70-200mmVR + 1.4 or 2.0 TC (1 Viewer)

As I consider new lens options, I want more reach than my 70-300VR. We all know that the 70-200 is an awesome lens. Now the 80-400VR I've been considering is F/4.5-5.6. With a 2x TC wouldn't this put the 70-200mm which by itself is 2.8 in about at about the same as the 80-400? How much image quality would I lose? Is this a better combination?

i have had the pleasure of owning theese two remarkable lenses.I have to say they are both very good.

Firstly the nikkor 80-400 vr lens in itself the lens is very sharp however if you try to add a converter then the autofocus is extremely slow and will hunt also the lens is designed to have a slow autofocus it is of the old screw autofocus dont get me wrong this lens is superb for walkaround photography but to add a converter to it then you have problems.

secondly the nikkor 70- 200 vr lens this lens is very sharp never have i owned a sharper lens i got rid of mine a while back i used to use it with a 1.7 converter which with the nikon d200 gave me a crop of about 420mm which is very good in my advice you would be better going for the nikon 300f4 afs with the converter this for the money is an excelent combination i myself used to have this now i have the nikkor 300-2.8 afs vr lens which i carry every where i go for the money the nikkor 300 afs with the 1.4 combo is better than the other two options.

thanks neil.

sigma also have some new arivals

APO 150-500mm F5-6.3 DG OS HSM. M.S.R.P. $1450.00 USD

APO 120-400mm F4.5-5.6 DG OS HSM. M.S.R.P. $1270.00 USD

both theese lenses fit the nikon mount and are excellent walkaround lenses .

yep, I have bought and sold a TC20eII twice now, they just don't cut it even with my 70-200vr, got to agree with Nez, the 300/4 plus a 1.4 is the best option, the 300/4 will work very well with the 1.7 as well

I actually most likely would go with a 1.7, that would give me an aperture of 4.8 which would be acceptable to me. The Sigma 150-500 I have also considered but it seems to be hit and miss as far as quality and dependability are concerned. Also, 5.6-6.3 just seems almost too slow, that's slower than my 70-300VR! The 80-400VR has about the same aperture range as my current lens so I am used to that speed. VR is key for me. I don't (and often can't) deal with tripods. I can carry around heavy equipment up to a point so the weight of these isn't a real issue. For me, it's freedom from the tripod. Also that 300mm prime with a 1.7 converter at F/4 would be about the same as the 80-400 or 70-300 and has no VR. I also like the flexibility of a zoom but my experience with them is limited to the consumer zooms which is fine for birds like gulls, herons and waterfowl that are used to people. Not so good for most small birds as we all know.

Between the 80-400 and 70-200 w/TC which out of these two options would be better?

gentoo, 300 and a 1.7 is 510mm which is 25% longer than 400mm, not about the same, I understand that vr or is can be vital but not so much if your shooting at higher shutter speeds.
Add to that the additional CCD magnification effect and your looking at over 750mm. It takes good technique to hand hold at this range.
IMHO my photos have improved greatly since moving from monopod mounting to tripod mounting.
I agree that a tripod can be akward at times but if you can use one I found its a its a greater improvement than vr.
Don't get me wrong i would love all my lenses to have vr but the only way I could achieve that is to sell and buy Canon, it'll be cheaper in the long run.

Whilst I haven't used the 80-400 I have used and own a 70-200vr with a 2x and won't ever do that again, whats the point of having one of the sharpest lenses on the market and sticking all that additional that glass in the way. iMHO best option is the 300/4 afs and have both the 1.4 and 1.7 this will effectively give you 300 - 510/4-6.3 and as a prime lens is 1st rate, if Nikon produced a 100-400vr with AF-S it would be better but a zoom can't ever be as good as a prime lens esp. as the focal range increases.

Well, I guess now I should look at Tripods or at least monopods. I am not going to go against the advice of those I know are proven great bird photographers. I will be getting the 300mm f/4 prime. How is this lens with a Kenko pro 300 1.4 TC? I have this TC right now. If they are good with this lens I will get a 1.7 or even a 2.0. With a prime like this, will the image quality still be great with TC's?

Gentoo, I have had excellent results with Nikon TC14 & TC17, wouldn't use a TC20 (2x) for the same reasons as with the 70-200vr, its only my opinion but I don't think I've ever really shot a good picture with a 2x, there may be loads of people that have, as I said sold my 2x won't ever buy another. for the loss of 0.3x the 1.7 will produce far better results.
try all combinations if you can and buy what you prefer to use.

Duke Leto said:

Gentoo, I have had excellent results with Nikon TC14 & TC17, wouldn't use a TC20 (2x) for the same reasons as with the 70-200vr, its only my opinion but I don't think I've ever really shot a good picture with a 2x, there may be loads of people that have, as I said sold my 2x won't ever buy another. for the loss of 0.3x the 1.7 will produce far better results.
try all combinations if you can and buy what you prefer to use.

Click to expand...

I've actually heard the same sorts of things about 2xTC's from far too many people. A 1.7 should be plenty, I still need to get one of those but I do have my 1.4 as well. So Kenko pro will be good with these lenses right? Will the exif data be correct? When I experimented with it on my 70-300VR, the exif read 280 when it would have said 420. Perhaps it was because that lens isn't meant for TC's?

Can't answer, never used one, I'm sure someone on the BF can advise