400mm for Nikon -- build or buy?

For $1650, I can buy the AF VR Zoom-Nikkor 80-400mm f/4.5-5.6D ED. Or, for
$2500 I can buy the AF-S VR Zoom-Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8G IF-ED and a TC-20E
to stick on the end of it.

Either way, I end up with a 400mm f/5.6 at the long end. The first one has
more at the short end, although obviously I can take the TC off and get
that back. The second has AF-S. Those are the obvious paper differences.

The question is (and I recognize this may be a naive question), will there
be any difference in image quality between the two which I, as a
non-professional, will notice?

The 80-400 was released 9 years ago. What are the odds that a AF-S VR-II
version is due out any time soon?

In article , Roy Smith
wrote:

For $1650, I can buy the AF VR Zoom-Nikkor 80-400mm f/4.5-5.6D ED. Or, for
$2500 I can buy the AF-S VR Zoom-Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8G IF-ED and a TC-20E
to stick on the end of it.

Either way, I end up with a 400mm f/5.6 at the long end. The first one has
more at the short end, although obviously I can take the TC off and get
that back. The second has AF-S. Those are the obvious paper differences.

the 70-200 by itself is a very good lens, so you have some additional
flexibility if you get that and a teleconverter.

however, i would also suggest that you consider the nikon 70-300 vr.
although it doesn't reach to 400mm, it's a very good lens and a *lot*
less money. it has afs so it will focus faster and quieter than the
80-400 and it's a lot lighter too. the only thing it lacks is the
300-400mm range and only you can decide that little extra reach is
worth paying $1200-2000 more.

another option is the 80-200mm and a teleconverter but it lacks
stabilization. however, it's a lot cheaper than the 70-200vr.

The question is (and I recognize this may be a naive question), will there
be any difference in image quality between the two which I, as a
non-professional, will notice?

why not go to a store and take some sample photos and see?

The 80-400 was released 9 years ago. What are the odds that a AF-S VR-II
version is due out any time soon?

a replacement for it has been talked about for a while. the 80-400 is
not an afs lens and it's not exactly fast to focus. the stabilization
has also improved a lot since when it was introduced. i would expect
that lens to be near the top of the list to be replaced but whether
it's next up or not is anyone's guess. in any event, i doubt there will
be any new lenses until pma, but you never know.

Roy Smith wrote:
For $1650, I can buy the AF VR Zoom-Nikkor 80-400mm f/4.5-5.6D ED. Or, for
$2500 I can buy the AF-S VR Zoom-Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8G IF-ED and a TC-20E
to stick on the end of it.

Either way, I end up with a 400mm f/5.6 at the long end.

Another thought...

An old 300mm f/2.8 Ai and the 1.4 teleconverter for better results and
420mm f/4 although no AF or zoom at all, you could maybe get that for
$1200. The Nikon TC-14E and TC-14E II are really excellent compact
optics and a 300/2.8 is a joy to use if you don't mind the (large but
manageable) size, it is pretty much the limit for hand held use anyways.
Assuming DX, you are already there without the teleconverter.

The 70-200/2.8 VR is great, with 1.4 it's still great, with 2x it's just OK.


The first one has
more at the short end, although obviously I can take the TC off and get
that back. The second has AF-S. Those are the obvious paper differences.

The question is (and I recognize this may be a naive question), will there
be any difference in image quality between the two which I, as a
non-professional, will notice?

The 80-400 was released 9 years ago. What are the odds that a AF-S VR-II
version is due out any time soon?


--
Paul Furman
www.edgehill.net
www.baynatives.com

all google groups messages filtered due to spam

Roy Smith wrote:
For $1650, I can buy the AF VR Zoom-Nikkor 80-400mm f/4.5-5.6D ED. Or, for
$2500 I can buy the AF-S VR Zoom-Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8G IF-ED and a TC-20E
to stick on the end of it.

Either way, I end up with a 400mm f/5.6 at the long end. The first one has
more at the short end, although obviously I can take the TC off and get
that back. The second has AF-S. Those are the obvious paper differences.

The question is (and I recognize this may be a naive question), will there
be any difference in image quality between the two which I, as a
non-professional, will notice?

The 80-400 was released 9 years ago. What are the odds that a AF-S VR-II
version is due out any time soon?


300 Af-s or AF-d f4 (with 1.4 x converter if needed), and an 80-200
AF-d. Get the VR only if you really need VR and slightly faster focus
than the two-ring Af-d.
If you need fast focus, good optics, VR, and 300mm, then you're going
to need to spend a lot of money.
It would be nice if Nikon would update the 80-400, and add Vr and faster
focus to the 300mm f4, but many people have been asking/saying that for
years, and it hasn't happened yet.

"nospam" wrote in message
...
[]
however, i would also suggest that you consider the nikon 70-300 vr.
although it doesn't reach to 400mm, it's a very good lens and a *lot*
less money. it has afs so it will focus faster and quieter than the
80-400 and it's a lot lighter too. the only thing it lacks is the
300-400mm range and only you can decide that little extra reach is
worth paying $1200-2000 more.

Second that suggestion - save weight and money.

David

Roy Smith wrote:
For $1650, I can buy the AF VR Zoom-Nikkor 80-400mm f/4.5-5.6D ED. Or, for
$2500 I can buy the AF-S VR Zoom-Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8G IF-ED and a TC-20E
to stick on the end of it.

If you want a truly sharp 400mm lens, either the
200-400mm f/4 (at $6000) or the 400mm f/2.8 ($8000), are
the unquestionably better than the combinations you
mention.

The 80-400mm, however, is good enough for a budget
minded application that won't pay for itself (a
non-commercial use).

It does have an advantage over using a 70-200mm f/2.8G
with a 2x TC. That is, you *can* use a 1.5x TC with the
80-400mm. (Note that AF function is lost with a 2x TC
though.) A 2x TC on the 70-200mm f/2.8G with VRII will
focus faster and will have better VR than the 80-400mm.
It remains to be seen which is sharper (I wouldn't bet
on anything using a 2x TC, though if you are lucky or in
a position to hand select one that matches well, it is
certainly possible).

If you are shooting with a DX camera, the older 70-200mm
lenses are fine too (as is the 80-200mm AFS or even the
older AFD version, *if* you don't need VR).

On a budget, the older 70-200mm f/2.8 VR plus the
80-400mm AFD VR, coupled with a 1.5x TC, make up what is
probably the best buy for the money telephoto lens kit
for a Nikon DX camera.

For Nikon FX cameras, the newest 70-200mm VRII lens (or
the older 80-200mm lenses if VR is not needed) should
replace the 70-200mm.

Either way, I end up with a 400mm f/5.6 at the long end. The first one has
more at the short end, although obviously I can take the TC off and get
that back. The second has AF-S. Those are the obvious paper differences.

The 200mm + 2x TC has faster AF and better VR, but
probably isn't as sharp, and you can't put a 1.5 TC on
it either.

The question is (and I recognize this may be a naive question), will there
be any difference in image quality between the two which I, as a
non-professional, will notice?

What kind of photography do you do? If you point that
thing at people (or anything else that moves slowly), go
for the 80-400mm. For flying birds, the 70-200mm, even
with a 2x TC might well be better. (And maybe the
200-400mm f/4 would be even better than that.)

The 80-400 was released 9 years ago. What are the odds that a AF-S VR-II
version is due out any time soon?

Because the 200-400mm f/4 exists, and is as good as it
is, don't hold your breath for an expensive upgrade to a
low volume lens like the 80-400mm.

--
Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)

On Mon, 26 Oct 2009 20:28:40 -0400, Roy Smith wrote:

For $1650, I can buy the AF VR Zoom-Nikkor 80-400mm f/4.5-5.6D ED. Or, for
$2500 I can buy the AF-S VR Zoom-Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8G IF-ED and a TC-20E
to stick on the end of it.

FWIW, years ago when I bought a D70 I opted for the 70-200 f/2.8 VR +
TC-20EII combo instead of the 80-400mm f/4.5-5.6 VR. At the time, I
still believe it was the right decision for my. Had the TC-17EII been
available at the time that might have been a better choice. I don't
have any experience with this combo, but now also have a TC-14EII. I
then upgraded to a D200 and eventually a D300.

Along the way I exchanged a wagon full of cash for a 200-400 f/4 VR. I
got to keep the wagon which helps to haul this lens around. Just
kidding, I shoot 99.95% hand held. For wildlife one can use more
length most of the time, so I use the 1.4x behind it much of the time.
I have used the 2x behind it in favorable conditions. All three
cameras will try to focus with this f/8 combo. How well they do
depends upon which camera and how good are the conditions. Of course
the D300 will focus properly in the widest of conditions. All are
SLOW.


Either way, I end up with a 400mm f/5.6 at the long end. The first one has
more at the short end, although obviously I can take the TC off and get
that back. The second has AF-S. Those are the obvious paper differences.

No, you are forgetting a stellar, fast focusing 70-200 f2.8 without
the TC. That may not be a trivial part of your kit, but only you can
answer that. The VR in the 70-200 is an improved version from the
original VR design used in the 80-400. So if VR is important to you,
you might consider this. If not then add an 80-200 f/2.8 to the mix as
well. As others have mentioned you can save some $$ this way.

The question is (and I recognize this may be a naive question), will there
be any difference in image quality between the two which I, as a
non-professional, will notice?

What camera and what type of subject are you intending to shoot and in
what conditions? Consider these may be limiting factors. Fast moving
subjects which challenge focus/speed or panning/technique and/or low
light which pushes low shutter speeds even with high iso. I do a fair
amount of playing/running dog, long wildlife, race car/motorcycle,
military jet aircraft photos.

The 80-400 was released 9 years ago. What are the odds that a AF-S VR-II
version is due out any time soon?

I can't speak to that.

In article , me
wrote:

Along the way I exchanged a wagon full of cash for a 200-400 f/4 VR.

Sadly, there aren't any $6,000 lenses in the immediate future for me.

What camera and what type of subject are you intending to shoot and in
what conditions?

Mostly wildlife and sailboats, both of which always leave me wishing I had
a longer lens. Here's a couple of recent shots of birds:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/1062582...7622427141873/

They're all pretty drastic crops from the original, which is why I'm
looking for the 400 length.

On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 21:15:42 -0400, Roy Smith wrote:

In article , me
wrote:

Along the way I exchanged a wagon full of cash for a 200-400 f/4 VR.

Sadly, there aren't any $6,000 lenses in the immediate future for me.

What camera and what type of subject are you intending to shoot and in
what conditions?

Mostly wildlife and sailboats, both of which always leave me wishing I had
a longer lens. Here's a couple of recent shots of birds:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/1062582...7622427141873/

They're all pretty drastic crops from the original, which is why I'm
looking for the 400 length.


waiting for the light-bulb to go off in their heads

In article ,
Carlton Davis wrote:

On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 21:15:42 -0400, Roy Smith wrote:

In article , me
wrote:

Along the way I exchanged a wagon full of cash for a 200-400 f/4 VR.

Sadly, there aren't any $6,000 lenses in the immediate future for me.

What camera and what type of subject are you intending to shoot and in
what conditions?

Mostly wildlife and sailboats, both of which always leave me wishing I had
a longer lens. Here's a couple of recent shots of birds:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/1062582...7622427141873/

They're all pretty drastic crops from the original, which is why I'm
looking for the 400 length.


waiting for the light-bulb to go off in their heads

I'm not following. Or maybe the light bulb hasn't gone off yet. What
point are you trying to make?