How muich better is a 300 2.8 Nikon lens than a 80-400 VR lens?

I am thinking of purchasing a 300 2.8 VR lens and adding a 1.7 teleconverter. I now use an 80-400 VR lens. Will the new lens be faster and sharper? Has anyone had experience with these lenses?
I would be using this for avian photography.

Thanks for your advice.

May

May, for about the last 2 years the 300VR with the 1.7X has been my main (and almost exclusive) telephoto set up, first with a D80 and now with a D300. I believe the sharpness has been excellent. A friend of mine (who shoots the albino lenses) has also been quite impressed with the sharpness. Of course you need to do your part as well it doesn't make up for bad technique. An additional benefit appeared to me this summer while I was concentrating on pika shots. The lens focuses to around 7 feet. With the 1.7X on the 300 you are beginning to approach macro capabilities! By the way, I enjoy seeing your photos on NPN.
RP

HI May,

The 300 2.8 is a MUCH sharper lens, but more importantly for me, has much better bokeh (out-of-focus zones), is so much faster (both in light gathering and way, way better autofocus speed than the 80-400), and dramatically better contrast. Once you put a 1.7x TC on it you will lose some of this contrast, but with careful processing you can generally get much of this back. I'm not a huge fan of the 1.7x TC, but I think I'm more critical of it than most folks and perhaps it's just my copy.

I'm about to sell my 300 2.8 VR so if you're interested in acquiring a used one feel free to contact me.

Cheers...

Brad

I can't give you too specific of an answer, since I've never used either of those lenses, but I have a 300 f/4 + 1.7TC and you can look at my gallery to see how well that combo works, so I can only imagine how nice it would be with the 2.8!

I see them as lenses for different purposes. The 80-400mm VR is a good general purpose lens and is relatively compact. The 300mm f2.8 is better for wildlife & birds, but is heavier and generally requires a first clas tripod and head to maximize it.


Kent in SD

Go with the 300mm VR f/2.8. The problem with the 80-400mm VR is that it is very slow auto-focusing.

Even if it was not so slow, the use of a teleconverter on the 80-400mm VR is limited compared to the use on the 300mm VR f/2.8.

It's a trade-off. The 80-400 is more compact, lighter and more versatile, but slower focusing and not quite as sharp, especially at larger apertures. The 300 is sharper and faster focusing, and I find the 2.8 really useful for limiting DOF when you need it. But sometimes, especially in travel, it just doesn't fit my days as well.

About everything I've posted in Avian has been with the Nikkor 300/2.8 AF-S and the Nikon TC20E 2x converter. The exceptions have been a few shots where I could use the TC14E instead of the 2x.

If you can deal with the heft and have a proper tripod and head you'll love the performance and image quality.

May: I'm watching this thread with interest. I'm contemplating selling my 300 and 80-200 f2.8 lenses and going with a 70-400. (Sony/Minolta user so I can't comment on the specifics of the lenses you're considering) I don't shoot birds hardly at all and for me the weight of the 300, especially when travelling and hiking, is getting tougher to justify. I do know that my 300 is very quick to focus and the bokeh really is nice. Perhaps if I could get younger I would be more receptive to the fast heavy glass. It seemed like a necessity in the days of slow film but with high ISO digital being so good it just doesn't seem as critical to have the fast glass. >=))>

I hate to tell you this Bill, but there's a "best" answer if you can manage it. Keep your current gear and add the 70-400. You'll have uses for both, and narrowing it down to one or the other is going to leave you unhappy at least some of the time. For example I sprung for an 18-200 because my 80-200 f/2.8 was so big an bulky. The cheaper, lighter 18-200 is great for hiking and travel, but it's just not up to the 80-200 for really critical sharpness closer to home. I'm really happy now that I have both, but I'd chafe with only one or the other.

May I would go with what LUKE says
The 300 f4 + TC 1.7 IS A KILLER COMBINATION One of the sharpest lens on the market today.
Also the 300 F4 can focus very close and this is a fantastic advantage if you want to shoot with close up rings.
I used this combination a lot and some of my best shots were with this lens.
The weight of the 300 f2.8 is heavy next to the f4.
The 80-400 is a nice versatile SLOW lens.
I would keep it and add the 300 f4 there is aVR version coming out shortly
Have a happy XMAS
AVI

How much faster is the 300F4 when paired with the 1.7x in terms of autofocus acquisition compared to the 80-400? Any thoughts?

Thanks everyone for your excellent imput.
May

Nate,

We do not have the 1.7x on our AFS 300mm f/4 Nikkor, but almost always use the 1.4x teleconverter and occasionally use the 2.0x. The former is about 3-4 times quicker than the 80-400mm VR while the performance with the 2.0x degrades to about twice as quick.