70-200 or 80-400

tcp001 said:

Thank you Kerry, I agree. And I will add my usual comment that the
focus speed is greatly improved by using the limiter switch.

Click to expand...

Of course, that is true, which is part and parcel to understanding the proper use of the lens.

There's only one zoom lens that might significantly outperform the 80-400 and that's the 200-400vr. I say might, because I don't own one and don't have any idea how well it performs hand held. I suspect that there are few people that could use it hand held for long periods of time, while shooting a lot of photos.

Even then, the 200-400 is not as versatile, hugely more expensive and at 7.2lbs, more than twice the weight of the 80-400.

--
my gallery of so-so photos
http://www.pbase.com/kerrypierce/root

Linda:

As Kerry said, the answer as to whether f/2.8 gives you too shallow a depth of field for a shot is "it depends". If zoomed to 200mm and using f/2.8, a shot focused at 12 feet has a depth of field of slightly less than 1.5 inches. That is very shallow and could certainly be a problem depending on your subject and how accurately your focus is placed. At 30 feet, the depth of field increases to about 9 inches, and at 50 feet it increases to over 2 feet. At 100 feet, the DOF increases to about 8.5 feet. While I often want more depth of field than f/2.8 offers at closer distances, it is very nice to have it available.

--
Good shooting,

Gene
North Carolina

Thanks for your responses, I thought I'd posted a reply before, but I guess the heat here must be getting to me!! The 80-400 is on my camera most of the time and I'm a bit unsure how much use the faster lens would get. I am not into sports shooting although I have to admit the 80-400 is limiting if the light gets bad. I have used my 150 macro lens as a telephoto but do notice the lack of zoom, maybe I'm just getting lazy, but the zooms are so versatile!!

Since this discussion has been repeated hundreds of times but everyone seems to be taking it easy this time, I will dare to ask another question of the same style:

I'm about to order the 70-200VR with a Nikon (el expensivo) TC. Is the 2X TC really that bad? or should I buy the 1.7? The 1.4 is out of the question. I don't want to spend $460 for just 1.4X

Thanks and sorry

I don't know about the 1.7 first hand, but the pictures I have seen it take w/ the 70-200vr (looking through the pbase collection) makes it look like it can take sharper pictures than the 2x tc I use on my 70-200vr.

That said, I got the TC20e (not the newer TC20e II) from KEH in EX+ condition for half the cost of the TC20e II new and I think that is a better value than paying full price for the 1.7.

Disclaimer, I use a tc on the 70-200vr because I value the 70-200vr's capabilities by itself before I value its capabilities with a tc attached. If I was only interested in the long end (200 and up) I would have probably chose different (Nikon 300 f4, Sigma 100-300 f4, etc.)

-Suntan

Kerry Pierce said:

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.

Click to expand...

I agree with that. I have owned both (used to own the Sigma, and later acquired the Nikon for the VR). Yeah, the Nikon's bokeh is better, and it's probably slightly more sharp, but in real world use the Sigma's IQ is very, very good and it's no slouch in the AF department either, especially for practically half the cost of the VR. For me, the most compelling reason to acquire the Nikon was for the VR.

My .02.

Linda F said:

Thanks for your responses, I thought I'd posted a reply before, but
I guess the heat here must be getting to me!! The 80-400 is on my
camera most of the time and I'm a bit unsure how much use the
faster lens would get. I am not into sports shooting although I
have to admit the 80-400 is limiting if the light gets bad. I have
used my 150 macro lens as a telephoto but do notice the lack of
zoom, maybe I'm just getting lazy, but the zooms are so versatile!!

Click to expand...

Yes, for lots of shooting situations, a zoom is, at the very least, extremely convenient.

Here's what you'd get, in general terms, with the 70-200 f/2.8. You'd gain a minimum of 1.3 stops of light at the short end and 2 stops of light at the long end. That is very beneficial for lower light level shooting for both keeping your shutter speeds up and for AF purposes. But, there is a limit to that benefit for AF. As light levels drop, so does contrast, which makes AF more problematic. You'll have better AF for sure, but it's not a miracle worker.

It also gives you the ability to have more subject isolation, via more shallow DOF, if that's something you want in your photo.

You also pay for that by having a larger, heavier lens. Fast lenses require large optics and that glass is heavy.

With the sigma, you don't have VR, which means you have to use better technique and keep your shutter speeds up a little higher to compensate for the lack of VR. Otherwise, it's an excellent lens. The AF speed is very fast with the HSM motor, which makes things easier for a certain percentage of shots and/or certain types of shooting.

I'd suggest playing around with your 150, which I assume is the sigma 150 f/2.8, at the f/2.8 setting. The AF on that lens is probably slower than the 70-200, but it will give you an idea of what you can expect for AF speed and more importantly, what f/2.8 can and can't do for you as an f/2.8 telephoto.

The sigma 70-200 can be used very successfully in lower light levels, if you use good technique, especially with flash. But, it can't compete head to head with the 70-200VR in that area. The VR is very effective and is worth the extra expense, to a lot of people.

If you decide you want a 70-200 and can't afford the nikkor, don't worry about it, just learn to use the sigma. It will give you a lot of capability.

--
my gallery of so-so photos
http://www.pbase.com/kerrypierce/root

I too have both lenses and find both have their preferred use. I use the 70-200 for sports along with my D2Hs. I use the 80-400 for wildlife with my D2X. Find both are excellent lenses.
--
Karel

Barry McLaurin said:

the VR. For me, the most compelling reason to acquire the Nikon was
for the VR.

Click to expand...

Yes, that's precisely the reason I obtained the nikkor, Barry. Being pragmatic, the VR brings enough extra capability to make it worth the extra expense to me. But, I'm leaning more and more on the monopod/tripod use than I ever did before, so I may have outsmarted myself.

--
my gallery of so-so photos
http://www.pbase.com/kerrypierce/root

i got the 300/4 last month and 2 days ago got the 70-200 & the new 1.4 TC for AFS lens
so now I have 4 lenses

the 300/4 can be a 420/5.6 and it's very nice, even in somewhat low light (shady backyard)

--
Thanks
Randy

randyr.smugmug.com

Kerry,

I appreciate your very helpful and informative reply. Yes I do have the Sigma 150. I will take your advice and use the 150 as a general telephoto for a while to get some feeling for the results you can get. I managed to try a 70-200 locally yesterday and got some very sharp results but I find trying lenses in a store or outside in the street a little difficult as a judgement basis as I don't tend to shoot that type of thing anyway.

I will go for the Sigma if I take the plunge as I am still doubtful about the amount of use it would get and would feel dubious about springing for the Nikon at twice the price (UK) to find it sits in the cupboard, although I have got rather hooked on VR with the 80-400 and the 18-200 Nikons. I can manage my 80-400 hand held for a shortish while and get very good results, but I doubt that I could do that without the VR! I use a monopod virtually all the time anyway as it helps with the weight so I guess a non-VR 70-200 would be OK. Thanks for your asurances about the lens being a good one.

There is so much to learn with photography, I have had my D70 for just over a year now and still feel like a beginner most of the time! I went from the Sigma 105 (now used by my husband) to the 150 and was amazed at the difference in techniques required between the 2 lenses, and the bugs still get away...

Linda F said:

Kerry,

I appreciate your very helpful and informative reply. Yes I do have
the Sigma 150. I will take your advice and use the 150 as a general
telephoto for a while to get some feeling for the results you can
get.

Click to expand...

That would be the easiest way to determine how useful it will be for you. When you're shooting with it, shoot at f/2.8 and then take another shot at f/5 to f/5.6 which will approximate the DOF you'd get from the 80-400 at the same focal length. If you like the deeper DOF in your shots, thus always shooting at f/5.6 or higher anyway, then the gains to be had from the f/2.8 would then be much smaller, becoming more useful only in low light situations.

Most folks that use f/2.8 and faster lenses, do so for the shallow DOF which often effectively isolates the subject from the background. But, it's a double edged sword. The last shoot I did, I had to trash a number of shots, because the DOF was too shallow and I missed my intended focus point. Of course, when shooting people and have more than one person in the shot, then you have to use smaller apertures anyway, especially when close.

Linda F said:

80-400 and the 18-200 Nikons. I can manage my 80-400 hand held for
a shortish while and get very good results, but I doubt that I
could do that without the VR! I use a monopod virtually all the
time anyway as it helps with the weight so I guess a non-VR 70-200
would be OK. Thanks for your asurances about the lens being a good
one.

Click to expand...

VR is certainly very useful, even when used on a monopod. Your use of a monopod is very smart, IMO. As for the sigma, I can only say that mine is an excellent lens. I seriously doubt that most people could tell the difference between shots taken with it and my nikkor.

Linda F said:

There is so much to learn with photography, I have had my D70 for
just over a year now and still feel like a beginner most of the
time! I went from the Sigma 105 (now used by my husband) to the 150
and was amazed at the difference in techniques required between the
2 lenses, and the bugs still get away...

Click to expand...

Not to worry. I've had my original d70 since March, 2004 and still have that beginner feeling, but that's part of the fun for me. I enjoy the challenges. I have the sigma 180 macro and the bugs still get away most of the time too.

--
my gallery of so-so photos
http://www.pbase.com/kerrypierce/root

im geting the nikon 70--200 vr 2.8 now should i get the white or black for my D200

Slow also in focus speed. I have both and would not get rid of either.