Sponsor Message:
Aviation Photography Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Nikon 70-200 F2.8 W/ 2TC Or 80-400VRII?  
User currently offlineyowgangsta From Brazil, joined Feb 2005, 31 posts, RR: 0
Posted (1 year 7 months 3 weeks 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 7251 times:

I currently have a D300 paired with a 70-300, but want the extra reach.

I have a bunch of options in my head at the moment, but I don't know which is better:
1) Upgrade to a D7100 and crop my photos
2) Get the new 80-400VRII
3) The 70-200 f2.8 with a 2x Teleconverter
4) The 70-200 f4 with 2x TC + D7100 for compability shooting at f8.

I'm just wondering how the AF is affected (slowed) when paired with a 2x TC. Any experiences?

I didn't like the first gen 80-400 because I found the AF was too slow, and just wondering if a 70-200 with 2x would be even slower. Like to hear what you guys think is the best bang for the buck conscious.

8 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineSNATH From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 3247 posts, RR: 22
Reply 1, posted (1 year 7 months 3 weeks 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 7225 times:

I know some folks who actually like the 70-200mm 2.8 VR II + TCs (either 1.4x or 2x) combo. Personally, I had terrible luck with it. The TCs work great on my 300mm 2.8 VR II but I've been getting sub-optimal results on the 70-200mm (both in terms of AF and in terms of sharpness / contrast).

Out of the options you listed above, getting the 80-400mm VR II is probably the best given that you'll get better range (on the wide end) compared to the 70-200mm + 2x TC, better IQ, particularly wide open (even on the 300mm I stop down to f/8 with the 2x TC), and I assume better AF performance.

The main reason to go with the 70-200mm is if you're going to shoot it without a TC at its max aperture.

Tony



Nikon: we don't want more pixels, we want better pixels.
User currently offlineSNATH From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 3247 posts, RR: 22
Reply 2, posted (1 year 7 months 3 weeks 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 7218 times:

PS This link should be of interest:

http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2013...-vs-70-200-vr-ii-and-2x-comparison



Nikon: we don't want more pixels, we want better pixels.
User currently onlineptrjong From Netherlands, joined Mar 2005, 4001 posts, RR: 18
Reply 3, posted (1 year 7 months 3 weeks 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 7215 times:

TC 1.4 x works fine with both the 70-200mm f/2.8 and the 300 mm f/4 prime in my opinion. I'd recommend the latter combination for affordable quality, although admittedly without zoom you'll sometimes miss a shot.

Peter 



The only difference between me and a madman is that I am not mad (Salvador Dali)
User currently offlinemegatop412 From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 316 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (1 year 7 months 3 weeks 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 7180 times:

As is often said on here, it depends on what you want to do with your images.

If you want to increase your chances of getting shots accepted here, a naked 70-200mm or one with a 1.4x TC seems to be a great combination.

If you are willing to sacrifice a bit of IQ for practicality, the 80-400mmVRII is the lens to shoot with. Although, everything I've read so far about this new lens is that it is quite sharp and may not need as much massaging in post as the old 80-400mm did.

My plans are to go with this new 80-400mm once it becomes a bit more affordable, as I shoot for getting a nice photo for myself rather than worrying about acceptance rates.


User currently offlineyowgangsta From Brazil, joined Feb 2005, 31 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (1 year 7 months 3 weeks 5 days ago) and read 7164 times:

Quoting SNATH (Reply 2):
PS This link should be of interest:

Thanks, it helped!

Quoting SNATH (Reply 1):
getting sub-optimal results on the 70-200mm (both in terms of AF and in terms of sharpness / contrast).

Out of the options you listed above, getting the 80-400mm VR II is probably the best
Quoting megatop412 (Reply 4):
this new lens is that it is quite sharp

My biggest fear is that sub-optimal results and feeling jipped, and everyone seems to rave about this new 80-400. The only thing that disappoints me is how much more expensive it is compared to its predecessor!


User currently offlineyerbol From Kazakhstan, joined Feb 2010, 231 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (1 year 7 months 3 weeks 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 7123 times:

New 80-400VRII    70-200 f2.8 with a 2x Tele =    70-200 f2.8 with a 2x Tele
And it will fit nicely to your new full frame    in the future.

Yerbol



With best regards from Almaty
User currently offlinealevik From Canada, joined Mar 2009, 1070 posts, RR: 9
Reply 7, posted (1 year 7 months 3 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 6985 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
HEAD SCREENER

The old 80-400 did just fine for me over the years, many of my images here were taken with that trusty lens on full frame sensors, even extremely low light panning shots. Perhaps a case of a bad example or operator error for those that can't get results out of that lens good enough for here. I've never had to "massage" those files anymore than from my 70-200 or 600 prime, even when I've shot right out at 400mm.

I have picked up a new 80-400. It does focus faster but is larger and heavier. I'm sure on some lens chart you can tell the difference in quality between the new and old, but if I put two aviation images shot with each lens side by side, you'd have a 50% chance of picking the one that was shot by the new lens. Frankly I'm still partial to the old 80-400.

Compared to the 70-200 with 1.4TC for aviation photography, the 80-400 is my choice. For my indoor sports photography, however, the 70-200 is the best. If aviation is the main subject, the old 80-400 would be a bargain used. If you can't good aviation images with that lens, it probably isn't the lens fault  



Improvise, adapt, overcome.
User currently offlineyowgangsta From Brazil, joined Feb 2005, 31 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 6 days ago) and read 6923 times:

Quoting alevik (Reply 7):
Frankly I'm still partial to the old 80-400

Interesting! I used the old 80-400, but on a D70 which seemed to take too long to focus.

I'm actually more concerned with focusing speed, but if an old 80-400 + D300 or D7100 does the trick, it certainly is another option to consider - and cheaper at that!

Quoting alevik (Reply 7):
If you can't good aviation images with that lens, it probably isn't the lens fault

Totally agree... nor the camera's!   


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...
Nikon 80-200 F2.8D ED-N Vs Sigma 70-200 F2.8 EX? posted Tue Apr 1 2003 00:02:45 by Richie777
Sigma Or Canon 70-200 F2.8? posted Thu Feb 2 2006 18:25:30 by Morvious
Sigma 70-200 F2.8/1.4x Teleconverter posted Sun Aug 12 2012 05:33:58 by evall95
The New Nikon 70-200 Vr II posted Fri Jan 22 2010 05:01:15 by Damien846
Canon 70-200 F2.8 VS. F4 Is? posted Sun May 3 2009 16:12:07 by RonS
For Sale: Canon 70-200 F2.8 L Is posted Mon Apr 2 2007 20:50:29 by Mongorat
Canon 70-200 F2.8 +2x Vs 100-400 posted Wed Nov 30 2005 23:42:06 by Donder10
Sigma 70-200 F2.8 EX HSM & 1.4x TC Whats It Like? posted Fri Oct 8 2004 09:29:08 by Ua935
Canon 70-200 F2.8 USM posted Mon Oct 4 2004 21:30:12 by Jat74l
Canon: 100-400 LIS Vesus 70-200 F2.8 LIS + 2x posted Thu Feb 19 2004 14:51:18 by Glennstewart