-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
70-200 or 80-400
- Thread starter Dragnett
- Start date
I choose the 70-200 VR with the 1.7 TC as a IMO good compromise between reach and quality. Then you have a very flexible set up with high quality and AFS focusing.
--
Updated jan 9: [ http://tri-xstories.blogspot.com/ ]
http://www.pbase.com/interactive
My 80-400 VR has better IQ than my 70-200 VR with TC20E. Of course, in the 80-200 range, the 70-200 is the winner.
The 70-200 with TC14E is a bit sharper than the 80-400, but the combo only reaches to 280mm, and only has less than a 3x zoom range.
I find the 70-200 handles 90% of my telephoto needs. The other 10% (sports, wildlife, far stuff) is handled better by the 80-400.
The 70-200 with TC14E is a bit sharper than the 80-400, but the combo only reaches to 280mm, and only has less than a 3x zoom range.
I find the 70-200 handles 90% of my telephoto needs. The other 10% (sports, wildlife, far stuff) is handled better by the 80-400.
John_of_LA
Senior Member
Due to weight and size. I tried out the 1.7x + 70-200 VR but it's way too heavy for me.
IMHO, 80-400 VR is quite sharp but like all VR lens, you need to get familiarized with VR function before you know how to manage to get good result out of it. I went to AK and use 80-400 for wildlife and love the lens. (but wish I have longer reach sometime though).
Try it out at the store and see what you like. 70-200 alone is bigger and heavier than 80-400. Not counting the TC weight.
IMHO, 80-400 VR is quite sharp but like all VR lens, you need to get familiarized with VR function before you know how to manage to get good result out of it. I went to AK and use 80-400 for wildlife and love the lens. (but wish I have longer reach sometime though).
Try it out at the store and see what you like. 70-200 alone is bigger and heavier than 80-400. Not counting the TC weight.
Jimm
Senior Member
If weight and size is a criteria, the 70-200 is a loser. There was a thread on one forum on how intimidating the 70-200 can be when you're carrying it around. It fits in now reasonable size bag.
--
D100, 18-200 VR,
Coolpix 8800, Nikon 1.7 Tele and .8 Wide Angle, Nikon 5T & 6T, SB600
--
D100, 18-200 VR,
Coolpix 8800, Nikon 1.7 Tele and .8 Wide Angle, Nikon 5T & 6T, SB600
G Rash
Veteran Member
I have the 80-400 VR and the 80-200 f/2.8. Were I doing it again, I think I'd go with the 70-200 and a TC. I do like the 80-400 a great deal and have used it a lot on hikes and some for kids' sports such as hunter/jumper horse back riding. But I've used the 80-200 with a TC a great deal, and would really like to have that combo with AF-S and VR, thus the 70-200 would be my choice if I were doing it over.
--
Good shooting,
Gene
North Carolina
--
Good shooting,
Gene
North Carolina
EstorilM
Well-known member
You all are CRAZY, how many of you have actually used a decent tele zoom like the 80-200 AF-D of AF-S AND the 80-400? Much less the 70-200 VR we're talking about here.
There is absolutely no comparison between the two, the 80-400 is an absolute pig - there was one test that found the focusing system requires FOUR TIMES the rotation to achieve a certain variation (in otherworse, that motor spins and spins and spins, and it's also using your camera's internal focus motor instead of one built into the lens.) The focus accuracy of the 80-400 is also poor; this lens LOVES to "hunt" given the SLIGHTEST similarity in contrast.
Before I go any further it should be noted that I've used two different 80-400s on bodies from a D70s to a D2Hs.
Once the lens hunts, that slow focus gear ratio takes FOREVER to get the lens back on target.
It's an absolute no-no for sports photography, nothing's more annoying than missing a shot cause the lens can't pick out a subject.
On the other side of the fence you have the 70-200 which is an absolute FERRARI compared to the Geo Metro of the 80-400.
Focus is FAR faster, FAR more accurate, and totally silent.
As far as the physical size of the lens goes, the 70-200 is a clear winner in that department as well - because it's a fixed-geometry lens, which allows the focus and zoom rings to be placed in a much more balanced position (versus the awkward position on the 80-400, in addition to it's weird / ugly design that sticks out 6" when you zoom in.)
I could go on forever, it's sharper and all other optical specs are much better in the VR (everything from distortion to CA, bokeh, etc.)
Shell out the extra $$ for a TC (the type IIs that allow for AF-S and VR operation) and you have a no-brainer.
There is absolutely no comparison between the two, the 80-400 is an absolute pig - there was one test that found the focusing system requires FOUR TIMES the rotation to achieve a certain variation (in otherworse, that motor spins and spins and spins, and it's also using your camera's internal focus motor instead of one built into the lens.) The focus accuracy of the 80-400 is also poor; this lens LOVES to "hunt" given the SLIGHTEST similarity in contrast.
Before I go any further it should be noted that I've used two different 80-400s on bodies from a D70s to a D2Hs.
Once the lens hunts, that slow focus gear ratio takes FOREVER to get the lens back on target.
It's an absolute no-no for sports photography, nothing's more annoying than missing a shot cause the lens can't pick out a subject.
On the other side of the fence you have the 70-200 which is an absolute FERRARI compared to the Geo Metro of the 80-400.
Focus is FAR faster, FAR more accurate, and totally silent.
As far as the physical size of the lens goes, the 70-200 is a clear winner in that department as well - because it's a fixed-geometry lens, which allows the focus and zoom rings to be placed in a much more balanced position (versus the awkward position on the 80-400, in addition to it's weird / ugly design that sticks out 6" when you zoom in.)
I could go on forever, it's sharper and all other optical specs are much better in the VR (everything from distortion to CA, bokeh, etc.)
Shell out the extra $$ for a TC (the type IIs that allow for AF-S and VR operation) and you have a no-brainer.
glideslopes
Senior Member
Really depends on your needs. IMO, I would not go past the 1.7 TC on a 70-200VR. You need to look at images with the 1.7TC and see if they are acceptable to you.
The 80-400 is a great lens, however, if you need to track fast objects you will be frustrated. I know,... there are panning masters that shoot with it, but in all honesty there is no substitute for an AFS lens. You need the 70-200 AFS for sports. If you really want to work on technique you can use a pre-focusing technique with the 80-400. You'll still end up missing allot of shots.
If your not shooting the above the 80-400 can't be beat for all around use. You need 400mm for wildlife, as long as it's slow. : )
Enjoy.
Refining my Second Skin
The 80-400 is a great lens, however, if you need to track fast objects you will be frustrated. I know,... there are panning masters that shoot with it, but in all honesty there is no substitute for an AFS lens. You need the 70-200 AFS for sports. If you really want to work on technique you can use a pre-focusing technique with the 80-400. You'll still end up missing allot of shots.
If your not shooting the above the 80-400 can't be beat for all around use. You need 400mm for wildlife, as long as it's slow. : )
Enjoy.
--
Refining my Second Skin
EstorilM
Well-known member
+1 on all of that.
I've also had issues with a semi-sticky zoom ring on the 80-400, as I like to zoom as I shoot.. this is impossible with the 80-400s I've used as they tilt my entire camera as they kinda grab then the friction lets the ring free and it tilts back - its really subtle but when you're zoomed in on a framed subject it screws EVERYTHING up and gets extremily annoying.
I've also had issues with a semi-sticky zoom ring on the 80-400, as I like to zoom as I shoot.. this is impossible with the 80-400s I've used as they tilt my entire camera as they kinda grab then the friction lets the ring free and it tilts back - its really subtle but when you're zoomed in on a framed subject it screws EVERYTHING up and gets extremily annoying.
Richard D Jacobs
Veteran Member
I have both lenses and the 80-400 is very sharp and I like wildlife and birds. The 70-200 is of course very sharp and fast focusing but lacks the reach.
I tried it with the 2X TC and found the focusing to be slower and the len and TC to be almost a pound heavier than the 80-400.
So if you want to get good wildlife shots get the 80-400 and if fast focus is an issue get the 70-200 or get both.
Richard
I tried it with the 2X TC and found the focusing to be slower and the len and TC to be almost a pound heavier than the 80-400.
So if you want to get good wildlife shots get the 80-400 and if fast focus is an issue get the 70-200 or get both.
Richard
G Rash
Veteran Member
Yep, I regularly use and own the 80-400, 80-200, 300mm f/4 AF-S and the 28-70 AF-S. Read my post, I said I'd get the 70-200 VR w/ a TC were I doing it over again. Does that make me CRAZY?
Some folks get a little too carried away stating their opinions.
--
Good shooting,
Gene
North Carolina
EstorilM
Well-known member
Sorry that wasn't in reference to you, there was a series of people shooting down the 70-200 compared to the 80-400 - based soley on weight and some other stupid things. I mean come on people that's actually a fairly compact lens for a fixed aperture internal focus/zoom lens.
G Rash
Veteran Member
I agree the weight is not really an issue for me. I usually throw any telephoto on a monopod whether it has VR or not if the use permits it. I believe the 70-200 only weighs about 0.2 more pounds than the 80-400. Not a big deal to me. The 80-400 is a compromise lens, putting a nice range and VR in a relatively small and affordable package, especially compared with other Nikkors that give you that kind of reach. But it is slow in both aperture and focus speed, and in sports shooting you simply can't make up for the slow aperture without making some compromise, and you miss some shots due to focus speed. Bumping the ISO too high gets ugly on my D2H if I end up with any underexposed shots or dark shadow areas, thus I really appreciate an f/2.8 zoom.
--
Good shooting,
Gene
North Carolina
--
Good shooting,
Gene
North Carolina
Howdy Gene - You're absolutely right about the weight, there really isn't any difference in weight between the 80-400 and the 70-200 (technically only about 2\10ths of a pound!). People just associate the 70-200 with being grossly heavy, without really checking for themselves exactly how much a 70-200 actually weighs.
300VR f/2.8 = 2870 grams/ 6.32 pounds
200VR f/2 = 2900 grams/ 6.39 pounds
70-200VR f/2.8 = 1395 grams (without foot), 1470 grams (with foot) / 3.07 & 3.24 pounds respectively.
80-400VR f/4.5 = 1360 grams (without tripod foot)/ 2.99 pounds
200-400VR f/4.0 = 3275grams with protective lens (3150 without) / 7.22 & 6.94 pounds respectively.
Truth be told, it seems that all the heavy hitter lenses are basically the same weight as their respective brethren. Example(s): The 80-400 is at a 'like weight' as the 70-200.
The 300VR, and 200VR are pretty much the same weight. The 200-400VR is about a pound heavier than its aforementioned brethren.
Something about that 300VR that raises my eyebrow...
I had the 70-200 (which I dearly love) w/out a TC, when I spotted about 6 riders on horses galloping across Virginia's Beach.. I might of got a good shot with the range of the 80-400! Can't win'm all I guess..
darn. (chuckle)
Teila K. Day
300VR f/2.8 = 2870 grams/ 6.32 pounds
200VR f/2 = 2900 grams/ 6.39 pounds
70-200VR f/2.8 = 1395 grams (without foot), 1470 grams (with foot) / 3.07 & 3.24 pounds respectively.
80-400VR f/4.5 = 1360 grams (without tripod foot)/ 2.99 pounds
200-400VR f/4.0 = 3275grams with protective lens (3150 without) / 7.22 & 6.94 pounds respectively.
Truth be told, it seems that all the heavy hitter lenses are basically the same weight as their respective brethren. Example(s): The 80-400 is at a 'like weight' as the 70-200.
The 300VR, and 200VR are pretty much the same weight. The 200-400VR is about a pound heavier than its aforementioned brethren.
Something about that 300VR that raises my eyebrow...
I had the 70-200 (which I dearly love) w/out a TC, when I spotted about 6 riders on horses galloping across Virginia's Beach.. I might of got a good shot with the range of the 80-400! Can't win'm all I guess..
darn. (chuckle)
Teila K. Day
The 80-400mm VR lens is not a silent wave motor. It is much slower focusing. The 70-200mm VR lens is pro level zoom glass. The 80-400mm VR lens is more of a high end consumer lens. Either one does not replace the other.
For reach in a consumer level setup, I use the 80-400mm VR with a Kenko 3x teleconverter. On a digital body, that gets you in the range of 2000mm!
--
Photography http://www.garymayo.com Body Arts http://www.guns2roses.com
Speak ill of no persons and expect the same courteous treatment from all others.
For reach in a consumer level setup, I use the 80-400mm VR with a Kenko 3x teleconverter. On a digital body, that gets you in the range of 2000mm!
--
Photography http://www.garymayo.com Body Arts http://www.guns2roses.com
Speak ill of no persons and expect the same courteous treatment from all others.
John_of_LA
Senior Member
Well, mostly, it depends on what you want. I state heavier + bulkier with TC.
I owned 80-200 AFD and a Tokina 80-200 in the past. I switch to 80-400 and never look back. I think it does fit my style of shooting better than the 200s.
When I get older, I tend to be more lazy to carry stuff. I shoot with 70-200 (no TC) for a week and the focus speed is much faster than my 400. But, use focus limiter on the 400 helps improve the speed but still not comparable to the 70-200.
Well, IMHO anyway
John
I owned 80-200 AFD and a Tokina 80-200 in the past. I switch to 80-400 and never look back. I think it does fit my style of shooting better than the 200s.
When I get older, I tend to be more lazy to carry stuff. I shoot with 70-200 (no TC) for a week and the focus speed is much faster than my 400. But, use focus limiter on the 400 helps improve the speed but still not comparable to the 70-200.
Well, IMHO anyway
John
Kerry Pierce
Forum Pro
Actually, there are more than a few people that have used both lenses. For example, I own both the 70-200vr and the 80-400.
The 70-200vr is certainly not the be all, end all, for lenses. I've got a sigma 70-200 that will give it a very good run, especially for the money. The only really significant difference between the 2, is the VR.
I'll gladly take that bet, Estor, any time you like, at any price you want to name. We'll do all hand held shots at 300-400mm. I'll show you where your pig wallows with your 70-200vr and 2x TC.
There is not only a good comparison between the 2 lenses, the 80-400 is a lot better than you appear to think. I don't believe you've ever used one or if you did, you never bothered to learn how to use it properly.
If anyone is crazy in this thread, maybe it's you.
--
my gallery of so-so photos
http://www.pbase.com/kerrypierce/root
Sorry, stupid question here! I have the 80-400 and am contemplating getting a 70-200 (Sigma). Does the F2.8 give such a shallow DOF that you have to stop down quite a bit to get a lot of a shot in focus, thus losing all the advantages of the fast lens?
Thanks,
Thanks,
Kerry Pierce
Forum Pro
It's not a stupid question, but it's one that is very difficult to answer. DOF is determined by a number of factors, magnification (generally focal length), distance to subject and viewing/print size.
At 200mm, you'll have more apparent DOF at f/2.8 at 30ft subject distance than you will have at 10ft subject distance. IOW, the closer you are to the subject, at the same focal length, the more shallow the DOF.
There are a number of good tutorials on the subject on the net, if you google for them, you'll see a lot of easy to understand info.
As for having constant f/2.8, it's very useful for subject isolation and better focus capability in lower lighting conditions.
But, in general terms, the answer to your question is yes, if you want more DOF in the photo, you'll have to use smaller apertures at the longer focal lengths.
--
my gallery of so-so photos
http://www.pbase.com/kerrypierce/root
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum