80-400 or 1.4 tc

[mksnowhite]

Need real experiences with both. I shoot action...typically between

1/500th and 1/1000 shutter, handheld. I currently handhold a 80-200

2.8 with down to 125th no problems but need more focal length. I

understand if I use tc I have to stop down. Can't afford prime or

200-400. Will be using a D200. Also, speed...does a TC slow down

focusing. I know vr does. Not interested in the 70-300 ed. Thanks...

[armando_roldan]

YOu don't need a VR lens for shooting over 1/30 of second. I have had a 80-400mm Vr and PERSONALLY consider it a waste of money however the 70-200mm F2.8 is the greatest lens I have ever owned. I shoot a F100 and Dh2 with it. I would get a 300mm F4 AF-S if I needed more lenght and its lightening fas for action shooting.

[michael_bradtke]

Hey Melanie

Check this review out.

 

http://www.naturfotograf.com/index2.html

[michael_bradtke]

Ooops sorry but he does have a review of the lens you are talking about. I thought I had linked to the page the review is on ...my bad

 

Michael

[j_autey]

Get the VR. Only someone who doesn't understand allot about photography would suggest that you don't need it below 1/30 of a second and that their a waste of money.

Remember the basics, your shutter speed should be at least the reciprocal of the focal length, thus a 200mm lens should be using about 1/200(1/250) of a second shutter. Of coarse this is only a rule of thumb, but a pretty darn good one.

VR will buy you up to two stops, so if you were shooting a VR lens at 200mm at 1/125 it would give results similar to shooting at between 1/250 and 1/500. Pretty cool huh?

VR is not perfect, you'll miss some shots waiting for it to engage, but it beats the hell out of just about any TC. Since a TC will slow down auto focus and often degrad the image some, there is simply no benefit to a TC over a VR, except weight.

Do some research on VR's and you'll find that a lot of people think that their a great tool.

[j_autey]

I should mention that I use the Sigma 80-400 OS, which is similar to the Nikon 80-400 VR, but was better review overall, and it is now my primary wildlife lens.<div></div>

[laurie_m]

Melanie, I have the 80-400 VR. Optically, the lens more than meets my expectations. Autofocus is a bit sluggish on my D70 but very quick on my D2X. I personally like getting 400mm in a relatively compact lens. My biggest complaint with the lens is the tripod collar. It just doesn't hold the lens firmly. Since VR really shouldn't be used with the lens tripod mounted, that doesn't help the situation. I've been able to work around this but I shouldn't have to.

 

The VR, from my experience works well in most situations. I recently used this lens, handheld, for some wedding shots and was pleasantly surprised by the outcome.

 

Since you'll be handholding, the tripod collar shouldn't be much of an issue for you. There's also a third party collar available.

 

I haven't noticed the VR slowing down focusing. Though it might and I just didn't realize it. At 400mm, I've been able to successfuly handhold at around 1/200th. Since I rarely shoot without a tripod, I'm very unsteady when handholding. Most would likely be able to handhold at slower speeds.

 

The VR has taken some getting used to. When you're looking through the viewfinder, it's hard to believe you'll end up with a sharp image. The whole frame kind of shimmies.

 

I'd recommend you try before you buy. If you can test one at a camera store shooting traffic or passers-by, you'll have a much better idea if this lens will meet your needs.

[laurie_m]

Melanie, Here's are links to two photos in my gallery that were shot with the 80-400. The Spoonbill was shot with the lens on a tripod but not locked down and the VR on. The Vulture was shot handheld, with VR on. I think the fuzzy area at the bottom of the frame is my car window that was very close to lens.

 

http://www.photo.net/photo/3156145&size=lg

 

http://www.photo.net/photo/3316839

[armando_roldan]

Regardless of what a previous poster implied, if you get a 80-400mm VR which is a painfully slow AF and in my opinon lacking in contrast compared of all the other lenses I have used for sports, you will greatly dissappoints especially for almost the price of 70-200mm Vr f2.8.

 

And the D200 is yet unavailable for you start making judgement of what you need as far as telephoto zoom needed. Do you shoot film or a D70/D100 etc? For sports you might find that 400mm will be way too much and at f5.6, too slow. Check out what a 70-200mm VR does at 1/350 of second at night baseball game. I was about 110 feet from home plate.<div></div>

[laurie_m]

Armando, That's a great shot! I think Melanie is already shooting with an 80-200 and stated she needs more focal length. I agree that there are likely better lenses out there for action shots. They just might not be in Melanie's budget.

[klix]

Melanie - I'll throw the question right back at you -- what is more imporatnt to you -- AF speed or reach??

 

If AF speed, then an 80-200mm and 1.4x TC would be better for you; if you need reach, then the 80-400mm.

[John Crowe]

I think J. missed the point a little. You need 1/500 to 1/1000 to stop movement of fast moving subjects not your lens vibration. VR would do you no good for soccer, football, baseball, swimming, or autoracing. It MAY be able to help panning with autoracing but that is not a huge necessity.

 

 

A 1.4x converter will detract less from the lens than a 2x. Also consider that you would have to bump the ISO even more for the 2x. In which case you may be better of cropping from the lower ISO image taken with a 1.4x. I have noticed that you can get a used 300mm f4 for not much more than a 1.4x though, which would provide better optical performance, however, the zoom and the 1.4x does give you more flexibility. Always tradeoffs in photography!

[John Crowe]

Armando, I think you would find that VR did nothing for your baseball shot at 1/350 with a 200mm focal length. Your shutter speed handled everything! If you had shot with VR at 1/60, you would have a nice sharp crowd and field with lots of blur from the ball and the batter, which would likely have resulted in an unpleasant effect.

 

 

Some, perhaps many, people believe that VR is helping them when in fact it may not be. It is of course very useful in lowlight situations where nothing is moving very much. In the shot of the bird the head is not moving (too much) so it has been caught quite sharply but the wings are beginning to pick up speed and do show blurred motion, any faster and the VR would not help stop them (if that is the effect one was looking for).

[j_autey]

Lets do the hypothetical math.

 

80-200mm 2.8 lens at 200mm.

 

Interior (typical high school basketball court-no flash) conditions

aperture set to 2.8

 

ISO set to 400 to get to 1/60th of a second metered. Better be on a tripod or monopod.

 

Up the ISO to 800 to get a 1/125th of second metered, better chance now.

 

Add a 1.4 TC you're now at 3.6 at 800 to get a now you're back down to 1/60th a second.

 

Up the ISO to 1600 to get back to 1/125th of second metered, going to be some GRAINY shots.

 

Use a VR lens at 5.6 at 400 ISO for a 1/30 of second shot with results around 1/60 to 1/125.

 

Up the ISO to 800 for a 1/60 metered with results of around 1/125 to 1/250.

 

TC vsVR

 

Both are at 1/60 so no difference there.

 

Both are at 800mm so no difference there.

 

TC is at 4.0, VR is at 5.6. VR has better DoF, TC better background blur-by one stop. Toss up.

 

TC needs tripod or monopod, VR can be handheld. Edge to VR

 

TC darkens viewfinder, VR doesn't. Edge to VR.

 

TC slows autofocus, VR slow focus. Toss up.

 

TC actual results 4.0 at 1/60. No enhancements.

 

VR actual results 5.6 at 1/60, enhanced results 5.6 at 1/120 to 1/250.

 

80-200mm w/TC=120-300mm vs. VR 80-400mm. Edge VR.

 

Winner in TC vs. VR battle: VR.

 

Will VR win against a 300 2.8 lens in the same situation: Never. But a VR lens is about $2000 cheaper.

So if you're on a budget and can't afford a big ol' 300mm 2.8 and have a larger budget than $200 for a TC, seems that a VR would win.

No I didn't miss the point, I was answering the quesition in the parameters given, and not expanding them.

[frank_skomial]

"there is simply no benefit to a TC over a VR"

 

Why not to take advantage of both... that is TC and VR at the same time? This works well with 70-200 / 2.8 VR, AFS, and 1.4 TC.

 

... I would not recommend TC on 80-400 due to slow focus, and the lens is already slow without TC.

[paul.thomsen]

I bought the Nikon 80-400VR a few weeks ago and am really happy with it - but having said that its probably because it suits my style of shooting - I like to wonder around handheld and I like wildlife pics. I have taken some action pics of aussie rules football and this was not a problem but it was in bright sunlight. On a D2X focus speed isn't a problem - its more the occasional hunting that can get annoying - but you learn to get around it by using the focus limiter and making sure you pic a contrasty edge to focus on.

 

I missed a Sea Eagle picking up a fish just two days ago (albeit a dead mullet i threw in the water!) because the 80-400 when into hunt mode when pointed at the water with no contrast (yeah I should've used manual focus).

 

A week after I got it I would've said its a hit and miss lens as it seemed to be fairly random when i'd get a sharp image with it handheld - but lately i've been getting mostly good ones - so I just be learning how to use it better.

 

This photo is handheld at 1/60s and at 400mm (actually 600mm on my D2X) - I think I'm fairly steady using handheld but I wouldn't normally get it this sharp i dont think at this speed so I was a bit lucky.<div></div>

[hash]

I have the 80-400 vr too, and I'd say getting sharp images at slow shutter speed is a bit inconsistent. I always shoot several in quick succession when shooting with slowish shutter, and invariaby one of them is acceptable. Nikon says VR gives you 2 to 3 stops advantage, but I guess this is an average figure. Sometimes you can get crispy images at ridiculously slow speeds and sometimes it doesn't seem to help much at all.

 

Maybe I should stay off the cofee! :-)

[ShunCheung]

80-400mm VR is not an AF-S lens. I ruled that out mainly because of that, plus I don't like a long tele slower than max f4. When it first came out, I tested one in a store on an F100 and IMO AF is very slow. For non-AF-S lenses, AF speed highly depends on the strength of the AF motor inside the body. Therefore, you'll see better results with F5, F6, and the D2 because they have stronger motors.

 

VR is not a guarantee; rather, it gives you a higher percentage of sharp images at slow shutter speeds through stabilization. Typically it is a good idea to shoot a few more samples to increase your odds of having a sharp one. Obviously VR cannot do anything about subject movement.

[mksnowhite]

Thanks all the your responses...gave me some things to think about. I do have a smaller VR lens already and am selling it becuase i just got the 28-70 2.8. I don't care about the VR...I hardly ever used it becuase as I mentioned I rarely shoot static subjects. I am pretty good at handholding so am wondering about the 80-400 WITHOUT the VR function on. How fast would you compare it...to, say the 70-210 4-5.6? I found that lens satisfactory in speed for what I shoot. I agree the VR lens I did have was incredibly slow with the VR on.

 

Would you say, VR aside, the 80-400 is optically the same as the 70-300 ED then? The only reason for the price is the VR? If that's the case I don't want it as I found the 70-300 gave lots of Chromatic Abberation. Just my experience.

[John Crowe]

J., I think you need to go to a gym and try some of the shutter speeds you are talking about. With VR at 1/60 you are going to get a lot of blurry basketball/volleyball players. You need shutter speed to stop those people. Sure your effective VR 1/250 (actual 1/60) shutter speed will stop your lens from moving but NOT the people. Read a photography book, 1/60 generally stops walking people but for running people you need 1/180 to 1/250 (and sometimes more depending on sport and speed). By the time you up the ISO to achieve these speeds, not only do you stop the people from moving you also stop the lens from moving. The 400 VR in THIS situation will save you about 1/2 stop. You need to shoot at 1/250 to stop the action and you need about 1/350 to stop the lens. Good luck.

[j_autey]

"With VR at 1/60 you are going to get a lot of blurry basketball/volleyball players."

No kidding... Thanks for the brillant observation.

But how is that going to change if you use a 80-200 with a TC effectivley making it an 4.0 vs 5.6. You're still not gaining anything in the speed department. I wasn't arguing about stopping motion and if would read the original post you would see why. The question wasn't about speed it was about whether to go with a TC or a VR. I answered that question. You like so many others on this forum decided to not answer the question, but add extraneous information. I have more respect for the poster than that. I answered the question!

All you've done is say 1/60 of a second won't stop action. Wake up, we all know that already.

[ramon_v__california_]

if you shoot action and typically between 1/500 and 1/1000th handheld, forget all the mathematical analysis above and forget VR.

as shun have said, the lens in question is not AF-S --- something you don't want to own with your style of shooting, even if you end up with the D200.

[mksnowhite]

So Ramon...would you suggest the 70-200 with the TC instead of the 80-400?

[ramon_v__california_]

melanie,

 

am not a pro but just a poor hobbyist. john crowe pretty much covered the avenues you are addressing, including budget. yes, i would go with the teleconverter. i use one for my 70-210 "D" for additional reach.....plus if it doesn't work for you, you are out not much money against getting a VR lens.....experiment....

 

i envy your steady hand and breathing technique. hey, if you have mastered those two critical elements, you definitely don't need a VR lens.