Nikon AF-S 80-400mm vs nikon 200mm f2G + TCs

[jesus_moro]

<p>I'd like to know how the new zoom behaves front the 200mm f2G VR + TCs, especially with the TC20E-III at differents f-stops.<br>

At the same price (200mm used but in very good condition) which of both would be the best option?<br>

<br />Thank you very much</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>To add some thoughts: <a href="http://www.naturalart.ca/artist/fieldtests/4waysto400.html">this</a> covers some alternatives. I'm given to understand that the TC20 + 200mm approach is a cruel way to treat an amazing lens. (I have a TC-14 which I've used with mine, and it's clearly not happy - photozone suggested that the TC-17 behaves better, which I may have to try at some point.) That review's mostly about f/8, and I've heard others say that the TC20 + 200mm choice suffers more at wider apertures than, say, the 200-400 zoom.<br />

<br />

I hope Shun will have more to say when his 80-400 review is completed. I would be unsurprised if the 80-400 keeps the big prime + teleconverter quite honest.<br />

<br />

Of course, the zoom won't get you the aperture, especially the subject isolation of the 200mm naked. My feeling is that if you want a zoom, the zoom is the best choice; if you want a 200mm lens, the 200mm prime is the best choice; if you want longer than 300mm, you're better with the right prime than trying to teleconvert a shorter one. If I wanted just the long end, I'd sooner look for a 300mm (Shun has commented that the 300 f/4 + TC-14 might be comparable to the 400mm, if less convenient) - used samples of the Sigma 300 f/2.8 or the 120-300 aren't that expensive, given the amount of glass.<br />

<br />

But, having just ditched my 150-500, I'm determined that I'm going to save for a 400 f/2.8 rather than getting distracted - after I've paid off all the rest of my camera kit.</p>

[ShunCheung]

I won't discuss the 80-400 compared to the 200mm/f2 and 400mm/f2.8, since I have no access to those lenses. And I am

not going to spend money to rent them. I have the TC-20E, versions 1 and 3. Version 3 has better optics and works well

enough with the 300mm/f2.8.

 

If you need low light performance, get the 200mm/f2.

 

The 80-400 is mainly an outdoor lens. Excellent for hand held work.

[ilkka_nissila]

<p>If you specifically need/want a 400mm lens, you should start with a lens that is 400mm without teleconverters. Using TCs on the 200/2 is a reasonable option if you'll be mostly shooting at 200mm and occasionally need a longer focal length (say 20% of the time). Otherwise you're carrying unnecessary weight for what you will be getting at those focal lengths where you need the TC. This is because the TC adds 1) weight, 2) many elements which lead to internal flare and reduced contrast, 3) optical aberrations which force you to stop down for a sharp image (typically by 1 stop minimum, i.e. at 400mm (with TC-20EIII) if you want a sharp image instead of shooting at f/4 you need to stop down to f/5.6). With typical long zooms of the past, with small maximum apertures and consumer-targeted design intended to minimize cost and weight, the longest focal length often was the weakest, and stopping down was mandatory at the longest focal length for a sharp image. However with the AF-S 80-400 you can safely shoot at 400mm, f/5.6 and stopping down only slightly improves image quality, thus the largest apertures which yield good practical results with the 80-400 and 200/2+2X at 400mm are the same; f/5.6. Yet the 200+2X is twice as heavy as the 80-400 and offers no zoom. I haven't compared these two yet, but other users' comments suggest the AF-S 80-400 has better image quality at 400mm, f/5.6. Finally, you also need to consider tripod mounts, as at 400mm you won't get the best image quality hand-held. The 1st version of the VR 200/2 has a horrible tripod mount which can only be fixed by adding a longer foot and secondary support so that both ends of the foot are in contact with the lens barrel, or by upgrading to the 2nd version which has a quite nice tripod collar IMO, though the 2X TC would put it quite off balance and with the converter that lens also might need a second support construction (at 200mm Mk II works fine on tripod with the supplied collar, whereas Mk I does not yield reproducible results due to vibration). This is especially relevant to you if you intend to use the 200/2 with the 2X TC. The 80-400 also needs a replacement tripod collar but not as badly as the 200mm, and because Nikon was kind enough to provide a completely removeable tripod collar for the 80-400, 3rd party options can be purchased which solve the problem. With the 200/2 Mk I the tripod collar which is inherently flexible and prone to vibration, is permanently fixed to the lens; only the foot can be replaced, which doesn't really solve the issue (without second support). If you intend to primarily hand-hold the 400mm lens then the 80-400 is the obvious choice because it is so much lighter and easier to hold.</p>

<p>The 200/2 (esp. Mk II) is a great lens on its own, at 200mm. I use it at 400mm on occasion, when I need to and I do get good results with it, but I intend to buy the AF-S 80-400 because of the lighter weight and better quality at 400mm, and of course zooming out is infinitely more convenient than taking off a 2X TC and replacing it by 1.4X and then taking the TC off entirely as the subject approaches, or as you want wider framing. </p>

<p>One drawback of the 80-400 is that its maximum aperture doesn't get all that much larger as you zoom back to 200mm and 80mm. It does increase a bit. If Nikon could make it start at 80mm, f/2.8, 200mm f/4, and finally 400mm, f/5.6 that would be great, but even as it is I will have plenty of applications for the zoom. But it is clearly true that it is an outdoor lens intended for use in reasonably bright light, i.e. daylight. The 200/2 is a lens which you can successfully use in just about any light in which human eyes and brain can see, i.e. even in candle light, and stage lights of course are a piece of cake for it (at 200mm).</p>

<p>Just an additional note. With the TC-14E (II), the 1st version of the VR 200/2 has strange haloes at high contrast boundaries wide apertures, mostly fixed by stopping down 2/3 to 1 stops to f/4ish but image quality continues to improve beyond that and I often end up using f/5.6 with both TCs. I think using the TC gives a little bit more detail on the D800 than just shooting at 200mm and cropping, but I'm not entirely convinced it useful to put the 1.4X TC on that lens due to the additional internal flare and ghosts at high contrast boundaries. The nano-coated Mk II of the VR 200/2 seems to have reduced this issue of internal flare with the 1.4X. However it gives such fantastic quality without TC that I rarely bother putting the 1.4X on. I do put on the 2X when I need it; shooting at 200mm and then cropping by 2X is just too much crop; I cannot see the subject and focus properly in such a small patch of the viewfinder and with the 2X TC on, composing, focusing and timing shots is easier, and the image quality is okay though not as good as shooting at 200mm or with a true high quality 400mm lens. </p>

<p>My recommendation is as I said in the first line; it is not a good idea to purchase a lens with the intention of using it with a TC on most of the time. A proper long lens of the correct focal length gives better quality results and lets you shoot wide open when needed (which is often when you work with a long lens!).</p>

 

[ShunCheung]

<p>I would be very comfortable using the 1.4x TC-14e on any one of the lenses discussed so far (but it is very slow on the 80-400, which is already at maximum f5.6).</p>

<p>When the TC-20e III first came out, there was a lot of hype about it. Due to some ordering/shipping delay, I had two of them simultaneously for a few days. I also have a TC-20e version 1. The two version 3 I tried were pretty much identical, somewhat better than version 1. (Version 2 is optically identical to version 1.) I added the version 3 to my 70-200mm/f2.8 AF-S VR II a few times; it essentially ruins that great zoom. On a fixed 200mm, 300mm, or 400mm (i.e. non zoom), it should work better.</p>

<p>I am sure the 20e III will be ok on the 200mm/f2, but as Ilkka says, if you need 400mm often, get a 400mm lens. Or at least get a 300mm/f2.8 and add a TC-14e. I would use a 2x TC only when it is absolutely necessary.</p>

[jesus_moro]

<p>Thank you very much for your quick, skilled and extensive answers.<br /> Seems clear that at 400mm the best choice is the 80-400 AF-S. <br /> My main goal is to photograph birds, especially birds in flight, as well as some macro (flowers and insects). I have a nikon 500mm f4 AFSII and seek a more light lens that allows me to shoot without tripod. My camera is a D300s. The answer seems to be the new 80-400m AF-S<br /><br /> Abusing your kindness would like to raise another issue. What would be the best combo exclusively for birds in flight, in the sense of fast acquisition focus and subject tracking? ¿Nikon D300s + Nikkor 300mm f2.8 VR or Nikon D4 + Nikkor 500mm afs-II?<br /> Thank you very much again</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>The new 80-400 AF-S should be a great lens for hand held, birds in flight photography: http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00bnh5</p>

<p>For birds that are farther away, I would use the 500mm/f4 on a gimbal swivel head on a tripod. The best set up is to have one camera on each one of those two lenses.</p>