| Author | Thread |
|
|
06/28/2006 01:24:55 PM · #1 |
It's that time of day to keep keep keep buying :)
My quandary:
80 - 400 f/4.5-5.6
-or-
70 - 200 f/2.8
Both are vr.
I drool for the 70-200 and my thought is that if I really needed to reach out I'd get the teleconverter.
I like the range of 80-400 but deep down I'm an aperture whore and like the idea of having 2.8 if needed, plus everything I've seen come out of the 70-200 is hoooo-doggy nice.
I guess I'd just like to hear what others have to say ...
I'm not worried about spending more/less, more about quality. Will the 70-200+TC be soft way out there? Comparable to 80-400? Or better?
Being the aperature whore I am should I mend my ways? Or stay down the path of small numbers remain as I am?
(note if brought up: I searched forums already, if there's another thread please point me there (I thought there was a recent thread comparing the 70-200 to xxx but I can't find that either))
Message edited by author 2006-06-28 13:27:09. |
|
|
|
06/28/2006 01:29:23 PM · #2 |
If I were you and I am not that would make me shorter (Just Guessing):-P
I would go for the 70-200VR with the 1.4TC Oh La la. The TC only takes you down a stop I think and would give you almost the same range as the 400.
The 70-200 2.8 VR is to die for!
Just my silly .02
Erick |
|
|
|
06/28/2006 01:32:35 PM · #3 |
I'll agree with thegrandwazoo ;)
as well i've heard the 80-400 was slow on focus ... but the 70-200is ammmmazing .. |
|
|
|
06/28/2006 01:34:52 PM · #4 |
It all depends on what you want to use it for.
Message edited by author 2006-06-28 13:34:59. |
|
|
|
06/28/2006 01:38:09 PM · #5 |
| I went through the same decision. The 80-400 is a great lens but it is not a lens for sports or action shots as it doesn't focus quickly enough. I purchased the 70-200 and I am thrilled with it. It really is lightning fast. |
|
|
|
06/28/2006 01:47:00 PM · #6 |
Originally posted by thegrandwazoo:
If I were you and I am not that would make me shorter (Just Guessing):-P
I would go for the 70-200VR with the 1.4TC Oh La la. The TC only takes you down a stop I think and would give you almost the same range as the 400.
The 70-200 2.8 VR is to die for!
Just my silly .02
Erick |
Does the 1.4TC work with autofocus or just the VR function of the lens? |
|
|
|
06/28/2006 01:57:50 PM · #7 |
| I believe the VR function will work no matter what as it is a function of the lens and the TC-14e will auto focus with that body and lens. |
|
|
|
06/28/2006 02:00:21 PM · #8 |
Thanks for the input guys.
Slow af is bad: -2pts
@bobster: I want it all. I want fast, accurate, sharp, long, short ... you know, what everyone one else wants. :)
I guess ultimately I'm looking for the "yeah, I was there ... got both, booted the 70-200 because of blah blah blah and kept the 80-400"
@tim: Edited --- I'm slow
Message edited by author 2006-06-28 14:00:59. |
|
|
|
06/28/2006 02:01:20 PM · #9 |
Originally posted by BobsterLobster:
It all depends on what you want to use it for. |
Ditto.
If you want reach...for a safari...sports...then the 80-400 will probably be better. TC's work best on Primes, quality degrades quite a bit on zooms. |
|
|
|
06/28/2006 02:31:50 PM · #10 |
For sports and gig photography, get the 70-200. It's not my area, but I believe if you want to shoot nature/landscape you might be better with the 80-400.
Edit: It also depends on what sports you're going to shoot and how far away you'll be from the action.
Another edit: if slow AF is a big consideration, that narrows you down to the 70-200. The wider the aperture, the faster the focusing.
Message edited by author 2006-06-28 14:33:34. |
|
|
|
06/28/2006 02:50:57 PM · #11 |
I've own both the Af-s 80-200 & the 3rd generation AF-D 80-200, and I can tell you that they are bricks if your carryng them any distance. I realize that the 80-400 weighs only 100 or so grams less than the 70-200, but odds are that it is also replacing a longer lens and/or teleconverter also.
I just wish Nikon would update my AF 70-210mm f4 to a modern version. If you think about it there is a very big hole between the 70-300ed and the 80-400 & 70-200VRs. |
|
|
|
06/28/2006 03:01:22 PM · #12 |
| I had the same debate about a year ago and went with the 70-200 VR and a 1.4x converted and have been very happy with both of them. The with the 1.4TC on I cannot tell a difference in the focus speed or the sharpness. |
|
|
|
06/28/2006 03:25:56 PM · #13 |
I can only relate my experiences with Canon-mount stuff: I had the Sigma 80-400 OS. A wonderfully sharp lens, but no fast focusser. From the reviews I've read, the Nikon 80-400 is about the same or a little slower, although I have no means for quantifying that. I sold the Sigma, as the autofocus was just too slow. Had it been fitted with HSM, I think that it would easily have been one of the best lenses ever. The canon 70-200 focusses faster by an incredible amount, but, used with a 2x converter, is woefully soft at an effective f/5.6. A 1.4x converter should be sharper, but you'll sacrifice a little reach. The fact remains that, as a gear-head, focus speed matters to me. One of the things that maybe you should look at is whether it matters to you.
|
|
|
|
06/28/2006 03:29:01 PM · #14 |
What are you wanting to shoot? Each lens has it's uses - the 70-200 is great for sports, low light, portraits, weddings, etc.
the 80-400 is more outdoors, wildlife, good light lens.
|
|
|
|
06/28/2006 06:06:15 PM · #15 |
Slow AF gives me huge pause for concern.
Most of my shooting I'd say is in the <200 range but I like the idea of reaching out.
@ mike: Adding the TC to the 70-200 has a noticable effect on image quality? I do understand that it will affect the image, but is it that much? From what you say it's negligible at best.
Anybody have any 80-400 70-200 w/ TC comparisons? Or a link?
How about the 80-400 v 70-200 at overlapping ranges comparison?
Thanks for all the input everyone, I appreciate it. Yes, I've been googling as well - if I find info I'll post links.
My plan, until about two days ago, was the 70-200 ... then I started looking into the 80-400. I guess I just want someone to tell me to shut up and get the 70-200 :) |
|
|
|
06/28/2006 06:18:58 PM · #16 |
I'd recommend the 70-200. I haven't used it with a TC yet, but I'm really happy with the shots I've been getting with it.
I've never used the 80-400, probably never will, but it sounds like it might be the better option if you're looking primarily at landscapes (less $$ than the 70-200) or wildlife (reach). The 70-200 might be more versatile with the focus speed and constant aperture - that plus VR makes it great for indoor settings.
|
|
|
|
06/28/2006 06:24:24 PM · #17 |
Originally posted by alfresco:
I guess I just want someone to tell me to shut up and get the 70-200 :) |
Shut Up and get the 70-200 GOSH!
:-P |
|
|
|
06/28/2006 06:32:48 PM · #18 |
Shut up and get the 70-200 VR...
Skip the teleconverter and save for the Sigma 80-400 OS.
I'm halfway through that plan now. I've got the 70-200 VR and absolutely love it. I got side-tracked from the plan above when I bought the TC17e 1.7X teleconverter. I absolutely hated it with the 70-200. It was extremely soft and so slow to focus that I ended up returning it after two months (I'm surprised they did actually).
Now, I am on the verge of buying the Sigma 80-400 OS. I've been watching Ebay for a couple of months now and seeing what the two have been going for:
Nikon 80-400 VR...about $1125
Sigma 80-400 OS...about $915
I seriously considered the Sigma 50-500 (Bigma) for a while, but I think that I would prefer the stabilized lens over the extra 100mm. Maybe I'll couple a 1.4X tele with whichever lens I go with. |
|
|
|
06/28/2006 06:47:00 PM · #19 |
FWIW, I took these with a borrowed 80-400VR, on a very overcast day, and I didn't really notice a problem with slow focusing. Maybe ignorance is bliss?
  
|
|
|
|
06/28/2006 11:09:37 PM · #20 |
It looks like the deer was moving very fast if at all. Take it to a soccer game or any kids sport event like hockey and give it a shot. It doens't focus as slow as my Tamron 70-300 -nothing could focus that slow - but it isn't quite fast enough for sports for me at least.
Nice shots BTW.
Message edited by author 2006-06-28 23:09:51. |
|
|
|
06/28/2006 11:50:21 PM · #21 |
I'd vote for the 70-200 2.8 VR. I now use it almost exclusivly when out shooting nature, birds, and sports. I recently bought a Nikon 1.7x TC and have been very happy with it. It gives me 340mm (almost to your 400) at a steady f4.8 that keeps both AF and VR. The 70-200 is about the fastest and smoothest foucing lens I know of.
Here is my entry from Bokeh along with an outtake. The entry is a little out of focus. Both were shot handheld at full zoom (340mm) using the 1.7 TC.
 
And one more I happen to have uploaded (also taken with the TC):
|
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2026 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 01/01/2026 11:35:03 PM EST.
