DSLRUsers.com

hmmm, searching, and other than Ken rockwells two sentences, I cannot find a comparison between the set up of the Nikon 70-200VR with the TCx1.7 VS 80-400VR.

I like the idea of the 80-400 massive range, but note its slower.

The current applications for me, are motorsport (ametuer club days), I have no interest in birdwatching kinda pics. Kiteboarding shots from the shoreline (think the focus speed will be too slow for this.

Am I on track, that the TC1.7, will add focal length by 1.7 times, and 1.5 stops slower? So this makes the 2.8 a 4.0? Therfore, with its faster focus speed, the TC combo would be better suited than the 80-400?

Coupled this with the 70-200 is already on board, I get to 120-340mm with the fast focus (assuming the TC doesnt slow focus down), at around f/4.

Anyone used both, and can give some feedback?

I know there is another member in here looking to sell his 80-400, to fund a 70-200VR+TC1.7.

in his 70-200VR article, Ken saiy use the 20E TC...

I went through this same line of thought a while back. Eventually I ordered the 70-200VR + 1.7 TC. I like the 80-400, but the focussing speed is just way too slow for me (not suitable for footy, action etc photos). I want the best quality and speed possible between 70-200, and I don't mind losing a stop and a half of light for when I need that extra bit of reach (plus I would still have the VR)

The thinking was that if I got the 70-200 + TC, I could sell my 80-200 AF-D, otherwise I'd still have to hang onto that lens for action.

Oz_Beachside wrote:hmmm, searching, and other than Ken rockwells two sentences, I cannot find a comparison between the set up of the Nikon 70-200VR with the TCx1.7 VS 80-400VR.
Am I on track, that the TC1.7, will add focal length by 1.7 times, and 1.5 stops slower? So this makes the 2.8 a 4.0?
Anyone used both, and can give some feedback?

Hi Oz Beachside
There is a heap of this comparison: 70-200VR with the TCx1.7 VS 80-400VR on both Dpreview and Nikonians.
Also the 70-200 with 1.7tc will give you F/4.8 (not f/4) 1 1/2 stop loss.
I have this combo and while it's pretty good I decided on the 300 VR with either 1.7 or 1.4 tc for much sharper images. I find this combo much more suitable (but heavier!) on wildlife.

Cheers
Marc

i had the 70-200vr and tc1.7 combo thought the tc thing made the images sllightly less defined and for the extra reach and bucks it wasnt worth it
so i sold it off
the 70-200vr by itself is a formidable lens and can do heaps

gary uses the 80-400 for motorsport and he says it's a more than capable lens if you know how to use it right

also price point it works out much better than the other combo

I have used both.

I think the 70-200 VR + 1.7 tele is a little unwieldy. The lens is quite long by itself, and if course the teleconverter makes it longer.

If you definitely need the reach, I think that the 80-400 VR is much more suitable.

The 70-200 VR is a superb lens, but if it ain't got the reach, it ain't got the reach.

Oz, decide where you will spend most of your time. If it as the long end, the 80-400 is great value. If it is at the short end, the 70-200 is Nikon's best zoom in that range (and probably better than most lenses in that range bar the 85 1.4). The 70-200 is a more expensive option.

Glen wrote:Oz, decide where you will spend most of your time. If it as the long end, the 80-400 is great value. If it is at the short end, the 70-200 is Nikon's best zoom in that range (and probably better than most lenses in that range bar the 85 1.4). The 70-200 is a more expensive option.

Thanks Glen.

I currently have, and love, the 70-200 VR. I'm looking for length at about 300-400mm, for moving shots (kiteboarding from the shore, and motorsport).

So I am thinking through whether to spend $450 on a TC, and be happy, or spend 3 times that to get another lens altogether... I'd just hate to get teh TC, and not be happy with the results, only to get the 80-400 afterwards anyway. 300mm prime may be an alternative? But zoom is handy for this style.

I have both and I wouldn't get rid of either. They are terrific lenses!
I find I regularly use my 80-400VR for the quality of the glass, versatility,reach, the VR, the balance on camera. If they only brought it out in AF-S otherwise I see it as an outright gem. If I leave my campsite with one lens on camera it will generally be the 80-400VR
cheers
marco

I need to see some EXIF on motorsport, and water sports. I think this will help me decide.

Wendell said Gary gets good results with the 80-400 in motorsport, Gary, can you link me to some examples? As for the focusing, I'm assuming the 80-400 has focus limits, so keeping it up at the infinity end should speed up focus roaming (or manual), for panning motorcars.

Thinking I could sell my 18-200 to fund it, since its only been on my camera twice, and not excited about the results (but love the idea for single lens travel days; but they are too few and far between).

Bruce,

My old site is down, and while I've my images up to the new site, I don't think I have them where they may be seen. I need to look and see ...

Regardless ...

The 70-200, with or without the TC, is faster than the 80-400, both optically and performance wise. The 70-200 is also, especially without the tc, as sharp as you can get.

To use the 80-400 ... on a D200 there are no major issues, as the speed of the camera helps to counter some of the lens's focus speed issues.

Yes, it has a switchable limiter, which you can set for the near or long end of the focus range. Or turn off, of course.

USing the 80-400 ... this is where technique comes into play, and you need to have robust understanding of the techniques that can also help you to counter the reputed slowness of the lens.

Select a pre focus zone, and use zone focus, or shoot cars as they come around a corner and then head towards you.

I needed to make a similar decision a couple of years ago, and it comes down to the better performance of the 70-200 + TC combo, vs the reach of the 400.

And if you decide that the reach is your paramount deciding factor (as itwas for me) then the decision is already made.

In terms of sharpness, btw, the 80-400 will not disappoint; it's as sharp as a razor, and in terms of the sharpness/reach/performance specification set, it represents really good value.

But let me through you a different perspective ... As you already have the 70-200, why not throw in the money and grab the 1.7 anyway: many see this as a very useful and viable combo, to the point where I have yet to see anyone say that this is not a great combo.

Regardless of whether you, at some future point, decide to get the 80-400, I don't think you'll see any disappointment in that combo, and it can also be a way for you to decide just how much reach you really do need.

For just a bit over the price of the TC, this may be a good choice
http://cgi.ebay.com.au/Nikon-Nikkor-AF- ... dZViewItem

phillipb wrote:For just a bit over the price of the TC, this may be a good choice
http://cgi.ebay.com.au/Nikon-Nikkor-AF- ... dZViewItem

Thanks. I hadnt ruled out a 300mm prime, however, the zoom is more versatile for the shooting I would use it for. And the AF speed is important for the kiteboarding stuff.

I get very frustrated at the 300 prime I have from work not being a zoom. It does make up for it with being tack sharp but when covering sports it can frustrate the hell out of you!

hrmm 80-400 AND the TC - enough reach to do surf shots and keep your feet dry.

Mark,

elffinarts wrote:hrmm 80-400 AND the TC - enough reach to do surf shots and keep your feet dry.

Which TC?

None of the Nikon, to my knowledge, fit the 80-400 (that's by design on Nikon's part) and it's not specified to work with a TC.

The Kenko will fit, but you then have the issues of optical speed plus viewfinder dimness, especially in a D70, to deal with.

I'd love to know why Nikon would chose to do such a daft thing.

And the D70 is more than dim enough as it is.

Oz,

I was out doing some windsurfing shots for a friend of mine. I have the 300mm f4 AF-S. It is a great lens and I found that for windsurfing it was actually great. I didn't miss having a zoom. Have a look the link below if you want some exif. Some at the end of the series was with a 50mm

http://www.leaveonlyfootprints.com/v/misc/windsurfing/

There were kite boarders there and I got a few good shots of them but not with the kite, the zoom would be handy for that.

Cheers,

André

Oz,

I'll see if I can post some pics up tonight when I get home of some motorsport action with the 80-400VR.

I have fairly similiar sentiments on the 80-400VR as Gary - technique with this lens is crucial when you're shooting sports with it.... however very satisfactory results can be achieved!

I'm often shooting the 80-400VR on a D2H - mainly bikes - MotoX / Dirt Track / Long Track. I've also got the 18-70 DX or 28-70/2.8 on the D70 that I can quickly swap to for close action (with a goal of minimal lens swapping in very dusty conditions)


I haven't tried the 80-400 on the D200, but it's a much nicer lens to use on a D2 series body rather than a D70 (and quieter too!)

I reckon I've still got a spot in my bag for the 70-200 (primarily for f/2.8 ) however I've found that sometimes the ability to go from 80 to 400 in a single action can be handy when tracking from the infield, particularly when following a specific rider around the circuit.

If you're looking at using the 80-400VR on a monopod, and you've got an arca-swiss set up, factor in the cost of the RRS/Kirk replacement tripod collar - the factory one on the 80-400 is um.... shit. I think it's the same collar as the 300/f4 (unsure on that though).

I'll see what I can do about posting some stuff up...

daniel_r wrote:If you're looking at using the 80-400VR on a monopod, and you've got an arca-swiss set up, factor in the cost of the RRS/Kirk replacement tripod collar - the factory one on the 80-400 is um.... shit. I think it's the same collar as the 300/f4 (unsure on that though).

Agree with that one, I've replaced the lens collar with a kirk one, great investment

daniel_r

I also agree, the standard lens collar is a bit wobbly. Can you post details of the Kirk collar.

Barry

elffinarts wrote:I'd love to know why Nikon would chose to do such a daft thing.

And the D70 is more than dim enough as it is.

Presumably so that people don't stick a 2x TC onto a f/5.6 lens and wonder why it can't focus properly anymore!

Barry,

barry wrote:Can you post details of the Kirk collar.

Have a look at:
http://www.kirkphoto.com/lenscollars.html

I've used my 80-400VR extensively with motor sport, gravel car rallies, with very satisfying results. It goes on D2X and focuses even better with the recent firmware upgrade.

after many months of deliberating, I've decided, and ordered! Phew, now I can focus on the images.

Gone for a 80-400VR (over adding a TC to my 70-200VR). Just couldnt make sense of downgrading performance of the 200.

But a factor more heavily waited, I love the range of 80-400.

This year I have the southern 80 (ski race), club racing track days, F1 (in Sydney. Oh, no, wait, in Melbourne this year I think . Supercars, Hong Kong, France, London, Toulouse). A busy year ahead.

The 80-400 will gets some runs on the board, lets hoping its in stock...

Thanks for your feedback, I appreciate the help through the thought process...

hi there,

well, i didn't buy beer for a number of weeks, and because of this just ordered the 70-200VR, which will be replacing my Tamron 70-300 (thank science).

i will miss the 300mm range however.

which TC will get me to 300mm?

the 1.4 or 1.7? (i suck at maths)

thanks...

D70.

1.7 gives you 340

1.4 gives you 280

cheers, kyle.

280 is close enough, but 340 is even better! i'd probably go the 1.7.

thanks.

By all reports, the 1.7 is the best TC to go with for the 70-200..

I'll know myself in a month or so

Pehpsi wrote:hi there,

well, i didn't buy beer for a number of weeks, and because of this just ordered the 70-200VR,

Mate, that's quite a few beers for a few weeks, never mind the lens, get your liver checked out.

yeah, spending a few hundred on beer/smokes every friday night was getting a bit old, thought a top piece of glass would be better...

the liver can wait. by the time i need a new one, there should be a quick fix i'd think