Posted by Kent Staubus on January 26, 2007 at 11:32 PM
I've been using the Nikon 80-400mm VR lens for several years now, and it's been a good performer for the money. It's my second most used lens. Now that I am using the D80 which has its crop factor, I've been rethinking my lens selection. I recently purchased what I call my "fast trio" of single focal lenses: Nikons 20mm f2.8, 50mm f1.8, 85mm f1.8. I often find I'm shooting in low light levels, sometimes even at night. An example: one recent afternoon my exposure was ISO 800 f5.6 1/125. I was at the limit of my f5.6 lens. I need the speed, otherwise my moving subjects blur.
I also have a Nikon 80-200mm f2.8 D, which I like. Since getting the D80 I use it quite a bit. I'm starting to think that there might not be much sense in having both the 80-200mm and 80-400mm. I need the reach of the 400mm, but like the speed of the 200mm f2.8. I'm wondering if maybe I should combine the two lenses, so to speak. What if I sold both my 80-200mm and 80-400mm, and replaced them with an 80-200mm f2.8 VR plus a Nikon 2x. I gain a VR lens capable of 400mm, with "S" autofocus. Near as I figure, the cost will come out pretty even if I sell on eBay around May.
The question is, will the image quality of the 200mm + 2x equal that of what I have now? Seems that with the digital sensor only using the center of the lens I might have a shot at equaling the quality. It's a tempting swap anyway.
I'm dealing with "old" technology with an 80-200 AF predating the built in tripod collar and TC's from the same era. I never use the lens with my 2x simply because they don't work together. However, with the 1.4x my lens is a sterling performer, even with the loss of AF when coupled.
Gotta say that with advances in lens technology in the last 15 years, I'd be very optimistic for your prospects.
I would however confirm with Nikon that both the AF and VR will continue to function with the TC attached. There should be indicators on the tech spec page for the lens at the Nikon site. If you lost either of those, I think you would miss them even if the image quality was good.
Kent,
I haven't used any on the newer Nikon 2x converters, but some pretty experienced Nikon shooter I know say it does degrade images more than they would like.
Posted by Kent Staubus on January 27, 2007 at 1:35 AM
I spent a few hours on google and couldn't find anyone who thinks a 200mm + 2x will equal the 400mm VR. For starters, the 80-400mm lens is pretty dang sharp! You can get away with a 1.4x on the 70-200mm f2.8 VR, but the 2x is soft. I thought it might be too good to be true. Most of the other folks faced with making a decision chose to buy BOTH the 70-200mm VR and the 80-400mm VR. LOL!!!! I guess I'll just stay where I am. The 80-200mm lens I have is the 2-ring, tripod collar model. It's still in production, and "Kooky Ken" said it's an excellent value and maybe the sharpest lens Nikon ever made.
Kent in SD
Posted by Richard Ennis on January 27, 2007 at 12:31 PM
Kent,
I have the 70-200VR and can say it does work great with the 1.4x. Nikon also makes a 1.7x, which won't get you to the 400 mark, but it's close. I've heard the 1.7x works well on the 70-200VR, but can't speak form experience. I also had the 80-400VR and sold it, but I replaced it with the 200-400VR!
Posted by Alex Lofquist on January 27, 2007 at 7:12 PM
Shun Chueng did a test of the 70-200 VR Nikkor with 1.4X, 1.7X and 2X Nikkor TCs. Go to Photo.net and search 70-200 lenses, or for Shun's postings. As I recall it was pretty rigorous testing.
When the Nikkor 70-200mm VR first came out, I compared it to the 80-200mm AFS, both with the TC-20E teleconverter. I took lots of shots of a beautiful bridk wall with the camera/lens on a tripod.. At wide open with an effective f/5.6, both were identical. However, stopped down one stop at an effective f/8, the 70-200mm VR was significantly sharper. The exposure was 1/60 sec. For both, the autofocus was slower than with the TC-14E, but still faster than the 80-400mm VR.
I believe the only drawback to the 70-200mm VR with a TC-20E will be its longer lenght and slightly heavier weight. It should be easier to handhold the 80-400mm VR than the combination. Also, you will have to take the time to insert or remove the TC-20E which may be a problem. The question is how often do you go from one end of the range to the other.
The fact that you are using the 80-200mm AF-S makes me think that you prefer it over its range than the 80-400mm VR. That being the case, I do not think switching in the TC-20E will be any more of a problem as switching between the 80-200mm AF-S and the 80-400mm VR.
Let us know what you decide. As far as image quality, the 70-200mm VR is excellent with the TC-20E.
Posted by William Brozy on January 29, 2007 at 2:48 PM
Hello Kent -
I have an 80-200/2.8 and a 300/4 and use these regularly with a Nikon 1.7x and I am extremely pleased with these pairings. The 1.7x is a top-notch performer, it is rock solid and when the light levels are descent both lens autofocus really well.
I was lucky enough to borrow a Nikon 200-400/4 a couple weeks back and paired this with my 1.7x. WOW! Now only if I had the $$$$
I had the 80-200/F2.8 VR but when used with a 2x, I thought it lacked a bit of sharpness. So, I moved to the 80-400 VR, don't use a teleconverter, and I'm happier with the sharpness. The 80-200 lens was very VERY nice, though, by itself. Just didn't look as sharp as I wanted when coupled with the 2x.
Nancy
Posted by Buck Ward on January 29, 2007 at 10:19 PM
Dear Kent
I can't comment directly on the Nikon lenses, but I presume that Nikon's good glass is roughly comparable to Canon's. The sharpness of images from my Canon 70-200 f2.8 IS lens with TC is not bad but it does not compare to the 300 f2.8 IS without or even with TCs.
Have you considered getting big glass? A 300 f2.8 with a 1.4TC will give you 420mm with a stop more speed. The downside, of course, is that it's terribly expensive. But then if you wanted a cheap pastime you would have taken up yachting or golf.
Discussion
9 repliesI also have a Nikon 80-200mm f2.8 D, which I like. Since getting the D80 I use it quite a bit. I'm starting to think that there might not be much sense in having both the 80-200mm and 80-400mm. I need the reach of the 400mm, but like the speed of the 200mm f2.8. I'm wondering if maybe I should combine the two lenses, so to speak. What if I sold both my 80-200mm and 80-400mm, and replaced them with an 80-200mm f2.8 VR plus a Nikon 2x. I gain a VR lens capable of 400mm, with "S" autofocus. Near as I figure, the cost will come out pretty even if I sell on eBay around May.
The question is, will the image quality of the 200mm + 2x equal that of what I have now? Seems that with the digital sensor only using the center of the lens I might have a shot at equaling the quality. It's a tempting swap anyway.
Kent in SD
Gotta say that with advances in lens technology in the last 15 years, I'd be very optimistic for your prospects.
I would however confirm with Nikon that both the AF and VR will continue to function with the TC attached. There should be indicators on the tech spec page for the lens at the Nikon site. If you lost either of those, I think you would miss them even if the image quality was good.
I haven't used any on the newer Nikon 2x converters, but some pretty experienced Nikon shooter I know say it does degrade images more than they would like.
Kent in SD
I have the 70-200VR and can say it does work great with the 1.4x. Nikon also makes a 1.7x, which won't get you to the 400 mark, but it's close. I've heard the 1.7x works well on the 70-200VR, but can't speak form experience. I also had the 80-400VR and sold it, but I replaced it with the 200-400VR!
When the Nikkor 70-200mm VR first came out, I compared it to the 80-200mm AFS, both with the TC-20E teleconverter. I took lots of shots of a beautiful bridk wall with the camera/lens on a tripod.. At wide open with an effective f/5.6, both were identical. However, stopped down one stop at an effective f/8, the 70-200mm VR was significantly sharper. The exposure was 1/60 sec. For both, the autofocus was slower than with the TC-14E, but still faster than the 80-400mm VR.
I believe the only drawback to the 70-200mm VR with a TC-20E will be its longer lenght and slightly heavier weight. It should be easier to handhold the 80-400mm VR than the combination. Also, you will have to take the time to insert or remove the TC-20E which may be a problem. The question is how often do you go from one end of the range to the other.
The fact that you are using the 80-200mm AF-S makes me think that you prefer it over its range than the 80-400mm VR. That being the case, I do not think switching in the TC-20E will be any more of a problem as switching between the 80-200mm AF-S and the 80-400mm VR.
Let us know what you decide. As far as image quality, the 70-200mm VR is excellent with the TC-20E.
I have an 80-200/2.8 and a 300/4 and use these regularly with a Nikon 1.7x and I am extremely pleased with these pairings. The 1.7x is a top-notch performer, it is rock solid and when the light levels are descent both lens autofocus really well.
I was lucky enough to borrow a Nikon 200-400/4 a couple weeks back and paired this with my 1.7x. WOW! Now only if I had the $$$$
I had the 80-200/F2.8 VR but when used with a 2x, I thought it lacked a bit of sharpness. So, I moved to the 80-400 VR, don't use a teleconverter, and I'm happier with the sharpness. The 80-200 lens was very VERY nice, though, by itself. Just didn't look as sharp as I wanted when coupled with the 2x.
Nancy
I can't comment directly on the Nikon lenses, but I presume that Nikon's good glass is roughly comparable to Canon's. The sharpness of images from my Canon 70-200 f2.8 IS lens with TC is not bad but it does not compare to the 300 f2.8 IS without or even with TCs.
Have you considered getting big glass? A 300 f2.8 with a 1.4TC will give you 420mm with a stop more speed. The downside, of course, is that it's terribly expensive. But then if you wanted a cheap pastime you would have taken up yachting or golf.