DSLRUsers.com

As I'm in the throes of trying to decide between the 80-400 and the 70-200 + TC-17 (you know the drill, heart and brain say one, bank account says the other), I've been doing a bit of review reading.

There can be no argument that the 70-200 is a superior bit of glass, but these quotes from http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/tc17e.htm regarding the TC-17 made me think.

I wouldn't suggest it for any zoom. I know you all want to use it with the 70-200 VR, however it probably works more poorly than the straight 80-400 VR does without a TC.

and

Therefore the TC-17E should be great with fixed focal length f/2.8 lenses, but be careful with the 70-200 VR and other zooms.

and

Don't let me stop you and by all means give it a try with the 70-200; just that for less money you can get the 80-400 instead with probably better performance out at 400mm.

The other side of the coin is that sometimes you have to take Ken with a grain of salt, he has been known to "review" equipment he's never used although in this case he appears to have experience with the TC.

Is Ken saving me $1000 or is he full of you-know-what???

johndec,
buy what you can buy and want to buy, the more you read the more make you confused.

I and few members got the 70-200VR + TC17EII in real and we play them in real, we saw pictures in real eyes so we provide the real verdict.

Who's the hell Ken Rockwell? I don't care what people said! I buy and I'm happy with the result same as nearly 8 members got the set in this forum, and more than 20 members tested them in many meets and no ones can tell me or post anything bad or mixed report about the set.

Sometimes people just trusted him as a Saint and follow his way without testing and consideration of the products, is he going to tell you the truth? does he really own the completed set or just want to say: "I buy it here" so people will follow his pointer and he'll get bonus from the stores.

That why I offered many meet with handful of gears for members to try out and seeing the pros and cons of the products prior to make their own decision.

johndec

I spent the better part of two weeks playing with the 80-400 VR - you've probably read my quite detailed review in the equipment reviews section. I also had play with the 70-200 VR + TC 1.7 at the Bobbin Heads picnic.

In my 80-400 VR review where I probably over highlight the slow focus and ppor low light performance are some good counter comments from both Gary and Matt K that basically say this can be overcome with experience.

Even with the TC the 70-200 has better low light performance and faster focus than the 80-400 PLUS you can also shoot without the TC and it will be even better (but only goes to 200 of course).


I lack the "old hands" experience and am probably quite spoilt by autofocus so I've already ordered the 70-200 + TC 1.7 having played with both combos this was better for me.

At present there's also a fantastic price on the 70-200 + TC from birddog in our Bargains section.

I guess this is a tricky one because a huge price difference is involved.
I have the TC-17EII and 70-200mm VR combination.
For me this is a great combination because I can use the 70-200mm VR on its own and enjoy F2.8
I can also put on some extra reach (1.7 x 200mm = 340 mm) WHEN
necessary resulting in F4.5
I have taken some shots at 340 mm handheld and am very satisfied with the results.
See an earlier posting of mine regarding this question.

http://forum.d70users.com/viewtopic.php ... highlight=

Cheers
CD

Johndec, I had the same problem a few months ago and couldn't find one comparison photo with TC1.7. Since Christmas I have been meaning to do some test shots for our members, busy tomorrow but will get some up in the next couple of days. If you need them sooner let me know. Some pros say no TC with zooms, but technology has moved on, at one stage I would have said a 5X zoom was P&S consumer territory, but now look at the 80-400. I once told a client, in the early eighties, who bought a computer with the brand new 20MB (yes MB not GB) hard drive from me, that he would never ever have to buy another computer. Times change.

John, note Ken's use of the word "probably" strong suggesting that he has not used the combination he's "reviewing", but only writing based on previous knowledge of TCs on zoom lenses. Bjorn Roslett the Scandanavian photographer (with rumoured close ties to Nikon) also advocates this 'no TC on zoom lens' mantra. I suspect it might have been the case half a decade ago, but the 70-200 is truly one stunning piece of glass!

As far as TCs go, the 1.7 is currently the best compromise in terms of image quality retained with focal length extension and loss of aperture/light as I see it. The 1.4 mated with good glass typically shows no noticeable image degradation by many accounts, but lacks the reach; whereas the 2.0 noticeably impedes the handling and shooting performance of the lens (70-200) - ie. noticeable AF-S speed deficit and viewfinder brightness affected.

I have this combination and can say I am truly amazed with the quality and clarity of the photos taken with the set-up.

I have been thinking if I would have purchased the 80-400VR I may be able to get into events that do not like you taking in big lenses as this is a relativaly compact lense when compared to the 70-200VR+1.7TC. As soon as I start using this combo I am convinced that this is the right chioce.

Take the TC off and you have a very fast action lense and a great portrait lense. I was doing some shooting today in a low light hall and was standing at the rear without anyone noticing me or being distracted by the thought of being photographed.

Try doing that with the 80-400.

Cheers,

Darryl.

Birddog114 wrote:Who's the hell Ken Rockwell? I don't care what people said!

Calm down Birddog I don't want to be the cause of your high blood pressure

Thanks to you I've already had the chance to try both the 70-200 and the 80-400 and I know it's no real contest. Next time, if it's OK, I'll have a play with the 70-200 + TC. I only posted Ken's opinions because I was suprised by them as everything I read here seemed to contradict his view.

G'day
I recently purchased the 80-400 and I'm happy, I dare say if I'd played with the 70-200 and a high quality TC I probably would have wanted that so I'm glad I didn't have that combo to play with

I couldn't justify the additional cost, I was stretching the budget as it was and it's a hobby to me. I don't expect to recoup any cost. I need max reach and the 400 is JUST enough, so I'm happy... Spose it depends on the type of stuff you're photographing too...

Cheers,
Mudder

Ken Rockwell, hmmmmmm....

I don't care for most of Kens opinions the more I red them. He OFTEN states that they are nothing more than just that, his opinions and he is not paid for hem. Anyways, buy what suits you best. I defer to Thom Hogans advice on tripods.

Most people buy 3. The budget to get by, the middle because the budget was crap, and the one they should have bought in the first place.

My advice, buy the best your budget can afford and you wont go wrong. Whatever you buy, don't second guess yoursef, be happy and shoot away!!!!

Andy

John,

It's a tough one, but only you can best assess your lens needs. The real question is "What do you take piccies of?"

johndec wrote:Don't let me stop you and by all means give it a try with the 70-200; just that for less money you can get the 80-400 instead with probably better performance out at 400mm.

In this case, there is absolutely no "probably" about this; the maximum reach of the 70-200 + TC17whatever can only ever be 340mm. If you need that extra reach - see my question above about the piccies you take - then you need to get something with that reach, and that is never going be the 70-200 plus anything.

But do not be swayed by talk of slow focussing of the 80-400. It is certainly slow to focus, but that is not an impediment to its use in the hands of someone who knows what they're doing. To my mind it's an excellent lens, with razor sharp acuity even at 400mm.