p.1 #3 · UPDATE: Tested - 80-400 Vs 300 + TC Vs 70-200 + TC
Nice job Steve. Looks like the new 80-400 is a keeper. Would be interesting to see how the new and old versions compare head to head, though based on these tests I would say the new version would win handily in most respects.
p.1 #7 · UPDATE: Tested - 80-400 Vs 300 + TC Vs 70-200 + TC
Thanks
@David - Yup, it's a keeper for sure
@Leigh - Back in the film days I used the old 80-400 and yup, I'm pretty sure the new one destroys it optically.
@Brett - I had a 200-400 VR I, and as long as my subject wasn't too far away it was like using primes. I think it might be close, but I'm pretty confident that 200-400 would prevail in any tests
p.1 #8 · UPDATE: Tested - 80-400 Vs 300 + TC Vs 70-200 + TC
binary visions wrote:
Thanks so much for the great comparison.
Any chance you could slap the 1.4 on there and do some comparison shots? I'm interested to see how much the TC degrades the zoom.
I actually did try that combo and something just doesn't look right to me. The 100% crop of the prestone bottle is below. It almost looks like a little lens movement during exposure, despite mirror lock up and, in this case, waiting a good 5 seconds before tripping the shutter. I need to do some more testing to see if this is really as good as it gets or if there was another issue.
p.1 #12 · UPDATE: Tested - 80-400 Vs 300 + TC Vs 70-200 + TC
Great test Steve! I recently saw another comparison with posted shots from the 80-400 and 300 + 1.4 with very similar results. Like your test it was tough to tell the the 2 apart other then the 80-400 having a bit more contrast. I haven't really used the 80-400 with the 1.4 much yet but I did grab the following shot with it. There's detail there but the contrast does seem to take a hit.
p.1 #14 · UPDATE: Tested - 80-400 Vs 300 + TC Vs 70-200 + TC
Wow! I love my 300 f4 with 1.4tc.But this new zoom looks like it is going on my wish list.Looks as sharp as the combo and really nice contrast.Also getting sick of not having VR on the 300 f4. Doug
p.1 #16 · UPDATE: Tested - 80-400 Vs 300 + TC Vs 70-200 + TC
Really nice article, Steve!
Only addition is a con of the 80-400 is the focus breathing issue for close in shooting.
I would love to see a comparison pair of shots of the 80-400 and 300+1.4x near MFD to see the difference focus breathing makes. (totally not expecting you to shoot it, but it never hurts to ask)
p.1 #17 · UPDATE: Tested - 80-400 Vs 300 + TC Vs 70-200 + TC
Thanks for the kind words everyone - glad to help (and besides, I was curious too )
@rd4tile - I see what you say about the contrast. Personally, I'll probalby never use this lens with a 1.4TC - that's what my 600 is for. It would be nice if it took the TC better than it seems to take it. I did another shot (birdhouse) with it that was just as bad. I was able to push it to the point of "OK" in post, but overall it's not a great combo. That, and an effective F8 is just too slow for my purposes (I seldom venture beyond ISO 1600).
p.1 #19 · UPDATE: Tested - 80-400 Vs 300 + TC Vs 70-200 + TC
Steve,
Great writeup. Appreciate the time you took to do the review. My biggest question has been "is the 80-400 $1000 better than the 300 + TC?" In the review you made some fair, objective observations in that regard.
In the end, given my budget constraints, I'll go for the 300 + TC. Now only if Nikon would do the upgrade to Vr for the 300 f/4.
p.1 #20 · UPDATE: Tested - 80-400 Vs 300 + TC Vs 70-200 + TC
kevinho wrote:
Steve,
Great writeup. Appreciate the time you took to do the review. My biggest question has been "is the 80-400 $1000 better than the 300 + TC?" In the review you made some fair, objective observations in that regard.
In the end, given my budget constraints, I'll go for the 300 + TC. Now only if Nikon would do the upgrade to Vr for the 300 f/4.
Thanks
I agree - the 300 F4 really needs VR. When it happens, that lens coupled with a 1.4 TC will be the best low budget wildlife bargain out there if they can keep the price close to current levels.
