Re: 70-200 VR or 80-400 VR?
You could honestly get away with using the 70-200mm f/2.8 and a TC-20E to get to 400mm if your other option is the 80-400mm. The 80-400mm needs to be stopped down to something like f/11 anyways, and they look about (not completely) the same there. Without a TC, the 70-200 is much sharper across the board.
The 80-400 is slow-focusing, about as heavy, and only has a slight advantage at 400mm wide open at f/5.6 anyhow. A better option for 400mm would be the 300mm f/4 AF-S plus a TC-14E (well, 420mm...) and replacement tripod collar.
I agree with the assessment that the 70-200 is no longer a fashion/portrait lens, and it sucks for basketball too now. Still too short for nature, but it's now also a bit too long for other things. It, however, serves as a 105-300mm, which starts to get into field sports range. I've used it for many, many sports; for a bright daylight game, I've added the TC-20E which proved usable. If you're using the TC-20E with a zoom lens (or even a fixed exotic telephoto), it's especially important that your lens is very, very well-centered. My 70-200's still centered (works fairly with the TC-20E and proper support) but I'm going to get it checked out anyways when I go home to get my gear in the future.
|