Home · Register · Join Upload & Sell

Moderated by: Fred Miranda
Username  

  New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site
  New Feature: SMS Notification alert
  New Feature: Buy & Sell Watchlist
  

FM Forums | Nikon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

  

Archive 2013 · 80-400 vs 70-200 + tc20iii

  
 
guyharrison
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #1 · p.1 #1 · 80-400 vs 70-200 + tc20iii


Hello,

I am currently switching over from canon and have a question. I do mainly landscape and nature and am debating the 70-200 VRII versus the 80-400 new version. I see from several reviews that the 70-200 is much sharper over its range, but how does it do in the 140-200 range with the converter? Is it as good as the 80-400 in that range? This would be mainly the range for telephoto landscapes with some wildlife shots as well, and I plan to pick up a 400 2.8 for pure wildlife later on.

Thanks,



Jul 22, 2013 at 11:02 AM
JustinPoe
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #2 · p.1 #2 · 80-400 vs 70-200 + tc20iii


I recently just switched over from Canon myself. Being a landscape guy, I was in the same boat as you, trying to decide on a telephoto.

My Canon 70-200, while incredibly sharp, didn't have quite as much reach as I'd like at times. That's why I started looking seriously into the new 80-400 and ultimately bought it.

Steve Perry did a write up on your exact question:
http://www.backcountrygallery.com/photography_tips/nikon-under-3k-tele-comparison/



Jul 22, 2013 at 11:12 AM
binary visions
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #3 · p.1 #3 · 80-400 vs 70-200 + tc20iii


Lensrentals.com also did a test:
https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2013/03/the-requested-80-400-af-s-vs-70-200-vr-ii-and-2x-comparison

Basically, all the tests I've seen indicate if you really want the 200-400mm range, buy the 80-400mm. If it's just an occasional need, of course, you might get by with the 2x converter, but you have a choice between a mediocre 140-400mm, or a really excellent 80-400mm.



Jul 22, 2013 at 11:55 AM
Alan321
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #4 · p.1 #4 · 80-400 vs 70-200 + tc20iii


And the 80-400 let's you avoid the hassle of fitting and removing the tc, making it very convenient. However, it doesn't handle f/2.8 very well



Jul 23, 2013 at 12:07 AM
guyharrison
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #5 · p.1 #5 · 80-400 vs 70-200 + tc20iii


For my landscape work, the 2.8 is less important so it looks like the 80-400 has the edge, for me.


Jul 23, 2013 at 07:57 AM
BenV
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #6 · p.1 #6 · 80-400 vs 70-200 + tc20iii


80-400 all day.


Jul 23, 2013 at 08:07 AM
JustinPoe
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #7 · p.1 #7 · 80-400 vs 70-200 + tc20iii


guyharrison wrote:
For my landscape work, the 2.8 is less important so it looks like the 80-400 has the edge, for me.


What was your previous Canon lens? I had the 70-200mm f/4L (non-IS) and that really spoiled me with how light and small it was. The Nikon 80-400 feels like quite a beast every time I pull it out of my bag. I feel like when I go backpacking, that lens is 50% of the weight of all my camera gear combined.

Don't get me wrong, I'd take the Nikon 80-400 over any lens in the Canon 70-200 line-up any day, however, it is substantial in size in relation. So, just something to keep in mind.

I might end up grabbing Nikon's 70-200 f4 VR for my longer back-packing trips.




Jul 23, 2013 at 09:10 AM
Kyyo24
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #8 · p.1 #8 · 80-400 vs 70-200 + tc20iii


Every test I've seen shows the 80-400 to be better. I've tried the 2x on my 70-200 and wide open its just waaay too soft. I had to stop it down to like f8, which to me defeats the purpose of having a fast lens. I went with the 1.7 and I'm glad I did!


Jul 23, 2013 at 10:04 AM
JimFox
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #9 · p.1 #9 · 80-400 vs 70-200 + tc20iii


I would go with the 70-200mm with the 1.7x, not the 2x... It's a little less reach but much better IQ. Even though the 80-400mm has been upgraded, I think the IQ is still better with the 70-200mm. For the times you need a little more reach, just throw on the 1.7x.

Jim



Jul 23, 2013 at 12:21 PM
ckcarr
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #10 · p.1 #10 · 80-400 vs 70-200 + tc20iii


Nasim Mansurov also did that exact comparison here: http://photographylife.com/reviews/nikon-80-400mm-vr/5


Jul 23, 2013 at 12:36 PM
billsnature
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #11 · p.1 #11 · 80-400 vs 70-200 + tc20iii


I am an 80-400 fan so please don't take this the wrong way. In Nikon TC's need to have a separate AF fine tune for each and every lens. That was not my Canon experience.

I have tried several copies 1.4X TC and one copy each of the 1.7X and 2X III in every case if the lens had a fine tune value of +2, that same lens plus TC would be -15 or so. So the swing was a full 17 units and made a huge difference in IQ.

So for anyone who is going to run a 70-200mm + TC versus 80-400 VR just make sure you AF tune first the naked lens and then the lens plus TC. The camera stores them as separate values. and it makes a huge difference.

The Reikan FoCal product does an awesome job for accurately tuning lenses to bodies!



Jul 23, 2013 at 04:45 PM
signo
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #12 · p.1 #12 · 80-400 vs 70-200 + tc20iii


I have the 70-200vr II and the tcii, i´m very glad with that combo. I do a lot of wildlife (not a lot of birds), usually i get or I try to get really close to the animal so i´m really glad with the 70-200 and the sharpness.I don´t know your case but I´m really happy with the combo.


Jul 24, 2013 at 09:03 AM





FM Forums | Nikon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

    
 

You are not logged in. Login or Register

Username       Or Reset password



This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.