Reading mode: Light Dark

70 200 vr or 80 400 vr?

Go to last post
M

muscle750

Leading Member
Messages
759
Reaction score
0
Location
gloucestershire, UK
Someone please advise to the decision that i cant make, I have the 70 200vr on order and is due in a week however the more i think about it would i be better with 400. i shoot all sorts. at the moment i have the following

D70
18 70
70 300nikon
85 1.8nikon
105mm 2.8 sigma
15mm 2.8 fisheye
sb800
sc29 cble
remote
manfrotto tripod and head

anyone else thought about this dilemma any issues with either lense seems strange to me that the 400 is cheaper than the 200.
any pics with the 400? anyone
 
I'm no expert opinion, but... I have the 70-200 VR and have never used the 80-400VR. In my opinion, the 70-200 2.8 is a better choice for a couple of reasons. First the 2.8 aperture which will give you more flexibility than the 80-400's slower speed, both for lighting conditions and the ability to blur focus on background objects (ie, shallow DOF). Also, the 70-200 is AF-S whereas the 80-400 is "only" AF. You could add the TC-17E (or TC-20E which gets less enthusiastic reviews) and have nearly the reach of the 70-200. That's my $.02
 
think u meant nearly the reach of the 400 did u not, nice to have a quick reply and must admit i had never thought of that option
looks like the 200 then.
 
Yep, I meant the reach of the 80-400. I'm sure you'll get other replies on both "sides of the aisle". There's hardly any mass agreement on these topics :-P.
 
that the 70-200VR + TC17 costs almost twice as much as the 80-400VR.

If money is no issue go with the 70-200VR + TC17 combo.

For what it's worth, I have just that......
--
That's my story and I'm stickin' to it!
 
muscle750 said:
Someone please advise to the decision that i cant make, I have the
70 200vr on order and is due in a week however the more i think
about it would i be better with 400. i shoot all sorts. at the
moment i have the following
Click to expand...
The 70-200 is the holy grail, able to leap tall buildings, stop speeding locomotives, and catch bullets in its lens hood, without breaking a sweat.

Only a maroon would buy the 80-400 instead of the 70-200. :-)

But, you wanted some 80-400 pics to look at;

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1030&message=13935657

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1030&message=13909765

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1030&message=13313331

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1030&message=12917596

--
my gallery of so-so photos
http://www.pbase.com/kerrypierce/root
 
GTakacs said:
that the 70-200VR + TC17 costs almost twice as much as the 80-400VR.

If money is no issue go with the 70-200VR + TC17 combo.

For what it's worth, I have just that......
--
That's my story and I'm stickin' to it!
Click to expand...
Huh ?? Where are you buying your gear from ? :)

In the UK the price of both these lenses is very similar.
 
I guess you are waiting on one of the retailers to get the 70-200 VR in stock as I am.

Kerry's pics with the 80-400 are always fantastic.

I played with the following lenses when pondering the telephoto zoom:

70-200 vr
80-400 vr
80-200 (AF)
70-200 (sigma 2.8)

All of them took really great photos, but I decided I liked the nikon 70-200 vr and 80-200 the best. The VR definitely gets you more keepers as camera shake becomes an issue once the sun starts to go down. AF-S is a non issue for me personally.

I was thinking from the specs that the 80-400 vr was going to be smaller than the rest. It is apparently shorter, but seems much bigger and heavier than the 70-200 and 80-200 when you actually play with them. Actually the 70-200 VR is much smaller than I expected. It is very nicely built.

I don't think I will use much over 200mm, so that is why I ended up dropping the 80-400. If you think you will use 201mm+, than the 80-400 may be the way to go. Teleconverters sound like a real pain in the ass to me.

daniel
 
annoy your bank account, get both. ok ok, I would do the 70-200 fast is fast. having siad that i have the bigma so the 80-400 doesnt do it for me.
--

Anything said 6 or 8 months ago is inadmissible in an argument. All comments become null and void after 7 days.
 
I see you have a 70-300.

When you use that, do you find yourself at 300 a lot of the time, and wish it would just go a little further? If so, sounds like you need the 80-400.

On the other hand...if your 70-300 shots are at all places in the range, and you just wish they were sharper, the 70-200 VR will make your life complete.

If you don't use the 70-300 much, do you really need a long zoom?

Ken Plotkin
 
More expensive and heavier to lug around than the 70-200mm plus TC and it doesn't have VR which may/maynot bother you ... e.g. if you are shooting fast for sports and/or monopodding it for weight/stability. BUT it gives you f2.8 with its DOF advantages at 300mm ( that may be more important to some folks than the light gathering capability), and it gives you TC options to get to 400mm +.

My long kit will be a new 120-300mm (plus 1.4 TC as needed) for lacrosse and my 1 yr old 80-200mm f2.8 for hockey (until I can trade up to 70-200mm VR ... primarily for the AFS but also to gain the VR for non-sports).
--
Marabou Muddler
 
Nikon 80-400VR: $1330 (after rebate)

Nikon 70-200VR:$1470 (after rebate)

Nikon TC17eII: $409

So the 70-200+TC17 combo is just shy of $2000 while the other one can be had for $1330. It might not be half but sure is 2/3.

Prices are off of B&H as of today.....

--
That's my story and I'm stickin' to it!
 
I actually did buy the 80-400 instead of the 70-200, but allow me to explain! I think it depends on what you need. I do most of my photography while travelling, and I am constantly changing lenses on the fly. As such, I didn't want to mess around with teleconverters which, at the long end on a 70-200 will result in a minimum aperature closer to the 80-400 in any event. I think the 80-400 is a great lens - by no means a 70-200 but very good nonetheless. In particular I've found the range to be really useful. It is also lighter in my travel bag than a 70-200 (although not by much).

Another clarification, though, is that I have a 180 2.8 ED lens, which is absolutely outstanding - so I figured if I want to use a fast telephoto within the same range as the 70-200, I'll just use that.

YMMV. I think it depends on what you use your lenses for. I have no regrets buying the 80-400. There will always be better lenses....
 
Tom Patten said:
I actually did buy the 80-400 instead of the 70-200, but allow me
to explain! I think it depends on what you need.
Click to expand...
Hi Tom,

My post was tongue-in-cheek. I did the same as you. :-)

I firmly believe in your last sentence above. There's no doubt that the 70-200vr is a better lens, between 70 and 200mm, but I don't use that range nearly as much as I do the longer focal lengths. Of course, there are other factors as well, which seems to often get lost in these discussions. :)

--
my gallery of so-so photos
http://www.pbase.com/kerrypierce/root
 
True, but although it costs twice as much, you get double the versatility and f/2.8 to 200mm, which you wouldn't have no matter how much you'd save on the 80-400mm lens.

Julio
 
No matter what telephoto lens you have, you are usually shooting it at it's long limit.

When I use my 70-300, I shoot it at 200-300

When I use my 70-200 f/2.8, I shoot it at 150-200 for the most part

When I use my Sigma 50-500, I am usually shooting it at 400-500mm

Guess I'm ready for the 600mm...

LOL

Julio
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

sequal
Nikon 70-200 f/2.8 Recommendations
Replies
6
Views
3K
Ryan Schwartz
Ryan Schwartz
M
Z 70-200 and 1.4 TC
Replies
14
Views
23K
Mike Arledge
M
N
Anyone try Tamron 70-200 2.8 G2 AND Nikon 70-200 Z lens on Z8?
Replies
0
Views
400
net1994
N
MJ_Photo38
What is the best value wide aperture telephoto zoom?
2
Replies
22
Views
4K
Van Griff
V
A
Which tele for Madagascar? 150 - 600 eq. or 225 - 900 eq.?
Replies
2
Views
873
mreynolds767
mreynolds767

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top