70-200 VR or 80-400 VR?

[andynos]

I am looking to pick up one of these and am interested in any opinions. Is the 2.8 f-stop on the 70-200 worth the loss in reach from the 80-400? And yeah I know it depends on what I'm shooting. Just looking for opinions from those of you who may have used both and why you would choose one over the other.

Thanks

[AlbertP]

These are really different animals. I'd stay with the 80-400 for maximum versatility, personally. The 70-200 is a very heavy lens, and on a 1.5x sensor I think its utility as a fashion/portrait lens is diminished. It's too short as a nature lens. So it's neither here nor there.

[andynos]

Thanks for the reply.
I guess I should have included a few things. I shoot with the D2X and do not do much fashion/portrait photography at all. Primarily outdoor, some sports shooting. I was leaning toward the 70-200 and possibly get a tele-converter.

[AlbertP]

I'd say the 70-200 works as a close-range sports lens. Again, though, I think the 1.5x sensor ruins what this lens was originally attempting to cover. Remember that it was designed when so-called "full frame" sensors were all that was available.

My experience is that extenders on these zoom lenses are largely disappointing.

[Fanie]

I have used a 80-400 VR but the focus is slow, it still uses the camera focus motor. Have bought the 70-200 VR and focus is quick, images sharper than the 80-400 and still good with 1.4 and 1.7 converters. Difficult choice, personally if I did not have a 300 f2.8 I would have giventhe 80-400 a thought, but having something at 300 to 400 range with converters I would definately choose the 70-200 over the 80-400.

[cyclohexane]

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.

[24-heures]

I've tried the 80/400 and compared to the 70/200 - well there really is no comparison. I shoot motor sport and quite frankly any action photography with the "consumer" lens is a no no. This is not a silent wave lens and is abysmally slow to focus. I use the 70/200 with the TC14E and the TC17E losing one stop and 1.5 stops respectively still with fast autofocus. I see a recommendation is made to go for the 80/400 lens but personally I think you'd regret it. The 70/200 is one of Nikon's finest and with a TC17E you are not far short of the consumer lens anyway with a faster speed of focus and faster shutter speed as well. Incidentally, don't go for the TC20E which loses two stops and which tends to hunt if light is low. This TC and the 70/200 can be slower than the consumer lens!

[cyclohexane]

My TC-20E and 70-200 focus faster than the 80-400 users I've shot alongside of, but I'm sure it didn't help that they were using D70 or D50 bodies while I was using my D2H. In lowlight, I've probably removed the TC anyhow, so I don't have a big issue with hunting. The screwdrive motor on the lower end bodies is pretty slow with big lenses.

Critical sharpness, I've found, is a bigger issue than AF when it comes to the TC-20E. Eventually, I'll have a supertele (or supeteles), but right now it's getting the job done (I'm not shooting at all right now... =( )

EDIT: Forgot to say, I'd still recommend the 70-200 mated with the TC-17E over the 80-400 or TC-20E.

[Jon]

70-200 is my favorite/workhorse lens. I shoot everything I can with it.

[img width=750 height=537]http://www.fivegrandcreative.com/photostorage/misc/ptturn9.jpg[/img]

[JimiV]

I disagree about the 70-200VR not being good for fashion/glamour. But then I've always liked longer lenses for that type of work, which is what I mainly shoot. It's probably my favorite lens.

[cyclohexane]

Remember that it was designed when so-called "full frame" sensors were all that was available.

Actually, Nikon's 70-200 came out after the advent of digital crop bodies. Remember, the D1 came out in 1999, along with an 80-200mm f/2.8D AF-S and 17-35mm f/2.8D AF-S. The 70-200 came out several years later, and was an all new design with a two-stop advantage over the old one with light fall-off. It was probably being worked on before the 80-200mm AF-S (old optical formula, new hardware) came out, but I doubt the final engineering decisions were made with only film in mind. The release of the 17-35mm coincided with the release of the D1 intentionally, so Nikon was definitely thinking ahead (it doesn't seem like they do that all the time though, LOL).

I disagree about the 70-200VR not being good for fashion/glamour.

Well, I'm very glad that it works for you. It doesn't matter what we think; I actually still use mine for shooting posed stuff (I don't do a lot of fashion-type work). =)

I know I found the short end slightly limiting for some of the setups I was doing. Moving back a few steps took care of it, but I personally would appreciate the "true" 70mm view at the wide end, as I could just add a (expensive) 300mm prime to reproduce the long end- and I'd be gaining a bit of DOF control.

[ScottBuckel]

I think that both of these lenses have roles, just not the same one.* I have had the 80-400 since its initial release and if you do nature photography it can be a great lens.* If you have the Canon 500D diopter it becomes a good macro lens.* I have shot flying birds with it - well the slower flying birds with it and a few of these images have won several photo contests.* I used it the most in my film days. You have to use very good technique to be successful with this lens - the 70-200 is much more forgiving.

I have a love/hate relationship with the 70-200 well it was with the earlier 80-200's I think I owned all of the versions over the years. The new one with VR is a good all around lens in my opinion. Like Jon I have shot portraits, models and nature with it a lot and with the advent of digital I use it more and more all of the time. The only lens that see more use for nature is the 200-400VR.

Almost all lens discussions, in my opinion, shoud start with some one's photographic vision and the problems they need to solve. Over all my 80-400 has sat on the shelf for a long time, but I will use it when weight is an issue and I need the reach. The 70-200 goes with me for nature and portraits all of the time these days.

Scott