MakuaMan Loc: Waianae, Hi.

This is for any experianced nikon owner's.I'am trying to decide weather to get the 70-200 f2.8 and either the 1.7 or 2.0 teleconverter or the 80-400.I want to reach at least 340 to 400 with the best possible results.
I read dpreview and any thing else I can find on the subject but would like some opinion's especially from those who have used both or all three combinations.I know the 70-200 is the flagship and up to 200 would be the hands down best choice.
My money situation is not good but I believe this to be my last system because of age and health issues so I don't want any mistakes made.Any experianced advice is welcomed.

ALOHA

Bigdaver

Have you held either? If your health is failing, both are heavy. The 70-200 more so.
I have no problem with that weight, my wife wouldn't carry it. If I needed that range and image quality, maybe the 70-200 with x1.4.
The 80-400 is fine, but it isn't as good.
If I was spending that much, I'd get the 55-200 VR and a 300 F4 with a gimbal head. Less weight when you don't need it, better image quality when you do need it.

MakuaMan Loc: Waianae, Hi.

Thank's ,I take it the gimbal is because of no VC.

ahzwizerd2 Loc: Willowbrook, ca

May I ask what Event are you shooting
and do you do this for money

ahzwizerd2 Loc: Willowbrook, ca

Me too bigdayer 70-200mm depends on what you are shooting I hope its sports or nature
If its Portraits save your money use the standard 18-105mm

Adubin Loc: Indialantic, Florida

Five years ago I had to make the same decision of which lens to purchase. I went the Nikon 70-200mm lens and several months later purchased the 2X Teleconverter. I extremely pleased with this lens and it is favor one too. I wasn't happy with the 2X Teleconverter because it gave me soft focus photos. I'm primary a nature/bird photographer and use it to take portrait of birds and in flight. Several months in I purchased a 1.4X Teleconverter and I'm extremely happy with the sharpness of this combination. I also found it to be excellent for people portraits and macro lens when using it with a extension tube. You can view see some recent photos I took with this lens by going to this link http://www.dubinphotography.net/Nature/Photo-Outings/Palm-Beach-Zoo-Oct-25-2011/19754003_N9KgzQ#1551559399_vdjL76f. Arnold

AK Dreamer Loc: Alaska & Nevada

I'd go with the 70-200 but definately with VR. I would not waste money on the 1.4 TC unless it was going to be used with a fixed lens like the 300mm. I have had only fair results with a TC on my zoom lenses. Another option that would be less expensive would be to look at the Sigma lenses with optical stabalization (OS). I've had good luck with one of their zooms.

MakuaMan Loc: Waianae, Hi.

I've been a high energy drummer for 46years and installed every type and size of window covering made up to 30feet high which is why I am disabled!.I fell and broke my back and am also dealing with arthritus in my knees and wrists or carpel tunnel in the later. I've had a Canon 100-400 and 2.0 teleconverter so I'am aware of the weight,my problem is space as I will have to live in a vehicle until I can find a caretaking position in Hawaii,[trying since April].I know how dangerous it can be out there but have had my life threatened by people,MORONS with no respect that I'am living with,so I may as well spend my last few years in persuit of the thing I love the most ,[other than music] in the place I love the most.
I'am most interested in macro,nature and wildlife,which over there could be whales or dolphins from a distance.
I have a D7000,18-105 kit lens,60mm2.8 micro,SB700,SB-R200 flashes,Benbo tripod with Benro fluid panning ballhead and a cheap Sunpak tripod and head mostly for the wireless flash system.I have a Lowepro fastpak 350 backpack and a Hokuba tripod bag.I don't believe the first suggestion will fit my backpack.
I'am not a Pro but if I can sell some to augment my income it would help alot.I have sold work to Designers in Las Vegas and am aware of how difficult it is to make money at this.
As of right now I'am thinking I'll need as much quality as I can get if I want to have a chance to compete.
Anyway now you know the situation so if any of you knoweldgable people have any suggestion's I will appreciate all.Mahalo and Aloha

MakuaMan Loc: Waianae, Hi.

Beautiful work.Thank you for the information.I'am leaning that way but even the VR1" used''on ebay is going for close to what the VR2 is new with 6 year warranty.At around half the price or a little more I would feel good about it.
Will just have to suck it up if I want that quality of glass I guess. MAHALO and ALOHA

Adubin Loc: Indialantic, Florida

That's what they, "you get what you pay for." BTW - All the tiger photos were taken through a chain link fence and I still got very sharp photos. As I tell my family and friends, you can't take the money so enjoy while you can. Arnold

effrant Loc: New Hampshire

I've seen good results with that 80-400, and I don't think the 70-200 is long enough for wildlife. Give some thought to the 300f4 and a 1.7 teleconverter. I have this combo and get some great results. (Use them on a d700, so can push iso pretty high)
I have also done some close up/macro with it using extension tubes, and its remarkably good.....

Wanda Krack Loc: Tennessee, USA

You are looking to talk with someone who has used the Nikon 80-400VR lens? I have owned one for about 2 and a half years, and it's my favorite lens for wildlife. The down side is that it's heavy, and some older folks don't like it for that reason. It does give you sharp pictures, auto focus, and I usually use spot focus. At the time I bought it I, also had to decide which lens or lenses to purchase because I enjoy taking shots of animals. It also does a pretty good job with close-ups from a distance..........about three feet away. You do have to keep it steady tho. I have not yet tried a 1.4 teleconverter as I'm afraid the sharpness would suffer. I understand that with an extender you would have to manually focus it. But, I still love this lens, and it is usually on my camera.

https://picasaweb.google.com/107831683085141733877 is the site I post pictures on at present. Most of the animal shots on that site were taken with this lens. Let us know which one you decide to get, and how you like it. B&H will allow you to purchase a lens or a set-up and give you a month to try it out before charging you. I once sent a lens back that was too soft, and they didn't charge my card. Good luck!

Dave Chinn

I have a Nikon 80-200 f2.8 and a 1.4 converter. I also have a 2x converter. I have used both and find myself using the 2x more than the 1.4. I am quite satisfied with the results from both. I shoot a lot of sports action and wanting to get close to my subject the 2x works the best. By using the 2x you will lose 2 stops. Meaning on a f2.8 lens it will make it a 5.6 by adding the converter. Hope this helps in your quest.

bennetphoto Loc: Knoxville, TN

Your question is a tough one, as both lenses are excellent. I have had the 80-400 VR since 2004 and it is my workhorse. I do sports action photography and need the reach of a 400mm lens. I have also had the 70-200 lens and it is the better of the 2 out to 200mm since it is a faster lens and also has faster focusing ability. I use a D-700 now, but used both also on my D-100 and D-300. For your application, I would have to recommend the 80-400 VR, since with the D-7000 you have the advantage of the crop factor, it is a more compact lens, and focus speed is less critical than with sports action. I used to shoot handheld with the VR function on, but now I use a tripod with the VR off as much as possible, as I get a higher percentage of great crisp shots.

ephraim Imperio

IF you have a crop or DX camera, the 70-200 will reach 510 feet. 200X1.5X1.7= 510 feet. So it will be the lighter combo for you.