best choice?

<p>I'm pondering whether to go with the AF Nikkor 80-400 (f/4.5 - 5.6 D; ED; VR) or the AF-S 300mm (f/4 D; IF-ED) and add the TC-14Eii to bring it to 420mm at 5.6 (FX).<br>

It seems that the 'better' AF-S prime would make more sense since I've heard the zoom has 'serious' auto-focus issues). On the other hand, I'm really leaning towards that versatility of the zoom. I've had 300mm primes in the past (with non-Nikon cameras) and found I never took them along unless I thought for sure I was going to take bird photography (still almost useless unless you are on top of the bird, or it's really big). I have a 70-210 (f/4-5.6) zoom now that I am pleased with that I use for general purpose photography; but would probably sell it if I go with the 80-400 and use it as my 'general purpose' lens to compliment my other primes. <br>

Any serious arguments for or against this decision - optically. <br>

Also, looking at very old reviews on the zoom, some people thought (in 2007) that Nikon was going to come out with a AF-S version of this -- any truth to that rumor?<br>

thanks!</p>

<p>Still waiting for the update of the 80-400 to AF-S (and of the 300/4 to VR); rumor has it that an update is just around the corner (as it has been for the last couple of years).<br>

I own both the 80-400 and the 300/4 AF-S with TC-14E and TC-17EII, and there are pluses and minus to either. The AF on the 80-400 is rather slow - but once you put the 1.7x on the 300/4 AF-S, you are also dealing with a slow focusing lens too. With the 1.4x attached, the 300/4 is faster and also has the edge optically. If you are shooting from a tripod most of the time, then that would be the combo to use - though you may have to invest in the replacement collar. When handholding, 1/500s for the 300/1.4x (and 1/640 for the 300/1.7x) is the lowest I can go - the VR on the 80-400 makes this easier though and allows shooting down to 1/200s or thereabouts. <br>

When you use the zoom at the longest setting most of the time, then the prime is the better option. Taking off a TC in the field is not something I do routinely, I always feel I don't have enough hands to juggle everything. Quite often, the ability to zoom comes in handy.<br>

At the end, it comes down to personal choice. For bird photography, both setups have their limitations when it comes to low light situations or when fast AF is required and the background isn't clean and provides good contrast with the main subject. <br>

Unfortunately, alternatives tend to get very pricey (300/2.8 or 200-400/4). Another option might be the Sigma 120-300/2.8 - but I would try that one before I would purchase it.</p>

<p>BTW, you will get next to nothing for the 70-210 - so I suggest to keep it around even if you go for the 80-400.</p>

<p>Thanks, Dieter -- you're exactly the type of person I was hoping would respond, since you have both. This is good information.<br>

Interesting you should say that about my 70-210 -- I was thinking the same thing until I read Ken Rockwell's report - he claims that the model I have (AF Nikkor 70-210mm f/4 - 5.6 D) reviles the 2.8 in speed and mentioned that some have gotten as high as $700 on e-Bay (hmm -- not sure when this was written -- and he admits most would not pay that much for it), noting that it should not be mistaken for the newer non-D lens of this model: <br>

<em>"Because it focuses so much more quickly than any other telephoto zoom this side of the f/2.8 professional models its used price has skyrocketed to around $500. One guy was even getting $750 on eBay! None of the new models under $800 focuses anywhere near as fast. This is no big deal for portraits or landscapes, but is very important for sports, kids, pets or anything that moves fast. </em><br>

<em>It is extremely well made. It's from the same family as the 35-70/2.8 zoom. It has a great solid metal filter thread, metal jacket over one half of the lens barrel, and assembled with screws, not mushed together plastic."</em><br>

Probably would be ok to keep it around, though -- can never have enough lenses! :-)<em><br /></em></p>

<p>I own the 80-400VR as well, mine is super sharp... probably sharper than even my 70-200 F2.8 VR. I guess if you buy enough lenses you're bound to get a gem and that one was the one I rolled good dice. Mine is most sharp at 400mm where one would want it. <br>

Focus is certainly slow, it likes to hunt on occasion too. I've been most successful locking in its focus limiter to 16feet - infinity trying to capture birds (flying) and putting my camera into I forgot the focus mode but it's where all the focus points are active and the camera focuses on what it thinks you want. In that mode, get the moving bird into the frame and press the shutter, the lens starts searching and as soon as the bird comes into focus the picture is snapped. It's usually pretty good at getting what I want but following a flying bird at 400mm some luck is involved. Ones that don't move much are no problem.</p>

<p>It uses the motor of the camera to focus it so if you have a good model camera it will focuses faster. My gripes, 7.5' minimum focus distance, focus speed compared to todays standards, front element moves out when zooming so it's not as weather sealed, and the focus limiter switch is a little strange if you engage it under 17' it will limit focus range from 7.5' - 17ft. Engage it past 17' it will limit it 17'-infinity. Probably should've been a 3-way switch (all, near, far). </p>

<p>I like that it takes a 77mm filter, the front element doesn't rotate when focusing, very sharp lens (mine anyway), very useful range, and the VR works great. I think it more useful than a 300 F4.</p>

<p>If I recall correctly, Ken Rockwell was citing the 70-200mm f/4 as an autofocus speed demon, not the f4-5.6 version. The 300mm plus TC is the better optical choice with the faster focus. The downside is that you can only use 300mm or 420mm or 510mm depending on the TC. That's okay for birds, but let's say you come across a snake in your path, like I did yesterday, then you may want the zoom. There is always a trade off.</p>

<p>I use both the 80-400mm and a 300mm f/2.8 AF-S plus teleconverters, depending on what I'm shooting. I also like the 70-200mm f/2.8, but it is too short for most wildlife.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>let's say you come across a snake in your path</p>

</blockquote>

<p>In that situation, I would want the lightest possible setup—maybe something like a D40 with a 45mm f/2.8 GN lens—to facilitate running away.</p>

<p>The 300 is much more suited for close-up shots then the 80-400; 1.45m vs 2.3m closest focus distance. However, with a 500D close-up diopter, a zoom has an advantage (wouldn't try it on a snake though).</p>

<p>AFAIK, KR was referring to the 70-210/4.5-5.6 D - in this case there is a difference besides the embedded chip between the D and non-D version, the D version has a different gearing and focuses faster; it demands a small premium on ebay but can generally be had for less than $200. I owned the non-D for a long time and sold it with my D70 - recently I re-acquired one at a store closure and gave it to my wife; nice compact and lightweight lens with good optical quality.</p>

<p>M Hayword -- just curious: optically, is the 300 f2.8 far superior to your 80-400, under similar exposure settings?<br>

Kent -- I busted out laughing at your comment and was thinking the same thing!<br>

Matt - do you have any samples that you would like to share of the 80-400?<br>

Thanks!</p>

<p>I had the 80-400 and it is quite good, but has the limitations others have mentioned. I sold it since I wasn't real happy with its 300mm+ performance.<br>

I have recently gotten a 300mm f/4 AF-S and the IQ is definitely a little better than the 80-400 at 300mm. I can also use my TC17 on it for 500mm with excellent IQ.</p>