70-200mm vr w/ tc to replace 80-400 vr?

Discussion in 'Lens Lust' started by E-Rock, Sep 22, 2008.

  1. E-Rock

    E-Rock

    380
    Sep 12, 2008
    Maui
    I am going to order a 70-200 vr today, and got to thinking...
    Untill I can sell enough organs and bodily fluids to cover the cost of the 400mm 2.8 vr, would the 70-200 with a 1.7 or 2x tc give me better results then the 80-400?
    I know I would be losing 1 1/2 to 2 stops with the 70-200, but would I still come out on top?
     
  2. The 1.7 should be pretty good but I've never cared for a 2x on fast primes let alone a 2.8 zoom. :smile:
     
  3. I use the 70-200 with a TC 1.7 all the time. In fact, at the air show over the weekend I used a total of two lens - the above mentioned 70-200 and my 300mm f2.8 VR with a TC 1.4. Both give excellent results.
     
  4. gadgetguy11

    gadgetguy11

    Nov 16, 2005
    Kentucky
    A lot depends on the actual mm you shoot. I sold the 80-400VR and replaced it with the 70-300VRII. Other than losing the extra 100mm, the 70-300 was an unexpected step up from the outdated screw drive AF! The 70-300VR is awesome for outdoor shooting, where lighting is good and the subjects are relatively stationary, of course.

    I had and loved the 70-200VR. I was not thrilled with it's performance with a TC, but it is one awesome piece of glass without a TC. I bought a 200 /f2.0VR, 300 /f2.8VR, and 200-400VR to fill that gap.

    One last suggestion. Wait until tomorrow (Tuesday 9-23) and read the Nikon new lens introductions at Photokina before you place your order. That is why I said I "had" the 70-200VR, not "have" it... :wink:
     
  5. E-Rock

    E-Rock

    380
    Sep 12, 2008
    Maui
    Thanks for the tip, I just saw this morning that the new 50mm 1.4 AF-S is coming out in Dec.... The current version will be here tomorrow.
    Needless to say, it will be going right back!
     
  6. gadgetguy11

    gadgetguy11

    Nov 16, 2005
    Kentucky
    I am on a dealer list for:

    50 1.4 AF-S
    85 1.4 AF-S
    70-200VRII AF-S Nanocrystal

    Of course, such items are purely speculation today. We will have confirmation - or realize this was just a pipe dream - in 24Hrs!
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 22, 2008
  7. Paulesko

    Paulesko

    90
    Jul 23, 2008
    Spain
    well, we already know that 50mm won´t have nanocrystal.
     
  8. gadgetguy11

    gadgetguy11

    Nov 16, 2005
    Kentucky
    The 50 /1.4 does not reference ED glass. That surprised me; is this not a high end lens?
     
  9. johnmh

    johnmh

    771
    Nov 21, 2007
    Greater NYC
    The 70-200 is fine with a 1.4 TC and only the picky will be disappointed with a 1.7. There is some IQ loss with the 2.0TC but most won't really notice. I've used all of the combinations.

    Still waiting for an updated A-S 80-400 myself to pair with the 16-85 in a 'light carry kit'. The 'full' kit has been 12-24, now 24-70, 70-200 (usually with TC's along) and sometimes with the 200-400. Various additions - Sigma 10-20, 105 macro, 50 1.4, 85 1.8 as needed.

    The 200-400 is simply too large and heavy for some applications - been using a Sigma 150-500 as a 'lighter long' lens - It gives you what you pay for. I just wish they'd charged $500 more for a bit more lens.