need more reach

[ewm3]

I have the nikon 80-200 AFD and the 18-200 VR. I'm looking for a nikon lens with more 'reach'. Does anyone have experience with the nikon 80-400 VR? That is about the price I can afford. Any other suggestions?
Eric in Adelaide

[sirhc55]

Eric, have you considered the Nikon 1.7TC? It will give you more reach at a third the price of the 80-400. A few forum members use this and will probably chime in with their thoughts.

[Glen]

Chris unless it is the AFS version of the 80-200 the 1.7tc will only work in manual, but that would have been my first thought too. I don't have the 80-400 but a few others do, I sure they will give their opinions.

[Marvin]

BigV, an Adelaide member has the 80-400(?) Sigma that he loves. It is on his Canon most of the time.

[christiand]

Hi ewm3,

I use a TC17e with my 70-200mm VR and it is great.
The TC17e doesn't work with every lens, so please do your research befor you go and by a TC.

HTH,
CD

[who]

Eric

I recently purchased a 80-400VR and it is a nice lens to use. It isn't a super fast lens in apeture.

I've had some test shots I have been happy with.

Which Nikon body do you have? Reason I ask it is has been said that it is nto the fastest to AF (but better on newer bodies, like D300 / D3 reportedly).

Here is a resized shot from my back deck of a house about 1km away
http://www.4wdlinks.com.au/albums/album ... 48_800.jpg

And a 100% crop of part of it
http://www.4wdlinks.com.au/albums/album ... 0_crop.jpg

These were shot handheld, and have been hit with some jpeg compression as well.

[big pix]

....... there is always the Sigma Bigma....... [50-500]

[gstark]

When used correctly, the 80-400 VR is a great lens. It can be a tad slow (mechanically) on some bodies, but there are techniques you can use to mitigate those tendencies.

But it's a very sharp lens, and for the range it gives you, it's very good value.

[CoryH]

Hi Eric,

I'm glad someone else is having a similar dilema to me, I have the 70-300 for my long end but find it's 1) not the best quality, 2) not got enough reach and 3) Lack of VR is annoying.

So i've been looking at the Nikon 80-400VR although I've heard from multiple sources that it's slow on AF(Probably not a huge issue as i'm not huge on sports photography) but the sales guy at Diamonds(Adelaide) suggested looking into the new Sigma 150-500 as it has the Sigma equivalent of VR..

Anyone have any thoughts?

[fozzie]

If you go into Photo Wholesalers (Owned by Diamonds now), 47 Hutt Street, Adelaide they have a Nikon 80-400VR that you can rent, and I can see no reason why you could not try it out on your own body. I was in there yesterday, looking at the new Nikon D700, sweet: but not for me, and I am almost certain that they had a Sigma 50-500 (Bigma) sitting on the shelf behind the front counter. May be you could try that too for comparison.

fozzie

[gstark]

Sigma 150-500 as it has the Sigma equivalent of VR..

And we still have our Coke bottle with the Nikon mount too.

[MATT]

I have the 80-400, I have tried it on a d70 and the focus was slow , changed to a d200 and was pretty good. Now on a d300 and cant complain. Its better than I am.. I use it with a monopod and is pretty good.

if I had the cash I would go the 70-200VR the 1.7tc for reach there are reports of good results.

matt

[ewm3]

thanks everyone
I use a D200 and am more into photographing wildlife than sports, so I guess the slow AF would not be as big a problem. I like the AF 80-200mm f/2.8D ED, except for its reach. I had thought about a TC but had read that it 'softens' the lens quite a lot. I guess 'renting' one and trying it out is the way to go. I'll let you know what I decide. Thanks again.
Eric in Adelaide.