yowgangsta From Brazil, joined Feb 2005, 31 posts, RR: 0 Posted (1 year 11 months 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 7794 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.
SNATH From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 3250 posts, RR: 22
Reply 1, posted (1 year 11 months 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 7769 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.
Nikon: we don't want more pixels, we want better pixels.
ptrjong From Netherlands, joined Mar 2005, 4048 posts, RR: 18
Reply 3, posted (1 year 11 months 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 7759 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.
The only difference between me and a madman is that I am not mad (Salvador Dali)
megatop412 From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 319 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (1 year 11 months 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 7724 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.
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!
alevik From Canada, joined Mar 2009, 1112 posts, RR: 9
Reply 7, posted (1 year 10 months 4 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 7529 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