Lens Question

I have the 80-200 F2.8 too. And I agree with Pedroj here.... a good idea lol.
With me though, i just never use it, other than for the horse racing. It's simply too big and heavy to cart around anywhere.
It won't even fit in my bag lol. Using the converter would add another stop, effectively making it an F4 which isn't bad.
You obviously lose a bit of quality, too, using a converter. The 80-200 is a bit soft and lacks contrast used wide open so it needs stopping
down anyway. I've not used it with a converter so I don't know how it would affect focus speed.
Weighing everything up, I would say this is the way to go... IF.... you already carry this lens around with you.

---

› See More: Lens Question

The main issue I see with the 70-300 is that it's not a fast lens. Although it has VR, which will let you use low shutter speeds for static subjects, you'll struggle to get a fast enough shutter for moving subjects such as birds in flight in less than ideal lighting. The 80-200 with a 1.4TC (you'll need a Kenko Pro to retain AF on the screw drive 80-200) gives you a 280mm f/4. The 70-300 is f/5.6 at 300mm which is a full stop slower.Wide open isn't ideal with a TC on the 80-200, but it's perfectly useable, and at f/5.6 it improves somewhat. Bear in mind too that the 70-300 isn't that sharp at 300mm, and is best at about f/8.I've often thought of adding a 70-300 to my bag as a good walk-around telephoto due to it's relatively small size, but I'd never give up my 80-200 f/2.8 AF-S for it!My serious wildlife lens is the Sigma 500mm f/4.5 EX DG HSM, but that's in a whole different league and despite costing £2000 less than the Nikon, still required very in depth negotiations with Mrs. F!