300mm f/2.8 VRII with TC-14EII compared to AF-S 80-400mm at 400mm?

C

Craig Rogers

Senior Member
300mm f/2.8 VRII with TC-14EII/III compared to AF-S 80-400mm at 400mm?

Hello everyone,

I have just purchased a Nikon 300mm f/2.8 VRII (along with a TC-17EII). I also have an AF-S 80-400mm.

Has anyone any experience in knowing if I purchased a TC-14EII/III to use with the 300mm would be a better combination than the AF-S 80-400mm @ 400mm?

My thinking is that I could sell the 80-400mm and use the TC-14EII/III with the 300mm and then purchase a 70-200mm f/2.8 instead to fill in the gap left behind. As I also own a 17-55mm f/2.8 this would give me a big range of quick glass.

Of course, the downside is travelling whereas the 80-400mm is small and light enough to not worry about carry-on luggage for any air travel and of course I loose a bit of flexibility of not having a zoom lens, both of which I have to factor in.

Thanks in advance.
 
Last edited:
J

jay_dean

Senior Member
Not had the 300mm 2.8, but i should think that even with the TC-14 it'll be sharper. Maybe someone with experience of both could chip in. The 80-400mm isn't the sharpest at 400mm anyway imo
 
J

J-see

Senior Member
Here's a rather good review of the lens and while I can't remember if he compares it to the 80-400mm, he does against the 200-400mm.

https://photographylife.com/reviews/nikon-300mm-f2-8g-vr-ii

The 300mm vs 80-400mm would not be a very fair comparison even when the 300mm has a 1.4TC attached. Even when the 80-400mm costs more than peanuts, it's still a budget lens. They're always a compromise between price and quality.
 
Last edited:
C

Craig Rogers

Senior Member
The fact that it's very comparable with the 200-400 shows that it must be extremely comparable with 80-400mm. However, just as I thought? The use-ability (aka zoom) really comes into play
 
J

J-see

Senior Member
Craig Rogers said:
The fact that it's very comparable with the 200-400 shows that it must be extremely comparable with 80-400mm. However, just as I thought? The use-ability (aka zoom) really comes into play
Click to expand...

Question; can you shoot the 300mm f/2.8 handheld or is she too heavy/big to do that comfortably?
 
J

jay_dean

Senior Member
J-see said:
Question; can you shoot the 300mm f/2.8 handheld or is she too heavy/big to do that comfortably?
Click to expand...
It's handholdable apparently. It weights less than my 500mm, and that doesn't really tire me out too much. It's the 400mm f2.8 which is the pig to handhold
 
J

J-see

Senior Member
jaydean said:
It's handholdable apparently. It weights less than my 500mm, and that doesn't really tire me out too much. It's the 400mm f2.8 which is the pig to handhold
Click to expand...

I checked the 400mm but she's simply not practical for me. When shooting I usually have my two pits with me who do not care how much my gear costs. When walking them, I can shoot my Tam single handed if really needed although such does not improve my technique. It's not that I look for a lens I can shoot one-handed but when you have 110 pounds of dog with you, a heavy lens does not really improve the situation.

I'll have to check her in store and handle her first before I put down a lot of money for what easily could become a new dog toy. ;)
 
J

jay_dean

Senior Member
J-see said:
I checked the 400mm but she's simply not practical for me. When shooting I usually have my two pits with me who do not care how much my gear costs. When walking them, I can shoot my Tam single handed if really needed although such does not improve my technique. It's not that I look for a lens I can shoot one-handed but when you have 110 pounds of dog with you, a heavy lens does not really improve the situation.

I'll have to check her in store and handle her first before I put down a lot of money for what easily could become a new dog toy. ;)
Click to expand...
I very nearly pulled the trigger and got a 400 f2.8 as it was very very cheap. But the weight issue put me off, i do a lot of handholding. Plus it came with no lens hood, when i checked how much a new Nikon HK-27 lens hood cost, the cheapest i could find was a whopping £410+::what::
You thinking of buying an exotic prime?
 
J

J-see

Senior Member
jaydean said:
I very nearly pulled the trigger and got a 400 f2.8 as it was very very cheap. But the weight issue put me off, i do a lot of handholding. Plus it came with no lens hood, when i checked how much a new Nikon HK-27 lens hood cost, the cheapest i could find was a whopping £410+::what::
You thinking of buying an exotic prime?
Click to expand...

That's a nice price for a lens hood.

I wanted a lens for wildlife of birding that delivers about the same quality my 200mm macro and the 70-200 f/2.8 deliver. 200mm is just too short. I ordered the new 300mm f/4 but it'll be available "soon". Soon can be when hell freezes over so I'm checking my other options which are few. It's either the previous 300mm f4 or the f/2.8. The longer lenses are too gigantic. There are some used 400mm available here, mainly the previous models, at prices around 4-5k which is tolerable as a price but it's not handheld material.
 
J

jay_dean

Senior Member
J-see said:
That's a nice price for a lens hood.

I wanted a lens for wildlife of birding that delivers about the same quality my 200mm macro and the 70-200 f/2.8 deliver. 200mm is just too short. I ordered the new 300mm f/4 but it'll be available "soon". Soon can be when hell freezes over so I'm checking my other options which are few. It's either the previous 300mm f4 or the f/2.8. The longer lenses are too gigantic. There are some used 400mm available here, mainly the previous models, at prices around 4-5k which is tolerable as a price but it's not handheld material.
Click to expand...
I gave the 400mm f2.8 with a TC-14 some serious consideration, but decided the Nikon 500 f4 is the way to go due to it being handholdable. I like my Sigma 500 f/4.5, but the Nikon is faster, slightly sharper, better wide open, and only slightly heavier. A lot of the birders go for the 500mm option
 
J

J-see

Senior Member
jaydean said:
I gave the 400mm f2.8 with a TC-14 some serious consideration, but decided the Nikon 500 f4 is the way to go due to it being handholdable. I like my Sigma 500 f/4.5, but the Nikon is faster, slightly sharper, better wide open, and only slightly heavier. A lot of the birders go for the 500mm option
Click to expand...

I've seen an older model of the Nikon 500mm for sale a week ago but it looked more like a rocket launcher than a handholdable lens. ;)

I'm still in favor of anything f/2.8 at the moment. Where I live low light is an issue about 50% of the year. Around this period it starts to get better and on a sunny day like it is now, I have few light issues but if it is clouded, light is a problem.

It's not that shooting is impossible but I clearly notice the different in focus speed between my Tam 150-600, the Tam 70-200mm f/2.8 and my micro 200mm f/4. The f/2.8 is just wonderful to focus. You hit the button and snap, you got the subject. If I go through my shots afterwards, the "in-focus" fail-rate of the f/2.8 is noticeable lower than the f/4 or even f/5.something of the Big Tam.

But f/4 or f/2.8 is a considerable difference in size, weight and more important; price.

The jury is still deliberating.
 
J

jay_dean

Senior Member
J-see said:
I've seen an older model of the Nikon 500mm for sale a week ago but it looked more like a rocket launcher than a handholdable lens. ;)

I'm still in favor of anything f/2.8 at the moment. Where I live low light is an issue about 50% of the year. Around this period it starts to get better and on a sunny day like it is now, I have few light issues but if it is clouded, light is a problem.

It's not that shooting is impossible but I clearly notice the different in focus speed between my Tam 150-600, the Tam 70-200mm f/2.8 and my micro 200mm f/4. The f/2.8 is just wonderful to focus. You hit the button and snap, you got the subject. If I go through my shots afterwards, the "in-focus" fail-rate of the f/2.8 is noticeable lower than the f/4 or even f/5.something of the Big Tam.

But f/4 or f/2.8 is a considerable difference in size, weight and more important; price.

The jury is still deliberating.
Click to expand...
I've gone through the exact same dilemma, and i live further north than you;) F2.8 is great, it really is, and the 400mm f2.8 is the one i'd love, but the weight, its just not easy to take handheld shots. 400mm is probably still a bit short for birding tbh, so i'd want a TC on there, 1.4 at the most, so that takes you to f4 anyway. The 500mm f4 is a compromise, it's lighter, and can be hand held. At the end of the day, you've got to be able to live with it
 
M

mikew_RIP

Senior Member
J-see said:
That's a nice price for a lens hood.

I wanted a lens for wildlife of birding that delivers about the same quality my 200mm macro and the 70-200 f/2.8 deliver. 200mm is just too short. I ordered the new 300mm f/4 but it'll be available "soon". Soon can be when hell freezes over so I'm checking my other options which are few. It's either the previous 300mm f4 or the f/2.8. The longer lenses are too gigantic. There are some used 400mm available here, mainly the previous models, at prices around 4-5k which is tolerable as a price but it's not handheld material.
Click to expand...

Have you looked at the Nikon service center Germany,they sell on ebay a lot but i cant find a link at the moment,there refurbished gear is backed by a Nikon Europe warranty
 
Top