Louis Champan said:
I've almost got myself convinced to purchase a 70-200VR, but have one reservation. I currently use my 80-400VR at the long end to shoot birds, with the 70-200VR at the long end I'll be short by 300mm. Will I be able to compensate for this by cropping and end up with similar results as with the 80-400VR?
Louis :
Yes and no. :lol: I've shot a lot with both lenses.
You'll get better more focused results with the 70-200mm in part because of the AFS function that the 80-400mm VR lacks. By and large, the 70-200mm AFS/VR also has crisper optics than the 80-400mm.
But.
You simply won't have 400mm of reach. Even the crops from the 70-200mm may not meet your needs. 200mm is not 400mm.
But.
The 80-400mm VR has slower focusing, is "slower glass" (i.e., f/5.6 at full zoom), and is a bit soft at 400mm (not terribly so, but perceptible if you look at the image carefully).
Let's look at the results for these lenses.
If you look at the work of Janet Zinn, you'll see just how well the 80-400mm VR can shine in the hands of a photographer. She coaxes better quality out of that lens than almost anybody else I've seen.
If you look at various other folks on the forum, you can see just how nicely the 70-200mm functions, but generally, without the same reach. They generally can land shots where fast focusing is a requirement.
So.
I'd suggest having a long hard look at what you deem more important in this match-up, testing each lens if possible, and then coming to a decision based on those.
John P.