Question - An 80-400mm or a 70-200mm f/2.8 and a 2x teleconverter?

Right now the difference is ~$300 cheaper for option #1 (80-400mm) but option #2 does the distinct advantages of being an f/2.8 lens when the TC is removed. Right now the 70-200mm f/2.8 is selling for $2400 but occasionally goes on sale at $2100-ish and used lenses can be found in very good condition for around $1900-$2k.

So assuming the two options are equal in price, which would make the better 400mm lens?

I want the 70-200. I've heard nothing but amazing things about that lens. It's way out of my price-range right now, and the 70-300 is working pretty good. One day I'll own that 70-200. Haven't heard much about the 80-400, but that seems to give a really good range. I've heard a lot of people that have the 70-200 that don't really use the 2.8 range too much, and also heard good things about the much cheaper 70-200 f4. Always an option I suppose. Save some money for the TC.

Mfrankfort said:

I want the 70-200. I've heard nothing but amazing things about that lens. It's way out of my price-range right now, and the 70-300 is working pretty good. One day I'll own that 70-200. Haven't heard much about the 80-400, but that seems to give a really good range. I've heard a lot of people that have the 70-200 that don't really use the 2.8 range too much, and also heard good things about the much cheaper 70-200 f4. Always an option I suppose. Save some money for the TC.

Click to expand...

I think the x 2 TC doesn't work on the F4 70-200mm....The 80-200mm F2.8 will and a much cheaper option if Dollars are tight..

Mfrankfort said:

I want the 70-200. I've heard nothing but amazing things about that lens. It's way out of my price-range right now, and the 70-300 is working pretty good. One day I'll own that 70-200. Haven't heard much about the 80-400, but that seems to give a really good range. I've heard a lot of people that have the 70-200 that don't really use the 2.8 range too much, and also heard good things about the much cheaper 70-200 f4. Always an option I suppose. Save some money for the TC.

Click to expand...

The 70-200 is a great lens. As far as the f/2.8 version, I use the max aperture quite a bit shooting high school football and marching bands, and for that reason, won't buy the 70-200 in any iteration other than the F/2.8 unless they come out with a faster model. (I can't guess how much that would cost, though.) Ask yourself how many times you've heard a photographer say they wished their lens was a stop or two slower than it is.

pedroj said:

I think the x 2 TC doesn't work on the F4 70-200mm....The 80-200mm F2.8 will and a much cheaper option if Dollars are tight..

Click to expand...

Not all 80-200's have full functionality with teleconverters. To enable the use of autofocus, you need to ensure the 80-200 is the AF-S model. Check http://www.nikonusa.com/en_INC/IMG/...eleconverter-Compatibility/EN_Comp_chart.html for camera/lens/teleconverter limitations and use. Which camera is used matters because some combinations require f/8 autofocus capability, and few cameras have that. It's in the chart footnotes.

I'd choose the 80-400. Usually the drop off in IQ especially at longer focal lengths of any lens with a 2 x TC no matter how fast is not worth it.

True. I guess depends on what your shooting too. I looked at some of the meta-data from lightroom, and looked at the apertures used most. I'm usually around 8-11 for most of the stuff I shoot. I don't do a lot of low light pictures of moving stuff, so I guess I could get away with the 4. For someone shooting football games in low light, or concerts... prob. not so much.

Or you could throw a pocket wizard on the sun and use it as a strobe. Then you can get away with the 4.

I went with the 70-200 2.8. The IQ is amazing. Saving for a tc now


Sent from my iPhone 5s using Tapatalk

Mfrankfort said:

Or you could throw a pocket wizard on the sun and use it as a strobe. Then you can get away with the 4.

Click to expand...

Now, why didn't I think of that? Do you think we could also get a bounce reflector to the sun to extend the daylight, too? WM

Dave_W said:

Right now the difference is ~$300 cheaper for option #1 (80-400mm) but option #2 does the distinct advantages of being an f/2.8 lens when the TC is removed. Right now the 70-200mm f/2.8 is selling for $2400 but occasionally goes on sale at $2100-ish and used lenses can be found in very good condition for around $1900-$2k.

So assuming the two options are equal in price, which would make the better 400mm lens?

Click to expand...

The 80-400VRII G - Hands down - check out my wildlife posts. I never use the 70-200 2.8 much anymore.

I have the 70-200 f2.8 vrII, and with the TC2 III it's very acceptable. I've read somewhere that the VRII lens was redesigned with the TC2III in mind.
The earlier TC2 converters were disastrous and not a patch on the TCIII, and the images I've been getting with either my D4 or D800e are very useable.
You wouldn't be disappointed with that setup, and you could pick up both items here in the UK for less than the 80-400 retails.

I also have the 70-200 vrii plus TC 2.0 iii and it can produce great results. The key thing for me is that you have the reach but also one of the best 70-200 lenses you can buy.

If I was always after the long end I would go for the 80-400 for convenience and it seems to get great reviews, but the combo offers a better value proposition.