Reading mode: Light Dark

70-200 vs 80-400, preference?

Go to last post
B

Bamboozler

Well-known member
Messages
176
Reaction score
0
Location
US
I see a lot of people opt for the 70-200 but rarely see the 80-400. Is there a reason why one is more popular? It seems that the 80-400 is a better deal considering zoom for the money. I know it's not an F2.8 but is that really enough reason to give up the extra 200mm?
 
I had been though the same dilema for a few weeks now, and believe it or not my local shop had both in stock. I tried both of them out in the store(this was last week). After much deliberation I went with the 70-200 and figured I would get a TC for the extra reach when needed.
-Jared
 
the 70-200 Sigma doesn't have OS, but the 80-400 Sigma does. This might or might not be a deal breaker for you. The 80-400 is also a heavy beast. The 80-400 is supposed to be a bit soft at 400, made up for by the OS, but then again, the 70-200 + 2X TC might be just as soft with camera shaek anyway.

The Nikkors on the other hand - well, that's just about money !

Cheers

Justin
Bamboozler said:
I see a lot of people opt for the 70-200 but rarely see the 80-400.
Is there a reason why one is more popular? It seems that the 80-400
is a better deal considering zoom for the money. I know it's not an
F2.8 but is that really enough reason to give up the extra 200mm?
Click to expand...
 
I've got a 70-200mm F2.8 APO DG ETC ETC Sigma and find it is as sharp as a tack, even with the aperture opened right up. I also got a 2x TC, which I havent really had to use yet. Fooling about with it though I've noticed you wouldn't want to try and get sharp images without a sturdy monopod when using the TC. The 70-200mm will get sharp images hand held.

--



My Gallery:
http://imageevent.com/raskill
 
This can be as easy a question to answer, as it can be a difficult one to answer.

If all you want is length... then the 80-400mm wins hands down. Especially at it's lower price. They are both VR series, however the difference comes in other areas other than focal length which makes the 70-200mm a more valuable lens, for a price of course.

I have seen some excellent photos with the 80-400mm, as well as the 70-200mm. The Bokeh of the 70-200mm is better than that of the 80-400mm in my opinion. Like night and day. So if Bokeh is your thang, the question is, am I willing to spend the extra money for better Bokeh?

f2.8 of the 70-200mm, lemme type that again, f2.8. Another question for yourself, will a stop or two "faster" be worth the extra money for the 70-200mm when compared to the 80-400mm?

Image quality, sharpness, etc. is better in my opinion with the 70-200mm, how much better, well that is personal opinion. So now you ask yourself is overall improved image quality and sharpness worth paying more money for this lens over the 80-400mm?

The reach, 400mm hard to get to with a 70-200mm, so we price out teleconverters, the 2x Nikon tele is in the price range of 435.00+shipping.

So the cost of the 70-200mm + the 2x tele is $1904.95 (including $100 rebate.) Making your 70-200mm VR a 140-400mm, you can figure out the crop factor! However your f2.8 is now increased by 2 stops and is now an f5.6 all the way across, glass quality is still excellent, however you are adding more glass with the tele. Still excellent Bokeh!. Still very sharp!

The cost of the 80-400mm VR is 1,329.95 (including $100 rebate) at f4.5-f5.6.

No matter what... there will be those times when you say, darn I wish I had an extra 200mm, and there will be times when you also wished you had the ability to drop down a couple of stops.

So... The real question is...

How much money do you have, and what are your needs :)

If it is any consolation, I bought the 70-200mmVR and the TC1.7 (1.7X) tele. Do I wish I had the 400mm, well actually no, I do wish that I had a 600mm as sometimes those birds will not cooperate and come down from the trees. Do I regret getting the 70-200mm VR? H$%^ No :)









--
http://www.photosbytom.com/gallery/

ICQ#36762366
 
IMHO the only thing they have (almost) in common is their price ("consumer" level). You'll find endless debates here about these two but in the end only 2 words remain :

The 70/200 is a "PEOPLE" lens (way too short for birds etc...)

The 80/400 is a "NATURE" lens (too slow to stop playing children, (almost) imp. to use indoors)

So it's still up to you to decide which suits you best. I have both : could'nt decide back then - still can't now ;-))

J. Bne
 
I debated recently about the same thing. I ended up getting the 80-400 VR because of its extra reach and I found a new one for a great price. ($1100.00 and - $100.00 rebate = $1000.00)

I am amazed by this lens. It's great to be able to hand hold a shot at 400mm! The VR works great. I do some times shoot motorsports and I was afraid of the focus speed, but on my D2h it is still acceptable. I do wish it was a faster lens. The f/2.8 would be nice in lower light situations. Here are a couple of shots I took over the weekend with the 80-400VR/D2h combo;





--
DAVE V.
'Of all the things I've lost, I miss my mind the most'



pbase supporter
http://www.pbase.com/dvan

Equipment list in profile.
 
Welll you guys haven't made my decision much easier! I've been planning on the 70-200 mostly but I've been second guessing myself. (I'm looking at the Nikkor lenses for those who were wondering).

I do more people photographer than nature (except landscapes, but that's what my 10.5mm is for) so I guess I'm still going to go with the 70-200 and maybe pick up a teleconverter if I need the extra reach. I'd rather get all the "fast" lenses I can with the most zoom possible. Once you get to 400mm fast is too expensive. How much is a 400mm f2.8? $8,000? No thanks.

I guess I do care about the speed after all. 70-200vr for me!

Thanks guys, you made my decision easier!
 
Where'd you find a new one for that price, if I may ask?

I have the 2-touch 80-200 f2.8 and while it's a fine lens, VR would help me so much. I've been going through the debate between the two VR zooms and still can't decide. $1100 might swing the deal toward 80-400 for me.

Thanks,

****:)
--
http://www.pbase.com/richardr
D70&C-2100UZ&C-5050Z&C-3000Z
PBase Supporter
 
****, I got it at Onecall. It was an "Open Box" special that still had the Nikon new warranty on it. It was the only one they had at that price. The lens is in perfect condition. They have other lenses with the same discount. You just have to check often.
--
DAVE V.
'Of all the things I've lost, I miss my mind the most'



pbase supporter
http://www.pbase.com/dvan

Equipment list in profile.
 
I have been told that the 70-200vr has higher quality optics - pretty much pro glass, while the 80-400 is more consumer grade.

Someone jump on me if Im wrong - this is just what Ive heard. I have no experience with the 80-400, but I have seen some great pictures with it.
Bamboozler said:
I see a lot of people opt for the 70-200 but rarely see the 80-400.
Is there a reason why one is more popular? It seems that the 80-400
is a better deal considering zoom for the money. I know it's not an
F2.8 but is that really enough reason to give up the extra 200mm?
Click to expand...
--
ShutterBugin
http://www.exposureproductions.smugmug.com

 
Shutterbugin said:
I have been told that the 70-200vr has higher quality optics -
pretty much pro glass, while the 80-400 is more consumer grade.

Someone jump on me if Im wrong - this is just what Ive heard. I
have no experience with the 80-400, but I have seen some great
pictures with it.
Click to expand...
I have to agree the 70-200 VR is an amazing lens. It is definitly on my wish list for next year. The 80-400 VR is also a pretty good lens. I think the only gripe most people have about it is that it isn't an AFS lens so the focus speed is limited. I am pleased with the performance of my 80-400 VR on my D2h and D50. it is really nice to have the range that this lens provides and the VR is amazing.

Here is a photo that I took a few weeks ago at 400mm hand held. Not a great shot by any means but I am pleased with it.



--
DAVE V.
'Of all the things I've lost, I miss my mind the most'



pbase supporter
http://www.pbase.com/dvan

Equipment list in profile.
 
constant aperature on the 200. Plus, I hear (and see) phenomenal image sharpness/quality. People seem to regard the 70-200 as one of the best lenses Nikon has ever produced.

And you can always get a 2x converter to make it an 140-400mm f/5.6 (I believe that's what it would turn into). Or get a 1.7 and I think it's an a f/4.

--
http://www.pbase.com/DigitalCMH
 
The VR 70-200 is one of the best Nikon zooms available. But it really depends what you need, 200mm or 400mm?

If your main thing is people, sport and indoor photography get the VR 70-200.

If you are after an affordable wildlife lens then go for the VR 80-400. The VR 80-400 is a little sharper than the VR 70-200 plus 2x teleconverter. You can even add a 1.4x teleconverter and have 560mm and keeping AF and VR in normal daylight situations. My VR 80-400 is tack sharp at 400mm wide open. Somebody mentioned the bokeh was better with the 70-200mm, because of bigger aperture. Yes this is true at 200mm, but not at 400mm, then the 80-400 have a very beautiful bokeh.



--
Ole Thorsen
http://www.pbase.com/ole_thorsen
  • OMNISCIENCE
Knowing what
thou knowest not
is in a sense
omniscience.
(Grook by Piet Hein)
 
Bamboozler said:
I see a lot of people opt for the 70-200 but rarely see the 80-400.
Is there a reason why one is more popular? It seems that the 80-400
is a better deal considering zoom for the money. I know it's not an
F2.8 but is that really enough reason to give up the extra 200mm?
Click to expand...
Depends entirely on what your shooting..

If it's faster wildlife...or dark zoom settings (maybe your little ones class play) the extra brightness combined with VR (f/2.8 us already fast...add VR and you can see why its so popular)

I personally have the 80-400VR. I do mostly landscape/nature photography on more static subjects....so if you think that is what you will end up shooting....then I hightly reccomend it.

Eventually I will add the 70-200 VR to my list of lenses...but till then...I bought the right one for what I shoot.

Here is a shot where I was able to isolate an interesting curve in the Grand Canyon...



And this one is from Glacier National Park:



Roman

--
http://www.pbase.com/romansphotos/

http://www.romanjohnston.com
 
The 70-200 is better than the 80-400 as far as optical quality...

Not sure I would rate the 80-400 VR as consumer grade glass though.

: )

Roman
Shutterbugin said:
Someone jump on me if Im wrong - this is just what Ive heard. I
have no experience with the 80-400, but I have seen some great
pictures with it.
Bamboozler said:
I see a lot of people opt for the 70-200 but rarely see the 80-400.
Is there a reason why one is more popular? It seems that the 80-400
is a better deal considering zoom for the money. I know it's not an
F2.8 but is that really enough reason to give up the extra 200mm?
Click to expand...
--
ShutterBugin
http://www.exposureproductions.smugmug.com

Click to expand...
--
http://www.pbase.com/romansphotos/

http://www.romanjohnston.com
 
everybody on these forums either has it or wants one. It's an excellent lens if you need AFS/constant 2.8 and 200mm is enough for your shooting needs. 80-400 often is called higher end "consumer" lens (mostly by people who never even used one) which IMHO isn't fair at all. It is a unique lens in terms of price/reach - unless you can afford 200-400vr (price- and weight-wise) there are simply no alternatives among Nikkors. Under 200mm at similar f stops it's almost as sharp as 70-200 (without great bokeh of 70-200 of course).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

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