80-400vr

Discussion in 'Lens Lust' started by Rob, Jun 15, 2007.

  1. Rob

    Rob

    873
    Jul 28, 2005
    Truro, Cornwall, UK
    I've decided to purchase the 80-400VR. Does this lens make the 70-200VR I own redundant? :eek:
    I know it's heresy to even think like that but I'm trying to think logically, I may be able to recoup some cash on the transaction. :biggrin:
     
  2. Try them out side by side, that's the only way you'll know. Each has their advantage/disadvantages - these are just means to an end - the shot.

    Good luck!
     
  3. Hi Rob, Yes you might be able to get some cash back...BUT, They are both excellent lenses, but both totally different...70-200 super fast focus, excellent IQ, etc, etc. 80-400 great reach for the money, excellent IQ, but slower focus speed, needs good light, can hunt in poor light. From my experience with this lens (had mine 10 months) takes good technique to get sharp pics at 400mm. I ended up having both, even though I use the 80-400 90% of the time, I won't get rid of the 70-200 because it still comes in very handy when the light drops or I want to take pics indoors. I've never been able to get what I think are good shots indoors with this lens, I always resort back to 70-200. Just my thoughts and opinions...:smile:
     
  4. gadgetguy11

    gadgetguy11

    Nov 16, 2005
    Kentucky
    Agreed. I shoot with both, at completely different uses. The 70-200 is bullet fast. If you did without either, keep the 70-200! The 80-400 is very sharp and clear. Don't forget there is another lens in the 80-400 class. I shoot it, too: The 70-300. These 2 lenses are excellent outdoor, full light lenses. Excellent image quality. You will be able to isolate the subject much better with 70-200, shoot indoors, use a TC...
     
  5. Hi John, Depends what you are shooting, I'd get rid of my 70-200 first. I need the reach more than the speed, thinking of getting Kenko pro 1.4tc to get 560mm from my 80-400vr. IMO 70-300 is no where near the the same IQ as either 80-400 or 70-200 (70-200 first place) 80-400 close second. Just my thoughts and opinions...
     
  6. gadgetguy11

    gadgetguy11

    Nov 16, 2005
    Kentucky
    I believed the same as you - until I bought my wife a 70-300 for her D200. I quickly bought a 2nd copy for myself. If you do not shoot one, you must see for yourself. That's all I'll say about it.

    You bring up a good point - speed vs reach. I need speed. I also shoot 200-400VR, 200/2.0, and (soon - in transit!) 300/2.8 because of sharpness and speed. And, like you, I use a TC to get more reach when necessary (1.4 and 1.7 Nikon).

    Back to Rob's original question. IMHO, the 70-200 and 80-400 are apples and oranges, and are not redundant.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Jun 15, 2007
  7. Do be careful though, there seems to be more sample variation in the 80-400 than the 70-200 according another hotly discussed post right now.
     
  8. thrdprophet

    thrdprophet

    684
    May 13, 2007
    Modesto, CA
    Since you already got the 70-200, get something with more reach than the 80-400mm for less.

    Ever thought of Sigma's Bigma? the 50-500MM HSM? It a lot faster than Nikon's 80-400, and IQ from samples from around the net are very sharp through out the range. They sell for about 800 dollars give or take by looking around. That will probably be my next lens just got the 70-200mm VR will not sell that. I played with the 80-400mm... the AF IS TOO SLOW. Everyone says best bang for the buck... I think Sigma's 50-500mm HSM is a much better bang for the buck. IMO

    but the Nikon has VR!!! VR will never stop motion, and when you shoot above 400mm, if there is enough light you can always hand hold.
     
  9. Rob

    Rob

    873
    Jul 28, 2005
    Truro, Cornwall, UK
    Thanks everybody, just what I need, a good cross section of view-points and a few other things to consider. Looks like I'll need a bigger backpack. :biggrin::biggrin:
     
  10. Any takers on putting a Converter onto the 70-200 instead of going for the 80-400 ? Maybe the TC-17E
     
  11. gadgetguy11

    gadgetguy11

    Nov 16, 2005
    Kentucky
    I tried a Nikon TC20 on the 70-200 and did not like the results. The 17 would probably work much better. Sharpness was unacceptable, focus speed down, etc. The 80-400 performed much better - and was much lighter to hand hold - than the 70-200 with a 2x teleconverter.
     


  12. Thanks John.

    Was hoping I would not hear that. Must check out the TC-17E then ...cheaper option to start with.
     
  13. kilm53

    kilm53 Guest

    Go for it..the nikon compatible list says YESSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS....:biggrin:
     
  14. Bill K

    Bill K

    Jan 29, 2006
    Reno, Nevada
    I have both the 70-200 and the 80-400 and the 80-400 is nowhere as sharp as the 70-200, As a matter of fact I find I very seldom use the 80-400 any more. 70-200 with a 1.4 or 1.7 tc is what I use.
     
  15. Just done this. traded a 80-400VR for a 70-200VR & a 1.4TC. Haven't had chance to use the TC yet, but the 70-200 is way faster & sharper then the 80-400 for the type of photos I was taking (low light candids & kids on a soccer pitch).

    Based on info here, consensus was the 1.4 TC yielded had almost no impact on af-s speed & sharpness - TC 1.7 may have a tendency to do this whilst there are reports of the TC 2 doing this.

    hope this helps.
     
  16. Rob

    Rob

    873
    Jul 28, 2005
    Truro, Cornwall, UK
    Thanks for the recent input. I'm primarily interested in bird and wildlife photography, usually in good light. Consequently if I read things right the 80-400 will give me the reach I'm after, without too horrendous a physical weight penalty and also at reasonable cost.

    What is the conversion for adding my 1.4TC to the 80-400? Does that become a 540? I should know this, but it's been a long day already. :biggrin::biggrin:
     
  17. rlacy

    rlacy

    316
    Apr 22, 2007
    San Diego
    The 80-400 with the 1.4 converter become a 112-560, while losing one stop of aperture. This is if it is used on a conventional film camera. Used on a digital camera, it becomes about a 168-840. But who cares about numbers!!
    Ron
     
  18. Rob

    Rob

    873
    Jul 28, 2005
    Truro, Cornwall, UK
    Thanks Ron, big numbers, my head hurts. :eek:
     
  19. IQ on the bigma is aweful and not even close to the 80-400vr
     
Loading...
Similar Threads Forum Date
1.4TC IIs or the 1.4TCIII with new AF-S 80-400VR?? Lens Lust Sep 17, 2014
Lens selection for South Africa trip (80-400VR, 70-200VR-I, 300/4) Lens Lust Nov 14, 2013
Trade- in for new AFS 80-400VR.... Lens Lust Oct 16, 2013
The D7100 meets the 400vr Lens Lust Jul 26, 2013
Nikon 80-400VR or Sigma 150-500 OS Lens Lust Apr 22, 2012