70-200mm f/2.8 VRII with a TC-20E III vs 80-400mm

[sim_m]

<p>Hi,<br>

Sometime ago I had asked if anyone has tried the 70-200mm f/2.8 VRII with a TC-20E III. But at that time there was only one. May I ask more opinions on this combination please.<br>

Is it wiser to go for an 80-400mm instead, I would much prefere the first setup due to the 70-200mm's excellent capabilities (SWM, improved VR and optical improvements). But image quality comes first due to add ons.<br>

I need the combo for bird shooting<br>

Thanks in advance for your help</p>

[Jerry_]

<p>Bird shooting? Flying? Perched? Swimming? Adding two stops to a f2.8 lens with a TC-20E III teleconverter may work, but how well would be up to you. If you can find a AF 300mm lens, the quality of you images may be better. The 80-400mm will give you the reach, but bright light shooting is better....</p>

<p> </p>

[robertbody]

<p>I just read..... how 80-400mm is slow to focus, or misses focus.<br /> 70-200mm is great, less so with 1.4x [but sometimes not noticeable], and noticeable with 2.0 [if you look the right way]....... but still better than 80-400mm<br /> Zooms are nice, but when you get into the telephoto and super-telephoto range there are definite advantages to using primes or primes with TCs. while 180mm f/2.8 is slow to focus, and slower yet with a TC, 300mm f/4 might do by itself as closed enough to 400mm.<br /> Many of the best telephoto shots are with primes, not zooms... especially when you get beyond the 200mm range.<br /> If you must zoom, 70-200mm with 1.4 or 2.0..... but try a prime instead, like 300mm f/4<br>

<img src="http://robertbody.com/panoramic09/images/2009-02-13-riparian-herons-94218sp.jpg" alt="" /></p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>It sounds like you'll use both combinations mainly at the long end, in which case a prime makes sense; it's not like you'd be sacrificing the flexibility a lot.<br>

That said, the 70-200 is useful in a wide range of cases, and in which its f/2.8 aperture would be most helpful; the 80-400 is a slow aperture zoom, so it's somewhat less beneficial for other uses, in my view. <br />But for a bit more money than the 70-200VRII, you can also get an AF-S 300 f/4, TC14 and a AF-D 80-200 f/2.8 probably. And that's a fine set of lenses for sure :-)</p>

[rodeo_joe1]

<p>I agree that a prime would probably be the way to go, since if you need the extra reach of an 80-400, then you're going to be zoomed fully out most of the time. For the price of the TC-20EIII you could get a fairly decent used 400mm AF f/5.6 lens that will give you better corner and edge definition than the 80-400 zoom. It'll probably beat the 70-200 + TC combo too. For the price of the Nikon 80-400 zoom you could get a new 3rd party 400mm prime. You might have to sacrifice VR though.</p>

<p>The older Sigma AF 400mm f/5.6 Apo is a decent optical performer that can be picked up quite cheaply, but the new HSM version is well overpriced for its specification IMHO.</p>

[User_1172872]

<blockquote>

<p> For the price of the Nikon 80-400 zoom you could get a new 3rd party 400mm prime.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Are any 3rd party 400mm lens actually in production?</p>

[User_1172872]

<p>For about the price of a 70-200mm f/2.8 VRII with a TC-20E III, or perhaps a little more, you could buy an EOS 7D and a Canon 400mm 5.6 lens. How much the lack of VR matters only you can judge; but I doubt that either of the options you are considering can beat the 400 Canon in terms of sharpness or autofocus speed.</p>

[slopoki]

<p>Sim,<br>

If it's mainly for birds a 300/4 afs with the 14e is a better way to go. Gives excellent results wide open with the 14e. <br>

Rick</p>

<p>http://slopoki1.smugmug.com/Nature</p>

[elliot1]

<p>While the 80-400mm lens is not without fault, image quality, especially at 400mm, is not an issue with this lens.</p>

<p><em>"I just read..... how 80-400mm is slow to focus, or misses focus." </em> This comment is made often, and usually by photographers that have never used the lens and simply repeat what they have read. AF speed with this lens is certainly not the fastest. Its AF speed and performance is highly dependent on which Nikon body you use it on. While it is certainly not fast like an AF-S lens, on a D3/D3s body, it is no slouch either. And for well under $1000, it is probably the best choice both financially and image quality wise for someone that needs 400mm reach.</p>

<p>I too would like to see comparison photos between the two combinations Sim lists. Does anyone have any or can anyone provide a link to comparison photos?</p>

[ShunCheung]

<blockquote>

<p>This comment is made often, and usually by photographers that have never used the lens and simply repeat what they have read. AF speed with this lens is certainly not the fastest.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Elliot, plenty of photographers who own the 80-400 have pointed out that its AF is slow. I personally tried that a couple of times at a camera store a decade ago on an F100 and found the AF speed totally unacceptable. It is so bad that it is not even worth debating. Back then, the D3 wasn't available yet.</p>

<p>I think it is fair to say that you have very different quality requirements in general.</p>

<p>Personally, I would not put a TC-20E III on a 70-200mm/f2.8 AF-S, either version. That is a very effective way to totally degrade the quality of an expensive lens. If you must do that at a pinch, that is fine. IMO that is not something one should be doing on a regular basis.</p>

[lornesunley]

<p>I have used both a 300 f/4 (non AFS) and the 80-400 for taking pictures of birds in flight. Neither one of them is especially fast in acquiring focus but will result in pretty decent shots. If you can find a decent one, go for a 400mm prime lens.<br>

I have some examples taken at the "Birds in Flight" show put on by the Canadian Raptor Conservancy, both are of a Lammer Falcon.<br>

This shot was with the 300 f/4</p><div></div>

[lornesunley]

<p>this one is with the 80-400 lens (at 380mm)</p><div></div>

[sim_m]

<p>Thanks everyone for your help. Maybe the best option is to save up and get the 200-400mm, I know its a big jump, but its results look great, That may be a sure bet on all my options.<br /> I am sure I will not regret it.<br /> Thanks again</p>

[robertbody]

<p>Sim, results look great as a combination of things :) not just the lens<br>

200-400mm just like other lenses of such pricetag are quite different to get used to, you probably need a Gimbal head, a tripod that's "enough" for it and generally not "walking around" because the setup gets heavy.<br>

200-400mm is a very fine lens, might do very well, as would others in its class... 300mm f/2.8 or 500mm f/4. Results with any of the 3 lenses can be exceptional. 300mm f/4 can give exceptional results at times too. Most important is technique and dedication [experience and time].</p>

[jon_savage]

<p>I have the 70-200 VR2 and TC20-III. I added the TC as a way to get to 400mm as I had a 70-200 already. It's OK. I use it a lot when I'm out all day (typically at a motorsport event) where TC's are a good compromise verses carrying lots of lenses. <br /><br />But if I'm out trying to photograph birds 400mm has not been enough for me and I need to crop much more and that's when I start to any extra softness. Where it falls down is the speed. F5.6 just doesn't get the shutter speeds I need at 400mm unless it's very bright and I suspect that is where I suffer. The VR is effective.<br /><br />Unfortunately I've no other 400mm options to show direct comparisons so I don't know for sure how well my images stand against a 300/4+TC14 or a the 400mm end of the 80-400. <br /><br />If I had to choose one set up to only photograph birds it would probably be the 300/4+TC14 set for the best quality (if I beleive the reports) and maximum reach (420mm). For maximum versatility it would be the 70-200+TC20 set for the wide range and zoom and for the option of a great lens without a TC. <br /><br />I've dug out some bird examples. Default jpeg straight from camera (D300s) with no extra sharpening. All at maximum zoom and apature (400mm f5.6) so at it's worst. They scrub up nicely from raw with a bit of tweaking and sharpening and fine for a modest print size or large web image.</p><div></div>

[jon_savage]

<p>This one was hand held sitting in the back garden. VR working well as this was at 160th, again at maximum zoom and apature (400mm f5.6).</p><div></div>

[jon_savage]

<p>Finally...<br>

As well as shutter speed I notice focus has to be spot on. My previous camera (D90) front focused and you could see that at 400mm f5.6 spoiling a lot of the images. My new camera is much better but I still dial in a bit of front fine tune for closer objects.</p><div></div>

[mariosforsos]

<p>If you're talking about the old 80-400 (I'm only saying this 'cause, according to rumours, a new one is coming out VERY shortly), then the 70-200 and TC-EIII 2x is the clear winner EVERY time, for all the reasons mentioned above. Hell, the combination proved better than a Sigma 120-400 OS I tested recently, producing sharper, better images all across the board.</p>