Nikon 70-200 f/4 with 1.4 tele extender vs 80-400

[skip_wilson]

<p>I have a fairly new and minimally used Nikon 70-200f/4 lens with which I use a Kenko 1.4 tele extender with my D7100. Does the significantly more expensive Nikon 80-400 f/4.5-5.6 G AF-S used without an extender offer that much more reach and light when I factor in my DX cropping factor on top of using my 1.4 extender with my 70-200? Does one figure the tele extender 1.4 factor on top of the DX 1.5 cropping factor using the D7100 along with the 1.4 tele extender when calculating the final focal length? ( That would I believe put the effective focal length at 420mm and 5.6 with my current 70-200 f/4 and 1.4 tele.) If this is true, is the 80-400 worth the extra cost to replace the 70-200? Thanks</p>

[nick_baker]

<p>The 1.5x crop factor is a function of the body, not the lens. The 70-200 and 80-400 lenses are both affected equally by the crop factor of the body. Therefore this is not a factor in the comparison.</p>

[robert_bouknight1]

<p>Skip, is your 70-200 the current AFS-VR or the much older version with very wide zoom ring?</p>

<p>I have used a Nikon TC-17 with the current 70-200/4 AFS version on a D300s, and was very happy with the results.</p>

<p>I am sure that the 80-400 AFS-VR would be a little better than your lens & TC, the other choice now is the new 200-500 AFS VR and keep your 70-200.</p>

[Dieter Schaefer]

<p>Using a 1.4x on a 70-200/4 results in a 98-280/5.6 lens - nowhere near the reach of a 80-400. Light gathering is only marginally better on the 80-400 which reaches f/5.6 at the 300mm setting and is f/5 from 200mm onward.<br>

As Nick pointed out, the DX crop factor affects both lenses equally - being a function of the camera sensor. In term of FX-FOV equivalent, you end up with 147-420 vs a 120-600.</p>

[ShunCheung]

Nikon has produced exactly one version of the 70-200mm/f4 lens, ever, the current AF-S VR. The previous f4 zooms

were 70-210 or have other max apertures. If you stick a 1.4x TC on any Nikon 70-200mm zoom, you need to stop down

at least a stop to get really good results. When you start from f4, you lose a stop from the TC and need to go further down

to f8. You'll end up with a slow tele that is only good at f8. You would fare better if you start with an f2.8 zoom.

 

The 80-400 AF-S VR goes all the way to 400mm, of course, and is excellent wide open at f5.6, but it costs a lot more.

The 80-400 pretty much covers the 70-200mm/f4's range (minus the shortest 10mm, which is often covered by other

lenses). The issue is that the 80-400 is much bigger, besides cost.

[roland_vink]

<p>Please ignore FX/DX "cropping factors" as they are confusing the question. First consider the focal length:</p>

<p>Putting a 1.4x TC on the AFS 70-200/4 VR gives you a 100-280/5.6 lens. You may as well use the AFS 70-300 VR instead. This has a little more more zoom range at both ends, slightly faster aperture at the shorter focal lengths, and probably as good optical quality (although the 70-200/4 is better without a TC)</p>

<p>If you need to zoom in a bit more, you have two options: either keep the lens you have and crop a bit (assuming the cropped image stands up to scrutiny); or buy a longer lens. There are a few longer lenses which reasonably "affordable":</p>

<ul>

<li>Nikon AFS 80-400 VR - this is the most expensive of the bunch but has the most versatile zoom range.</li>

<li>Nikon AFS 200-500 VR - this will give you significantly more reach than your 70-200/4, it's relatively affordable, but it's quite bulky. You have to consider if you can adequately support this lens while shooting, and if it's portable enough for you to actually use it (no point if it stays at home because it's too big)</li>

<li>Nikon AFS 300/4 PF VR - very compact, good optically, gives you a reasonably fast 300mm lens, and with a 1.4x TC a good 420/5.6 lens.</li>

<li>Also consider the Tamron and Sigma 150-600mm zooms. They have similar issues as the Nikon 200-500, with a bit more zoom range in exchange for a slower aperture at the long end.</li>

</ul>

<p>Although telephoto zooms can be useful, if you end up using them mostly at the long end you are probably better off with a prime such as the 300/4 which are generally more compact, cheaper, and better optically.</p>

<p> </p>

[skip_wilson]

<p>Thank you all for your responses. Roland, you suggested not using the 1.4 TC on my Nikon AFS 70-200 f/4. Is this due to the need to shoot at f/8 in order to get a good IQ or does it degrade the IQ some other way eg. needing to ramp up the ISO and potential noise to get good IQ? </p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>Generally speaking, zooms don't work well with teleconverters. The 70-200mm/f4 is a $1400 lens. When you add a 1.4x TC on it, the combo is approaching $2000 (a Nikon 1.4x TC is about $500, although the Kenko the OP has in mind is cheaper), but the performance is no better, most likely a bit worse, than a $500, 70-300mm AF-S VR lens that has a slightly wider zoom range.</p>

<p>Again, generally speaking, adding a TC is frequently an effective way to significantly degrade an expensive zoom.</p>