DSLRUsers.com

I've been lusting for the 80-400VR for a while but Raskill's 70-200VR has got me thinking.

I want the reach of the 80-400 but a new 70-200VR + TC-20EII is a bit out of my prefered price range.

Primarily, I want something capable of shooting birds.


So I have a few questions...

1. How does the 70-200VR perform with the TC-20EII? I notice some people use the TC-17EII. But that doesn't give me much more reach than my 70-300G.

2. The TC-20EII will cause a loss of 2 f-stops. So that means it'll be f/5.6 at 400mm the same as the 80-400VR?

3. The AF speed is slower with a teleconverter? I assume it will still be faster than the slow 80-400 though.

If anyone has any more advice I'd love to hear it.

Thanks,
Brad

I have the 70-200 + TC-17 and sometimes I think I should have gone for the 80-400. It is not practical to put on or remove the TC and often I would have had to do either operation but missed the opportunity. I think focussing will always be faster with the 70-200 but with practice I think the 80-400 is not too bad... If you manage with the 70-300 you should not have a problem.

If you want it for birding, you want length and fast focus speed, and maybe fast glass if you're doing it in low light. Ideally you'd want the AF-S 500 f/4 perhaps with TC14EII, but that's a $$$ option.

The TCs are generally considered a good option; the TC14EII is good and doesn't significantly degrade image quality, you lose one stop and need to stop down at least another stop for optimal image quality. The TC17EII is good although there it some loss of image quality, 1.5 stops loss plus need to stop down more. TC20EII has a significant loss of image quality, 2 stops lost (as you correctly say), plus need to stop down more.

The 80-400 VR has reach going for it but not focus speed, it uses the screwdriver type AF, not the AF-S motor type. Compared to the 70-200 VR (even with TCs), the 80-400 VR is sloooow. If you're smart about it and can predict where you're going to need to focus then you can minimise the problem, but if you're shooting birds flitting about then it's probably not optimal.

Maybe consider the AF-S 300 f/4 + TCs? The only problem with that is that it's a bit slow!

MCWB wrote:Maybe consider the AF-S 300 f/4 + TCs? The only problem with that is that it's a bit slow!

That's what I've done with the TC1.7. I quite like the setup. I don't find it much slower on my D70s. However, you do lose that 1.5 stop.

Nicole, a member here, uses the 80-400VR for bird photography, she gets great results, have a look at her web site:

http://www.oznaturephotos.com/

cheers,

Andre

Brad, agree with all of the above (I use 70-200, 300/4 and 1.7TC) would also suggest you do a search as this has been discussed more than once before. The 80-400 also has many fans.




Andre, glad you got the 300/4, mine would have been yours if the 5D arrived

I think you should go the 70-200VR with TC option....

Raskill wrote:I think you should go the 70-200VR with TC option....

I was waiting for your comment.

Glen wrote:also suggest you do a search as this has been discussed more than once before

Hmm, I can't find much about the TC20EII

So it seems the main disatvantage of the 2x is the loss of quality?

I want something for birding but also want versatility. I think that counts out the 300 f/4. The 70-200 + TC seems the most versatile setup IMO.

I guess my question now is if the 70-200 + 1.7TC will be OK for the occasional birding?

What bird?

A jumbo 747 or an Airbus 320, YES

A Blue wrench? maybe not quite and harder.

I think Trent uses a 70-200VR with TC combo and he's producing images that are of a saleable quality. I think the TC definetly makes images a little softer though.

greencardigan wrote:Hmm, I can't find much about the TC20EII

I don't think there are too many members with the TC20, probably why.

I want something for birding but also want versatility. I think that counts out the 300 f/4. The 70-200 + TC seems the most versatile setup IMO.

The 70-200 will allow you to zoom in and out, very true. Versatile in other types of photography as well. However, usually when taking photos of birds, they are too far, not too close, so having extra reach is important. If they are too close, then you have a portrait pose .

I guess my question now is if the 70-200 + 1.7TC will be OK for the occasional birding?

Depends how good you are at getting close to the birds. That will give you 340mm, the 80-400VR give you more reach.

In terms of versatility, I have a 70-300ED, so if I think I need versatility, I'll use that until I can afford something like the 70-200VR or 80-200.

good luck with your decision.

André

Raskill wrote:I think Trent uses a 70-200VR with TC combo and he's producing images that are of a saleable quality. I think the TC definetly makes images a little softer though.

 LOL, want to buy some?

Yes you're right though, I can easily pick which of mine were taken with and without the TC17EII.

I primarily shoot birds and currently own the 80-400vr.

I am looking to upgrade this to fast primes when I find some at the right price.
I have produced images that I really like with the 80-400 but if birding is your primary reason for having this lens I would advise against it.
yes it is 400mm but af speed is quite slow compared to the 70-210 or fast prime lenses.
this lens can hunt AF if the background is busy or light isnt all that great.
It is possible to shoot flying birds with it, so long as you have a good run up at them!!
at the time of purchasing mine, I wanted to cover all bases from 18mm out to 400mm and the kit lens, plus 80-400 did that for me but now I feel more reach is needed and faster AF also.
These are my observations using this lens for birding most weekends over the last 2 or so years.

Steve

Do you use manual focus much Steve?

some times you have to simon.
mostly af though.

I try to prefocus where I expect/want the subject to go though.
that can help heaps.
the limit switch is a vital aid with this lens also, because without it on, focus loss will cause the lens to run to the end stops. I Major P*sser especially on flying stuff cos you cant see it in the view finder any more.

Steve

I found this in Thom Hogan's 70-200VR Review: http://www.bythom.com/70200VRlens.htm

Performance with the TC-14e teleconverter is nothing short of astonishing. How good is it? Well, I can't see any differences between the 70-200mm at 200mm with a TC-14e and the highly regarded 300mm f/4 AF-S! That's both unexpected and unprecedented. In other words, if you need a 300mm f/4 AF-S, just get the 70-200mm and a TC-14e. You'll get a more versatile lens and lose no sharpness.

With the TC-20e teleconverter, the results are still good (see above), but sharpness is slightly compromised in the corners. I would characterize the results as being an "better-than-adequate" 400mm f/5.6. You might be able to do better with a dedicated 400mm or the 300mm f/4 AF-S with a TC-14E, but the 70-200mm and TC-20e combination will get you by if you don't have one.

These decisions are one of the hardest parts of photography.

Did I mention there is a 70-200VR for sale.....

might have a few bucks available. will know later on.

steve

I really endorse MCWB's advice above. I have 70-200 and find it a bit soft when used with the 2 x converter.

Personally I'd love the 200-400 and a 1.4 and a 1.7.

But I'm just lusting


Bob G

I havent used a 2x but the 1.7 kicks butt.

Steve

For the reasonable outlay, value for money and the intended purpose the 80-400VR is a great piece of quality glass. Having said that I'm currently waiting for the 70-200VR I have ordered and hopefully will arrive soon in my hot little hands:)
cheers
marco

Thanks everyone for the help/suggestions.

At the moment I'm leaning towards the 70-200VR + either the 1.7X or 2X TC.