I need a long lens to photograph landscapes, cityscapes, do night photography, surfing, hockey, portraits.... Has anybody had any experience putting a teleconverter on the 70-200mm VR AF-S F/2.8 lens? Or am I going to get a better quality image with the 80-400mm VR F/4.5?
Thanks!
John
Full Version: Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8G ED-IF AF-S VR
QUOTE (oceanrhythms @ Feb 23 2008, 01:30 AM)
I need a long lens to photograph landscapes, cityscapes, do night photography, surfing, hockey, portraits.... Has anybody had any experience putting a teleconverter on the 70-200mm VR AF-S F/2.8 lens? Or am I going to get a better quality image with the 80-400mm VR F/4.5?
Thanks!
John
Thanks!
John
I have 70-200 f2.8 VR (the new one), a 1.7 teleconverter and the 80-400 VR as well, which I use with a D3 and a D2x.
With the converter on the 70-200, the autofocus seems to me to hunt quite a bit more, but eventually will focus. However, I don't think it would be good for fast action. You can manual focus, but on my lens, the focusing ring is so smooth and light that I have difficulty hitting the focus -- I tend to overshoot. YMMV.
On the other hand, the 70-200 by itself is great for fast action, even in low light, though you might have to pick your spot at a hockey game -- right behind the net, or at the centerline...in other words, use a foot zoom to get as close as you can. The autofocus is fairly quick. It is an amazing night camera -- you will get night shots that you thought impossible -- 200mm @ ISO6400 @ 1/30th (with VR) @f2.8...
My impression, though I have nothing scientific with which to back it up, is that the combo of the 70-200 with the 1.7x is sharper than the 80-400. Of course, 200x1.7=340, so you'll get more reach with the 80-400. The teleconverter slows the 70-200 by about a stop and a half. The current 1.7 tele can't be used on the 80-400.
The 80-400 I think is an underrated lens, and it was a lens I used a lot until I got the 70-200 -- but I never shot sports or fast action. It is not a fast auto-focusing lens. When packing it, or carrying it zoomed-in, the lens is more compact by several inches than the 70-200, although the 80-400 is fatter. The 70-200, when stacked on top of the teleconverter, is almost ridiculously long. (I just measured it -- it's 10 1/8 inches long with the teleconverter. You look sort of...overly enthusiastic about photography.)
Generally speaking, I think the IQ without the teleconverter is definitely better with the 70-200. With the teleconverter, it's closer, but still perhaps a little better than the 80-400. But it's very close -- my technique really isn't good enough that I'd be able to tell the difference from day-to-day, based on lens alone, and just looking at prints.
JC
QUOTE (John Camp @ Feb 22 2008, 10:19 PM)
I have 70-200 f2.8 VR (the new one), a 1.7 teleconverter and the 80-400 VR as well, which I use with a D3 and a D2x.
With the converter on the 70-200, the autofocus seems to me to hunt quite a bit more, but eventually will focus. However, I don't think it would be good for fast action. You can manual focus, but on my lens, the focusing ring is so smooth and light that I have difficulty hitting the focus -- I tend to overshoot. YMMV.
On the other hand, the 70-200 by itself is great for fast action, even in low light, though you might have to pick your spot at a hockey game -- right behind the net, or at the centerline...in other words, use a foot zoom to get as close as you can. The autofocus is fairly quick. It is an amazing night camera -- you will get night shots that you thought impossible -- 200mm @ ISO6400 @ 1/30th (with VR) @f2.8...
My impression, though I have nothing scientific with which to back it up, is that the combo of the 70-200 with the 1.7x is sharper than the 80-400. Of course, 200x1.7=340, so you'll get more reach with the 80-400. The teleconverter slows the 70-200 by about a stop and a half. The current 1.7 tele can't be used on the 80-400.
The 80-400 I think is an underrated lens, and it was a lens I used a lot until I got the 70-200 -- but I never shot sports or fast action. It is not a fast auto-focusing lens. When packing it, or carrying it zoomed-in, the lens is more compact by several inches than the 70-200, although the 80-400 is fatter. The 70-200, when stacked on top of the teleconverter, is almost ridiculously long. (I just measured it -- it's 10 1/8 inches long with the teleconverter. You look sort of...overly enthusiastic about photography.)
Generally speaking, I think the IQ without the teleconverter is definitely better with the 70-200. With the teleconverter, it's closer, but still perhaps a little better than the 80-400. But it's very close -- my technique really isn't good enough that I'd be able to tell the difference from day-to-day, based on lens alone, and just looking at prints.
JC
Thanks JC!
I think for hockey I would not use the teleconverter especially since this will be used with a D300. The times I anticipate using the teleconverter will be for mainly surfing photography & occasionally with landscapes and night photography. Then in my next lifetime I'll get a 400mm F/5.6 and a D3.
John
With the converter on the 70-200, the autofocus seems to me to hunt quite a bit more, but eventually will focus. However, I don't think it would be good for fast action. You can manual focus, but on my lens, the focusing ring is so smooth and light that I have difficulty hitting the focus -- I tend to overshoot. YMMV.
On the other hand, the 70-200 by itself is great for fast action, even in low light, though you might have to pick your spot at a hockey game -- right behind the net, or at the centerline...in other words, use a foot zoom to get as close as you can. The autofocus is fairly quick. It is an amazing night camera -- you will get night shots that you thought impossible -- 200mm @ ISO6400 @ 1/30th (with VR) @f2.8...
My impression, though I have nothing scientific with which to back it up, is that the combo of the 70-200 with the 1.7x is sharper than the 80-400. Of course, 200x1.7=340, so you'll get more reach with the 80-400. The teleconverter slows the 70-200 by about a stop and a half. The current 1.7 tele can't be used on the 80-400.
The 80-400 I think is an underrated lens, and it was a lens I used a lot until I got the 70-200 -- but I never shot sports or fast action. It is not a fast auto-focusing lens. When packing it, or carrying it zoomed-in, the lens is more compact by several inches than the 70-200, although the 80-400 is fatter. The 70-200, when stacked on top of the teleconverter, is almost ridiculously long. (I just measured it -- it's 10 1/8 inches long with the teleconverter. You look sort of...overly enthusiastic about photography.)
Generally speaking, I think the IQ without the teleconverter is definitely better with the 70-200. With the teleconverter, it's closer, but still perhaps a little better than the 80-400. But it's very close -- my technique really isn't good enough that I'd be able to tell the difference from day-to-day, based on lens alone, and just looking at prints.
JC
Thanks JC!
I think for hockey I would not use the teleconverter especially since this will be used with a D300. The times I anticipate using the teleconverter will be for mainly surfing photography & occasionally with landscapes and night photography. Then in my next lifetime I'll get a 400mm F/5.6 and a D3.
John
QUOTE (John Camp @ Feb 23 2008, 05:19 AM)
I have 70-200 f2.8 VR (the new one), a 1.7 teleconverter and the 80-400 VR as well, which I use with a D3 and a D2x.
You say that the AF is slow with the 80-400, you say that the converter slows the 80-200
SO with the converter which is better AF ?
( I am currently considering a 300/4 or an 70-200 with 1.4 converter)
To the OP - you may note that the 300 f4 provides an atractive ratio of cost to aperture to length and could be mixed with a shorter used prime for simliar cost to a flash zoom lens
I am not sure that any zooms are really up to sport
A 70-200 is a lens you will want for ever which would save you losses in the long term while you save for a 300 or 400 2.8
S
QUOTE (oceanrhythms @ Feb 22 2008, 09:30 PM)
I need a long lens to photograph landscapes, cityscapes, do night photography, surfing, hockey, portraits.... Has anybody had any experience putting a teleconverter on the 70-200mm VR AF-S F/2.8 lens? Or am I going to get a better quality image with the 80-400mm VR F/4.5?
John,
There is a rumor that Nikon will introduce a new 80-400 later this year. Having said that, If I were going to buy one of these lenses, I would buy the 70-200. It is just a better lens. It holds up well with the Nikkor TCs.
However, you should know that if you end up getting the surf bug or any other bug which really requires a long lens, you are going to hate anything less than a long prime.
To me buying lenses is all about not making very many costly mistakes. A costly mistake to me is buying something for a lot of money that you end up not liking and then not being able to sell without taking a beating. Bread and butter lenses like the 70-200 are usually not big mistakes.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.