Sponsor Message:
Aviation Photography Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Nikon Lenses  
User currently offlinevaca05 From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 16 posts, RR: 0
Posted (4 years 6 months 3 weeks 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 4605 times:

Hi Everyone,

Need some advice on Nikon lenses.I have a Nikon D80 and I can't decide between a Nikon 80-200mm f2.8 with a teleconverter and a Nikon 80-400mm. I like the versatility of the 400 but like the the sharpness of the 200. I tried both and like both but obviously can't afford both.
So any advice would be great. Also any recommendations on creating sharper images. I have to learn Photoshop and I know you can do it through post.
Thanks for the advice. Love this website.
-Larry

39 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlinecpd From Australia, joined Jun 2008, 4880 posts, RR: 37
Reply 1, posted (4 years 6 months 3 weeks 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 4600 times:

80-200 or 70-200? Those are different lenses if I remember right, one is the old AF-Nikkor (D type) and the other is a modern AF-S VR lens (G-type).

I would suggest if 70-200mm F/2.8 VR is your intended lens - then that lens, along with a 1.7x TC-17E II will be a good combination. You get the range you want - plus a very good 70-200mm for any other time when you don't want a TC on it. More versatile than the 80-400 - which is a very old lens.

If you do mean the old 80-200mm F/2.8D - then I don't have any suggestions. I personally didn't like the 80-400 VR lens when I tried it briefly (fortunately I didn't buy it). But others will certainly have different opinions.

[Edited 2010-04-11 19:04:44]

User currently offlineANITIX87 From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 3308 posts, RR: 13
Reply 2, posted (4 years 6 months 3 weeks 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 4574 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting cpd (Reply 1):
I personally didn't like the 80-400 VR lens when I tried it briefly (fortunately I didn't buy it). But others will certainly have different opinions.

That's what he said. You mis-read, I believe. He's asking between the 70-200 and the 80-400.

Quoting vaca05 (Thread starter):
Need some advice on Nikon lenses.I have a Nikon D80 and I can't decide between a Nikon 80-200mm f2.8 with a teleconverter and a Nikon 80-400mm. I like the versatility of the 400 but like the the sharpness of the 200. I tried both and like both but obviously can't afford both.

I just recently had a similar debate in the Canon lens range. I couldn't decide between the 70-200 f/2.8 L IS USM with a 2x converter and the 100-400 f/4.0-5.6 L IS USM. I tried them both out, compared prices, and was wracking my brains. Finally, I read a simple comparison online that made my mind up for me. I'm sure you can find something similar for the Nikon lenses. Basically, while the 70-200 is much sharper throughout its range, it loses some quality with the converter attached and, at the long end of the zoom range, the 100-400 simply blows it out of the water, especially at wide-open apertures. That sealed my decision and I went with the 100-400.

TIS



www.stellaryear.com: Canon EOS 50D, Canon EOS 5DMkII, Sigma 50mm 1.4, Canon 24-70 2.8L II, Canon 100mm 2.8L, Canon 100-4
User currently offlinecpd From Australia, joined Jun 2008, 4880 posts, RR: 37
Reply 3, posted (4 years 6 months 3 weeks 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 4567 times:

Quoting vaca05 (Thread starter):
Nikon 80-200mm f2.8
Quoting ANITIX87 (Reply 2):
70-200 and the 80-400.

As above in the quote - see. Which is why I asked which lens - because I wondered if 80-200 might have been a typo. 80-200 also exists, but it is a much older lens. You'll see the reason I asked soon enough.

Should be no problem with a 70-200mm and a 1.7x TC - it delivers reasonable results.

[Edited 2010-04-11 21:04:37]

User currently offlinevaca05 From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 16 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (4 years 6 months 3 weeks 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 4553 times:

Thanks for the advice everyone. Yeah the lens I was looking at is the AF Zoom-Nikkor 80-200mm f/2.8D ED (2.5x). I guess it's an older lens that has no VR which I'm kool with. I just can't afford the one with the VR. A bit pricey still. Thanks again.

User currently offlinecpd From Australia, joined Jun 2008, 4880 posts, RR: 37
Reply 5, posted (4 years 6 months 3 weeks 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 4547 times:

Check the TC's you are planning to use it with - newer ones might not be compatible. I've not used the 80-200 - so I can't tell for sure. But I know TC-14E II and TC-17E II will not even connect with my 300 F/4.0D, which is a similar vintage and type of lens.

In your case - and thinking of the 80-200, I suppose the 80-400 will be a lot easier. Plus it is VR, and that is always useful when the light fades and you might like to try lower shutter speed photos (eg, panning).

[Edited 2010-04-11 20:47:07]

User currently offlinealevik From Canada, joined Mar 2009, 1050 posts, RR: 9
Reply 6, posted (4 years 6 months 3 weeks 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 4547 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
HEAD SCREENER

I still have an 80-200 2.8, it is an awesome lens. If you can't afford the 70-200, the 80-200 is a great lens. I don't know how it does with teleconverters. I wonder if you have other uses outside of av photography? The 80-200 is a great portrait and multiuse lens.

The 80-400 I use for travelling, I would say 70% of my photos on anet are with that lens. You won't be shooting any sports, but any decent photog can get excellent av photos with it. I hear lots of negative things about it, but I have several hundred shots on anet with it.



Improvise, adapt, overcome.
User currently offlineNIKV69 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (4 years 6 months 3 weeks 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 4518 times:

I think Royal had the best advice on what to do with the 80-400VR   

I don't know what your budget is now or down the road but if you can only buy one lens and you plan on needing the extra range your better off with the 80-400VR and not slapping a TC on the 200 tele. I own the 80-200 2.8 and also had the 400 but sold it to get a 300 prime. A TC works much better on that than a tele.


User currently offlineruudb From Netherlands, joined Jun 2005, 164 posts, RR: 5
Reply 8, posted (4 years 6 months 3 weeks 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 4439 times:

I wouldn't opt for the 80-400mm better idea to buy a 70-300 VR in my opinion, I am not sure about the 70-200mm but I owed a 80-200mm and I have to say the 70-300mm is sharper, maybe I had a bad sample of the 80-200.
The only thing is you need more light for a good result.

Ruud.


User currently offlineunattendedbag From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 2330 posts, RR: 1
Reply 9, posted (4 years 6 months 3 weeks 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 4434 times:

Quoting cpd (Reply 3):
Should be no problem with a 70-200mm and a 1.7x TC - it delivers reasonable results.

I think the 70-200mm & the 1.7x teleconverter is about the same price as both the 80-200mm and 80-400mm vr combined.  
Quoting ruudb (Reply 8):
I wouldn't opt for the 80-400mm better idea to buy a 70-300 VR in my opinion,

I have to agree with Ruud here. With the d80, I would go for the 70-300mm vr. You will have a little cash left over for an 18-70mm if you want, a flash or whatever. You will still get great results with the D80/70-300mm vr.



Slower traffic, keep right
User currently offlinesluger020889 From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 456 posts, RR: 1
Reply 10, posted (4 years 6 months 3 weeks 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 4382 times:

Quoting NIKV69 (Reply 7):
also had the 400 but sold it to get a 300 prime.

Same here, blew the 80-400 out of the water in just about every category.

Quoting cpd (Reply 5):
But I know TC-14E II and TC-17E II will not even connect
with my 300 F/4.0D

You talking about the Nikkor 300 F4 AF-S?

Joey



I would love to fly a cargo plane full of rubber dog shit out of Hong Kong!
User currently offlinecpd From Australia, joined Jun 2008, 4880 posts, RR: 37
Reply 11, posted (4 years 6 months 3 weeks 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 4355 times:

Quoting unattendedbag (Reply 9):
I think the 70-200mm & the 1.7x teleconverter is about the same price as both the 80-200mm and 80-400mm vr combined.

Oh stop picking at the details.  Wink You can see why I mentioned that - merely because I thought 80-200 might have been a typo at first - it's a very old lens and not seen so often these days.

Quoting sluger020889 (Reply 10):
You talking about the Nikkor 300 F4 AF-S?

No, the old D type lens, not the modern G type.

Quoting sluger020889 (Reply 10):
Same here, blew the 80-400 out of the water in just about every category.

And it's equal to the 200-400mm F/4.0 VR, as well. It's a very good lens, old version or new one.

[Edited 2010-04-12 15:37:30]

User currently offlineclickhappy From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 9644 posts, RR: 68
Reply 12, posted (4 years 6 months 3 weeks 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 4337 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
PHOTO SCREENER

There is no such thing as a G(elded) 300mm F/4 lens. A G lens, at least in Nikon terms, is one that does not contain a dedicated aperture ring, and therefore aperture is controlled by the camera body.

The current 300mm F/4 AF-S lens contains an aperture ring.

The difference between the "new" and "old" 300mm f/4 is the newer one has an ultrasonic (AF-S) motor built-in to the lens, where as the old one uses an old mechanical screw type, which is much slower and much louder.


User currently offlinecpd From Australia, joined Jun 2008, 4880 posts, RR: 37
Reply 13, posted (4 years 6 months 3 weeks 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 4330 times:

Well, whatever - it's early in the morning here, I'm half asleep - but the newer teleconverters won't fit on the older lens (or they won't on mine), and hence I suspect they won't work on the old 80-200 either.

Now, I'm still half asleep, so I'm not going to say anything more for fear of saying something incriminating.


User currently offlinevaca05 From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 16 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (4 years 6 months 3 weeks 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 4298 times:

Cpd,

you are correct. I was wrong. You cannot use a TC on an old 80-200mm f2.8 lens. I checked it on this website and he seems to know alot of camera gear.http://www.kenrockwell.com/index.htm . He states "For instance, the 70-300mm AF-S VR, 80-200mm f/2.8 AF-D and 80-400mm VR lenses can't even be mounted to this converter. Nikon designed them this way." I would like to thanks everyone for helping me make this decision.
Thanks
-Larry


User currently offlineunattendedbag From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 2330 posts, RR: 1
Reply 15, posted (4 years 6 months 3 weeks 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 4297 times:

Quoting vaca05 (Reply 14):
I would like to thanks everyone for helping me make this decision.

Usually we just end up confusing the thread starter even more.   Let us know what the final verdict is when you make it.  



Slower traffic, keep right
User currently offlinecpd From Australia, joined Jun 2008, 4880 posts, RR: 37
Reply 16, posted (4 years 6 months 3 weeks 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 4293 times:

Quoting vaca05 (Reply 14):
I would like to thanks everyone for helping me make this decision.

Make sure you show us some images from the combo..  


User currently offlineAlberto Riva From United States of America, joined May 2002, 124 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (4 years 6 months 3 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 4183 times:

I have an 80-200 AF-D and a bunch of photos here taken with it. Indeed, you can't use TCs with it. Maybe older manual-focus only TCs are ok, I think the TC-16 works on it.

As for 70-200 VR vs. 80-400 VR for aviation photos, right now I'd go with a 70-200 and add a TC if needed -- Nikon just released the new 70-200 VR II so the first-generation 70-200 VR can be had used for cheap. Cheap meaning about US $1500 which is just a little more than an 80-400 but far, far better optical quality. I've shot sports with both and the difference is noticeable, and huge when it comes to AF speed.


User currently offlinediezel From Netherlands, joined Oct 2002, 646 posts, RR: 11
Reply 18, posted (4 years 6 months 3 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 4150 times:

The old AF 80-200 F2.8D works perfect with the Kenko pro series teleconverters (as do most AF-S lenses). The Kenko Pro TC's are of excellent optical quality.

Also, look for second hand lenses. The 80-200 AFD is usually available second hand at a good price. I think together with the 300mm F4, the 80-200 AFD is one of those hidden Nikon gems. Relatively cheap but of the best optical quality.

Roel.



Never be afraid of what you like. (Miles Davis)
User currently offlinebcaltabiano From United States of America, joined Jan 2010, 71 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (4 years 6 months 3 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 4137 times:

Just a note for this discussion here. Unless you have the cash to blow, vaca05's D80 has the AF motor in the body of the camera and therefore can use AF-D lenses in the same manner as AF-S.

The difference is that the AF-S lenses have the AF motor in the lens which allows D40, D3000 and D5000 (I think) to AF. There is nothing wrong with an AF-D lens and since we aren't talking about super high-end lenses with ultra-mega-super-color-awesome coating....it is going to come down to the inclusion of VR and focal length.

Ruud, I don't think he would be happy with the 70-300 VR....since he is looking at high-speed lenses, that one doesn't fit his needs...at least from what I can tell.

Just my opinion.



bcaltabiano
User currently offlineruudb From Netherlands, joined Jun 2005, 164 posts, RR: 5
Reply 20, posted (4 years 6 months 3 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 4129 times:

Quoting bcaltabiano (Reply 19):
Ruud, I don't think he would be happy with the 70-300 VR....since he is looking at high-speed lenses, that one doesn't fit his needs...at least from what I can tell.

It is fast got a motor build in and has VR2, it is simply a better option than the 80-400VR, you keep some money in your pocket and you will be able to buy a 300mm F4 in the end, which is really one of the best lenses around in my opinion.
But as he is looking for a zoom I can recommend it.

Ruud.


User currently offlineKereru From New Zealand, joined Jun 2003, 873 posts, RR: 45
Reply 21, posted (4 years 6 months 2 weeks 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 3977 times:

Go for the 80-400 VR lens it is compact with a big range of focal lengths to choose from and doesn't weigh your bag down too much. Sure it takes a bit of getting used to and needs a bit of patience but can return superb results with practice. I picked up a TC-201 2X converter second hand for $60 and have used it with the lens set on either 250 or 300 to give me focal lengths of 500 and 600 mm, manual focus so a bright sunny day is best but it worked well. You can always move on to the more expensive lens combinations later when you have more cash.

Colin   



Good things take Time.
User currently offlinesunilgupta From United States of America, joined Nov 2000, 783 posts, RR: 14
Reply 22, posted (4 years 6 months 2 weeks 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 3809 times:

Quoting sluger020889 (Reply 10):
Same here, blew the 80-400 out of the water in just about every category.

Care to elaborate? Did it blow the 80-400mm in the 300-400mm range  

You just have to know how to use the lens to its fullest potential (see my next reply).

Sunil


User currently offlinesunilgupta From United States of America, joined Nov 2000, 783 posts, RR: 14
Reply 23, posted (4 years 6 months 2 weeks 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 3807 times:

Larry, the text below should sound very familiar, but since you asked in a public forum I'll post my reply here too:

For me the 80-400mm VR is the ideal lens and my real workhorse lens. The 80-400 VR is not the sharpest lens in the world (but see below); however, it is very versatile and the only lens you need for 95% of aviation photography. I say this because I travel all the time and can't afford to carry around a lot of lenses. The lens should work just fine on the D80 as long as the D80 has the focusing motor in the body (which I think it does).

The 80-200 f2.8 is probably one of the sharpest zoom lenses you are going to find. I know that when you use that lens with the 1.4 t.c. the results are excellent. I don't know about the 1.7 however. The *big* problem with using this lens and a t.c. is that you have to take on and off the t.c. all the time - this is a real pain in the butt, not to mention that each time you remove the lens you have the potential to get dust on the sensor. If you only shoot at airports where 200mm is good enough then I would go for this lens; but in reality, at most airports you need longer range.

If you decide to get the 80-400mm (which I recommend), then you should always shoot with Aperture Priority and set the f-stop at 7.1. This lens is sharpest at f7.1 throughout the full zoom range. Of course, this means that you may need to vary the ISO settings and/or exposure compensation as lighting conditions change. I always keep the VR turned off unless I'm shooting in low light conditions. This saves your battery power. I would recommend that you pick up a dual battery grip for the D80 if you get this lens because it will (or course) give you room for another battery (more juice), but also helps to balance the camera against the weight of the 80-400.

Sunil


User currently offline757MDE From Colombia, joined Sep 2004, 1753 posts, RR: 6
Reply 24, posted (4 years 6 months 2 weeks 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 3760 times:

I got the 70-300VR just recently and I have to say I have been pleasantly surprised by it.
It's sharp, even if softish at the long end but still usable.
I've had two or three episodes of focus hunting but it usually focuses fast.

I have no experience with the other mentioned lens, so I can't speak about their defects or virtues but the 70-300VR sure is a very good lens in my opinion. I don't foresee changing it in the near future (now I need a good wide angle lens... any one can suggest anything?)



I gladly accept donations to pay for flight hours! This thing draws man...
25 NIKV69 : Yes it does, I switched from the 80-400VR to the 300 prime and with or without a 1.4TC it's not even close.
26 Post contains links and images sluger020889 : Sure, I'll elaborate. Of course it blew the 80-400 out of the water in the 300 to 400 range...that's the only range the lens has. When it comes to qu
27 Post contains images sunilgupta : My bad... I thought we were still talking about the 70-300 vs 80-400. I'll have to get my cranial optics checked again. There is nothing to discuss w
28 Post contains links and images cpd : As Joey mentioned - 300/4 is stunningly sharp: View Large View MediumPhoto © Chris P Denton I deliberately used my old camera for this photo. There a
29 sluger020889 : haha alrighty. Yeah a couple years ago i went from shooting mostly civilian operations to airshows, so i traded in the zoom for the prime. I do still
30 Post contains links and images NIKV69 : Ya think? View Large View MediumPhoto © Nicholas Vollaro Killer lens!
31 sunilgupta : Nice photos guys, but we have hi-jacked poor Larry's thread Fact of the matter is that on these photos which are resized, it is not possible to really
32 cpd : Still, for this purpose, as you say, even the 80-400 will be sufficient. I'd put larger images, but that makes them more useful for people who like to
33 NIKV69 : To the contrary, I mean if you sit there all day with the 80-400VR your going to get a lot less usable images if yor shooting departures and need to
34 sunilgupta : True, but you're not comparing apples to apples. The (my) 80-400 is pin sharp at 300mm f7.1. I usually don't have to delete a single shot for softnes
35 sluger020889 : I don't believe we've hijacked this thread, I see it as exposing another, equally affordable option, that may have not been originally considered. It
36 unattendedbag : There's nothing wrong with using a prime, as you have said. But, for someones first telephoto lens, I would suggest something with a little more rang
37 Post contains links sunilgupta : You know, funny thing is that I thought about these points when posting before and agree with you. But, at least in my case, I collect fleets of cert
38 Post contains images cpd : I agree, nothing wrong at all, except it costs a fortune. The 300/4 is more economical than the 70-200mm, and probably cheaper than the 80-200, I'm g
39 sluger020889 : I gotcha, but the 300 f4 is only 1100, and actually as I write this I just looked up the price and saw that it went up to 1400, that's unfortunate. I
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
"Buy Good Glass." Nikon Lenses... posted Mon Jan 21 2008 11:45:54 by Deradere
Nikon G Lenses posted Sat Jun 8 2002 11:06:39 by Eddgge
Cheap Nikon Ramp Lenses - 50mm F/1.8 Vs. 18-55VR posted Sat Jul 18 2009 08:44:50 by 2H4
Leaked Nikon Bodies And Lenses posted Wed Jul 8 2009 18:38:29 by Clickhappy
Nikon Announces 3 New Long Lenses posted Thu Aug 23 2007 15:49:59 by CalgaryBill
Nikon's 80-200mm 2.8 Lenses posted Mon Jun 19 2006 17:24:46 by LukasMako
Thoughts On The Nikon 80-400VR And Other Lenses? posted Tue Mar 22 2005 23:10:29 by AndyHunt
Nikon Vs. Nikon (VR Lenses) posted Mon Aug 30 2004 14:27:55 by Beechcraft
Lenses For My Nikon F5? posted Mon Jan 28 2002 09:58:17 by Alaskaairlines
Lenses For Nikon N90 posted Wed Jan 2 2002 22:11:22 by Alaskaairlines