....IF the autofocus and image quality are pleasing. I am fine with stopping down to F6.3 or F7.1, as the D7K high ISOs are pretty good and the extra DOF at those longer lengths is nice. Cheers -Loren...Show more →
I should have some test shots for you when you get back. I figured on going out in the back yard this afternoon and comparing the focus speeds. But, that will be a "by the seat of the pants" guesstimate, because I haven't any way to measure it precisely. Maybe I'll also be able to get some time to do decent comparisons on the tripod.
By the time I got out, it was too dark to try to get meaningful test shots, but I did get to spend about 15 minutes comparing the AF speed, using a d300 and d7k. The 70-200vrI with 2x TC was significantly faster. The 80-400 wasn't "horrible" but I have no doubt that it isn't comparable, especially when it has to hunt through the entire range. It did that a couple of times and then, of course, the it was horrible. Even when the 70-200 missed initial acquisition, it was still very fast to reacquire the target.
Lower light levels will goof both of them, but I have no doubt that the 70-200 will still easily come out ahead. Actually, I was rather surprised at how well it does acquire focus with the 2x TC attached.
Hi Loren, I have recently purchased a D600, 24~120VR F4, & a 80~400VR all new, & spent the weekend getting up to speed with the 80~400 at an air show, my comments on this big zoom are underwhelming, soft at 400, is OK at about 350 and back towards 80mm, slow to focus & VR, felt like it was missing in action, check out the reviews, on a tripod with the mirror up its probably Ok, but for aviation don't expect too much maybe a 30~50% keeper rate.
I have used a 70-200mm VR1 with the TC-20E III and you can get good results. I had the Nikon 80-400mm several years ago and when Sigma came out with the 150-500mm OS I got it, but he main problem with the Sigma lens is that the IQ is not that good when you go above 400mm. With the 70-200mm V1 plus the TC X2 III the IQ is somehow better at 400mm vis-a-vis the Sigma but it not as good as when you shoot without a TC. When I do birding and I am walking a lot with my binoculars I do bring the 70-200mm plus TC X2. III and I get decent results. This is an example of a photo of a Northern Waterthrush taken with that combination using a D800 in DX mode.
It's clear from the definition of the warbler's eye that there's no motion blur, so the capture is good. But I'm not that impressed with the lens/TC performance: despite ISO 5000, I would have expected a significantly more detailed shot from the D800. Especially at web size. And, that is consistent with what I've seen from others using this combo.
My personal preference would still be to use either the 1.4x or 1.7x TC's on the 70-200, but not the 2x. Just not sharp enough for me.
I'm still quite happy with the performance of the 70-200VR, but was pretty disappointed when I paired it with the 2x III. I sold the TC, because frankly shooting without it and cropping tighter gave better results for me. I under stand the 70-200VRII is supposed to take the 2x TC's much better.
I can afford the 70-200vrII, but I've always been happy with the images the vr l produced and have never had a problem with my vr I, so I don't see the need to buy the newer version. I don't use it for landscapes, so I don't care about edge/corner sharpness. 
