70-300VR vs 80-400VR

[aophotography]

I am going to Africa and because this is a missions trip I am very limited on

what I can take with me. I have a 17-70 2.8 but definitely need a zoom for my

trip into Kruger Game Park. I should be able to pack a tripod but what is the

recommendation of lens to get.

 

I see the 70-300VR is going for $400-500, and I have seen the 80-400VR for

$1200. Both seem to get decent reviews. I know the 80-400 will give me better

range for animals... but is it worth the extra $800-1000?

 

Brett

[gator1999]

A very good question. I would like to know about the comparison too. I have a 80-400mm but surely it is too heavy even just for a day trip to San Diego zoo. In most incident, you still, at least, a monopod to go with the set. I have 80-400+D200 plus a bogen monopod. The weight is really killing.

[Jerry_]

For what it is worth: the VR 80-400mm lens has a 'you-can-take-it-off' tripod mount. The range from 300mm out to 400mm is not going to happen with the VR 70-300mm lens.

 

 

 

 

A trip to Africa may be a once-in-a-lifetime deal: you have to decide.

[stephen_fassman]

The 70-300 is quite good for what it is, certainly extremely hand-holdable @ 300 mm. Would

the addition of a 300/4 + 1.4 TC eliminate the need for the 80-400?

[tim_knight]

I wonder why the guides services over there do not have lenes for you to rent? With travel restriction and other job restriction like yours it would be a great feature offered with their service.

[bsd230]

One thing to consider is will you use either lens that much when you get back? If not you may want to consider renting a lens depending on how long you'll be gone. You could rent a 80-400 for about 125.00 give of take, for 3 weeks. But if you think you will use it when you get back the 80-400 is a very nice lens. 70-300 would probably work okay, you will have to crop some photos more than you would with the 400, which could be the difference in making a larger print. I personally would love to have the 300 f4 1.4 TC, but I'm not sure how it would work on a safari. I'm sure you want to limit the number of lens changes you make out there but the 300 would be sharp no doubt.

[juanjo_viagran]

I would go for a Nikon 80-200mm 2.8 and 1.4 TC

IMO the 80-200mm 2.8 (quality picture wise) is better than 70-300 and 80-400, plus when you don't need the 1.4 TC you have a fast lens which can help for some moving animals shots.

 

PS.

this is a wile life shot I took with a Nikon 85mm 1.8 lens... ;)

<a href="http://photobucket.com" target="_blank"><img src="http://i24.photobucket.com/albums/c41/EastCoastHucker/DSC_0047-2.jpg" border="0" alt="Photo Sharing and Video Hosting at Photobucket"></a>

[petrana_batik]

-- "I would go for a Nikon 80-200mm 2.8 and 1.4 TC"

 

I wouldn't. Why go for such a contraption? the 80-200/2.8 is great without a TC, and ok with a TC. if you really need the extra reach, get the Sigma 100-300/4 EX, probably the best -300 zoom out there.

 

With prices for the 70-300VR dipping under $500, I see no sense in investing in the 80-200/2.8 ED unless you REALLY need f/2.8.

[User_276104]

Since your original question was which lens to get, I'd recommend the 70-300 VR. I have both the 80-400 and 70-300 VR lenses and the sheer size of the 70-300 will have you using it more, if portability is a concern. It also is AF-S so that's a plus right there. The difference between 300mm and 400mm is actually pretty minimal.

[huntrbll]

Once in Kruger National Park, you will not be allowed to leave the vehicle. So, unless you have other uses for the tripod I would skip it. If you can afford it, I would go with the 80-400 lens for the extra reach. There will be circumstances where youy will be glad you have it.

[kaiyen]

I'm surprised there hasn't been any comments about focusing speed. The 80-400 is notoriously slow, whereas the 70-300 has AFS and should be faster. I haven't tried it, but most things should be faster than the 80-400.

 

allan

[elliot1]

The 80-400 may feel very heavy in your hands after just a short period of time. The difference between 300mm and 400mm is minimal.

 

I would suggest you try them both out - feel the difference in weight, see the difference between 300mm and 400mm and decide whether you feel it is worth the extra money and weight inconvenience.

 

Alan, not all AFS lenses focus fast. For the type of photography Brett will be doing, focus speed is likely not a big issue.

 

If you get the 80-400, consider a monopod.

 

Have a great trip!

[aophotography]

Thank you all for your input. I appreciate the time each of you has taken to share your knowledge and experience. It is a difficult decision. I will see if I can rent a lense locally to try it out.

[chris_kruger2]

I have a 80-400VR and 70-300mm. I go to the Kruger Park a number of times a year, and mostly use the 80-400. A tripod in the Kruger Park is of limited use, as 99% of photos are taken from inside a vehicle. To have a bean bag is very good, I usually buy a bag of rice when I get there, and use it as a bean back on the window of the vehicle.