Good Telephoto Zoom - Nikon 80-200 or Tokina 80-400 ?

Hi All,

 

I Need your help here...

I'm looking for a good, yet affordable telephoto zoom.

I'm shooting mainly portraits and outdoors, but occasionally wildlife...

 

I'm currently using D70s, and own (from the good old film days) 28-200, 50mm

f/1.8 and 60mm Macro (f/2.8). I adore the 50mm and the 60mm, but don't really

like the 28-200.

As I miss a wide lens, I might go for 18-55 VR as I don't want to put too much

money in DX lenses, but that's a different topic :-)

 

Anyway, I've seen these 2 options - Tokina 80-400mm f/4.5-5.6 at 650$ and Nikon

80-200 f/2.8 at 800$ ("Imported" - But I don't care).

Now, 150$ is still a consideration, yet something manageable, and at my upper

limit.

I assume the Nikon is pretty good quality and it's fast. Does anyone has any

experience with the Tokina ?

 

And in general, which one would YOU go for ?

If it were me I would probably go for any version of the Nikon 80-200 f2.8 ahead of the Tokina. They are classic lenses, generally said to be superb performers. And, of course you get the flexibility of f2.8. 200mm is too short for most wildlife - but you say this is an occasional requirement. If you really need the longer reach go for the Tokina, otherwise you can't go wrong with the Nikon.

For portraits and outdoors take the 80-200. Great lens! For wildlife it is too short. Even the

Tokina 80-400 will be a bit short!

 

Rene'

The problem with slowish, variable aperture zooms like the 80-400 Tokina, Nikkor and others is that they're too much of a compromise. While the Nikkor version, for example, is pretty sharp at 400 when stopped down to f/8, this defies the use of shallow DOF for isolating wildlife or people (assuming occasional use for sports).

 

Unfortunately, wildlife photography is among the most expensive photographic pursuits when done seriously. You need long, fast, expensive lenses to consistently produce photos that will stand out in the crowd.

 

I'd go for the 80-200/2.8 Nikkor. It may not be quite as versatile for wildlife, but it'll be less of a compromise when used within its intended range.

Here's another vote for the 80-200 2.8. The optical quality is superb, something the 80-400 cannot claim. You said "imported". Have you considered used? The last AF-D 80-200 before it went to AF-S has the separate zoom and focus rings like the AF-S, which I find easier to hold steady than the early "one touch" versions. But shop smart and you can find an AF-D 80-200mm f/2.8 for $500-600.

 

Another used lens idea for something you mentioned is the non-VR 18-55mm lenses. There are two versions before the VR; the first simply says "18-55mm etc, etc", while the second says "18-55mm II etc, etc" (or something to that effect, look for the "II" to differentiate). Both are fine, and I believe it's the same optics as the VR. You can get either of the two pre-VR versions for $50 pretty easily as the market is flooded.

What Steve, Rene, and Lex said. Remember that it isn't JUST that you'll benefit from the shallow DoF (when you want it) on the f/2.8... it's that when you're out there at 200mm, there's still enough light coming into the camera body for the AF to work well. Your D70S doesn't have quite the AF system that the newest bodies do. When dealing with dynamic subjects in mediocre light, that body needs every photon it can get BEFORE the exposure, just so you and the AF system can both see what's going on. Whether or not you augment that 80-200 with a 500mm or so lens down the road, you'll be amazed at how often you'll turn to the shorter zoom for everyday subjects.

Lex nailed it.

 

If it were me, I'd get the 80-200/2.8 Nikkor, no question about it.

For what you like to photograph, I also would go with the 80-200. And this is from a guy that has the 80-400.

 

Both of them are beefy lenses, difficult to hand hold, and sure would be better with VR but the 80-200 gives you a huge advantage with those extra couple stops. I very rarely use the lens without support but it is used only for wildlife and some sports.

 

That said, the 80-400 is reasonably sharp. Here's an example from last week.....<div></div>

I have owned that Tokina and have had the Nikon for several years. The Tokina was almost as sharp as the Nikon in the 80-200 range but started getting a bit soft after that (shooting with proper technique, tripod, etc). I have a couple of 16x24 prints with that lens and they look great - but both were in the 80-200 range...

 

Because of this I figured that there wasn't any point in having both lenses, and sold the Tokina. The Nikon is a great lens, and that's the one I'd recommend.

here is an example from the Nikkor 80-400 taken at 1/1250 at 7.1 at 240mm w/ VR On and from a boat ...

I am in the same boat but keep hearing that the nikon 80-400 is to slow for wildlife, is this the case is the AF really that slow??

I went throught the same decision cycle you are going through and bought the Nikon 80-200 2.8D and don't regret the decision. It is a quality lens and has outstanding optical performance.

I tried the 80-400 VR two or three times in a local shop with my D2H. It had no trouble tracking erratically moving larger subjects. But I'm not sure how it'd do on birds.

 

It's slow in the sense that it's a slowish, variable aperture zoom.

I have used the Nikon 80-200 2.8 with a 2x teleconver and it worked very well. I used a Sigma TC

Matt,

The 80-400 is fine for wildlife as long as you learn how to work with its limitations. For example flying seagulls are easy as well as Pelicans, Herons or crows. When you shift into faster fliers like sparrows you have to rely on pre- focusing at a specific location. The next issue is the aperture. My 80-400VR works best at F9-F11. At that F stop the sharpness equals my F5.6 400mm fixed lens set to F8. That is using print on the side of a newspaper sales cabinet at a city block away.

A lot of your decision will have to take into account the body you use. I use a D3 and it drives the lens mechanism better than a smaller body.

There is a switch on the 80-400 for full or limited travel to stop the lens from hunting.

Parked Dragonflys are good as long as you can get within 8 feet of them since thats about as close as the lens will focus.

The VR is great for fixed targets when its getting dark or in shadows.

Hope this helps.