80-400 VR vs. 70-200 VR

Joined
Feb 13, 2005
Messages
94
Location
South Thomaston, ME
Hi Group,

Can somebody let me in on how these two lenses perform under the same conditions? I have the 80-400 and am trying to decide whether to keep it and live with it, or buy the 70-200 and a converter. Is the 80-400 much better on a tripod with the Kirk or RRS lens mount?

I shot some stuff the other day wide open and found that things were not as sharp as they might have been.

Thanks,

Steve
 
Joined
May 2, 2005
Messages
273
Location
Reno, NV
From all the things I've read the 70-200 VR will be a much better lense, even with teleconverters on so they have equal focal lenths
 
R

Rob G.

Guest
Hi Steve,

I also have the 80-400 VR. I find this lens very sharp but not in all situations. But it can produce great images like here:
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1034&message=12506566

From what I've heard the 70-200 VR and the TC gets equally quality images. Some even said that the 80-400 VR is better than the 70-200 VR + TC. Don't know if that's true, I don't own a 70-200VR or a TC :)

The 300/2.8 has better image quality than both, but it's bulky and pricy..

I'm happy with the 80-400 VR allthough the obvious shortcommings..

Regards,
Rob.
 
Joined
Mar 24, 2005
Messages
1,275
Location
Bainbridge Island, Washington
I had the 80-400 and I have the 70-200. I have to vote for the 70-200 plus teleconverter between the two. It's not that the 80-400 isn't a great lens capable of great images, it's that the 80-400 was slow as molassas at tracking moving objects. When taking images of static subjects it was as sharp as the 70-200. But since the 80-400 can only be used manually with older style tc's it is mostley limited to the same focal length as the 70-200 which has a dual personality with and without tc's.

Here are some good examples of a 70-200 + tc17eII. It is also a very nice 400 with the tc20eII. I would say about the same quality of image as the 80-400 at 400 especially mounted on a good tripod.

https://www.nikoncafe.com//forums/viewtopic.php?p=39250#39250

Also if you go toward the bottom of this thread, you will see a couple of shots I took using the 70-200 handheld with and without a tc20eII at maximum focal distance.

https://www.nikoncafe.com//forums/viewtopic.php?t=4084&highlight=
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Joined
Mar 8, 2005
Messages
172
Location
North Dakota
70-200

1. f2.8 afs faster and quieter focusing than the 80-400
2. heavier than the 80-400
3. sharper images with teleconverters
4. cost more than the 80-400
5. less reach than the 80-400

probably more diff but thats all i can think of now...its too early in the morning...need coffee
 
Joined
May 8, 2005
Messages
4,638
Location
Orlando, FL
mrdinh said:
70-200

1. f2.8 afs faster and quieter focusing than the 80-400
2. heavier than the 80-400
3. sharper images with teleconverters
4. cost more than the 80-400
5. less reach than the 80-400

probably more diff but thats all i can think of now...its too early in the morning...need coffee
Way better bokeh than the 80-400.
 
Joined
May 11, 2005
Messages
17,633
Location
Chicago, IL
Hi Steve,

I purchased both lenses but sold the 80-400 because it was a slower lens being a f4-5.6 and I prefer to have all f2.8 glass. As far as quality, it is a very good performer and serves it's purpose well. I sold mine to a friend and he thoroughly enjoys it.
 

Latest posts

Links on this page may be to our affiliates. Sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.
Nikon Cafe is a fan site and not associated with Nikon Corporation.
Forum post reactions by Twemoji: https://github.com/twitter/twemoji
Copyright © 2005-2019 Amin Forums, LLC
Top Bottom