80-400VRII with 1.4 TC

Nikon D4 AF-S VR Zoom-Nikkor 200-400mm f/4G IF-ED
1/500 sec
f/5.6
550 мм (TC 14)
ISO: 1250 — at Sepilok Jungle Resort.

This NOT my photo

Why post someone else´s photo stating they used professional grade material?

Vincent said:

Why post someone else´s photo stating they used professional grade material?

Click to expand...

Another member here is debating the mentioned lens & TC this an example for him.

@Sambr with the TC on your 300 does it slow down the AF much? I am considering options.

Courier pigeon got eaten :-( now sent via Kookaburra.

It does a bit - hasn't been a problem for me. Seriously look at the new 80-400VRII best investment that I have made in a long time.

Ok I might give one a test drive next week if I can.

Courier pigeon got eaten :-( now sent via Kookaburra.

I havent given up all hope as yet as I may try using different apertures and see if it improves.

Courier pigeon got eaten :-( now sent via Kookaburra.

Can we please confirm? Thread heading reads 80-400mm but the EXIF data for shot says 200-400mm. One is a fixed aperture lens, one variable. They are on a different level in both IQ and cost and I'm not just talking about DxOmark scores but real world images. I've seen 100's of shots from both online and the 200-400 is clearly superior and of course can take a fixed F5.6(one stop loss)shot and retain decent IQ at longer distances in optimum conditions. The featured shot is sharp but still not tack sharp and where the shot may have been taken at 550mm, what counts is still how close the photographer was to the subject. I shoot at 420mm all the time. 420mm at 8 feet is tack sharp, at 100m(300ft) it's crap, with varying degrees of success in between.