bennetphoto Loc: Knoxville, TN

Comparing apples to apples, the 80-400 has an equivalent reach of 600 mm with the crop factor, is one pound lighter, 3" shorter, and approx $600 less expensive, new.

Julian Loc: Sarasota, FL

I don't understand your formula that results in 510 feet. Most any lens, in a clear day, will reach 510 and more feet. The question is, what would be the magnification? On a DX format I can only come up with an effective focal length of 300mm.

BurtLehman Loc: Santa Fe, NM

I use a 70-200 with a 1.4X on a D3 with its FX sensor. I am very happy with the quality although the earlier versions had a few issues around the edges (easily corrected in Photoshop and probably cropped off with a DX sensor). I very often am wishing for a lot more lens, especially with wildlife.

Although I haven't had the experience with bigger glass on my camera, my inclination would be to go as big as you can handle and afford. Use the other reviews to determine the actual lens.

Sharp closeups are dramatic.

bennetphoto Loc: Knoxville, TN

He was including the 1.7 teleconverter in the formula.

effrant Loc: New Hampshire

ALOHA[/quote]

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.[/quote]

Hmmm. I have some shots of the moon with 300f4 and TC1.7. That's over a quarter million miles. I can't find the formula....

hamtrack Loc: Omaha NE

The best all round lens I have found is a Tamron18-270. this lens has the ability to shoot both macro and will reach out there for a good difference. I may be crowding it a bit from time to time, but the only other lens I use as much is a Nikor wide angle. There are two models. One has all the bells and whistles and is a little more money, but I think it is worth it @ around $650.

ronlcox Loc: Florida

I have the 70-200 and love the lens. Also have a 1.4 teleconverter but rarely use it because it gives me a soft focus. Also you will loose a couple of f stops. If you are using a DX camera it will be the equivalent of 300mm on the top side without a teleconverter.

John Singh Loc: Atlanta, Ga.

Like your attitude, Arnold.

Sheila Loc: Arizona or New York

I am an older female photographer who likes to limit the amount of weight in my equipment. I have the 80-400 lens and a Kenko 1.4 teleconverter to use with it. On my Nikon D300s the lens itself usually is enough for photographing wildlife and landscape I am interested in. The lens is not light but if I limit my other gear when carrying some distance it is easily manageable.

photocat Loc: Atlanta, Ga

I have owned and used both lenses.

For many years the 80-200 was my favorite lens,but when I upgraded to a D700 i ended up switching to the 70-200. I have the VR version and a 2x extender but it is the most recent one and before buying I tested it out as I wasn't happy with the previous one.

With the d700 and that lens it is heavy and at 74 I find it more and more diffult to hand hold and frequently use a monopod as i am a sharpness freak.

Or I find something to lean on to give me more support.

It is a terrific lens and I am glad i have it, but there are times i wonder what am i doing!

sontog Loc: S. California

Funny you should mention those two lenses in particular. I have had the 80-200 f/2.8 for years and still love the lens. I shoot a lot of wildlife photography now and can't really afford the bigger (Bazooka) lenses so I got the 80-400 lens and now my 80-200 just sits at home collecting dust. Both of them are great lenses it just depends what your needs are. I also had a 2X teleconverter and sold it because it didn't give me the results I wanted, I would go with something smaller like the 1.4X if I had to do that again. While the f/2.8 lens is considerably faster, it would depend on what model camera you are going to pair it with. I am shooting with the Nikon D3S now so speed in the lens is not a factor now with the tremendous ISO that this camera has. It's a tough decision but if you have a fast camera body, I would go with the 80-400 because of the zoom factor. Others would argue that prime lenses are best and they are, but you are looking for something that is versatile and possibly your last lens. I will say one thing about the 80-400, you have to be about two zip codes away from a subject for it to focus.

silver Loc: Santa Monica Ca.

One solution is, Nikon makes a 300 F4 lens. This lens with a 1.5 converter will give you 450mm. This is a very sharp lens and its not that expensive. It sells for about $1200.00.

Phyllis Loc: NE PA

I am a 63-year old female with a lot of arthritis. I have the 70-200 f/2.8 VR II lens and absolutely love it. It is an incredible lens. Yes, it is heavy, but I'm still able to handle it.

I would love to have the 400 f2.8, but unfortunately I can't afford it. However, I do have the 70-300 f5.6-6.5 VR and that's nice, too. It's also considerably lighter than the 70-200 f2.8 VR II. You might want to look at that before you buy.

Good luck.

michaelgem

To amplify on: 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. ephraim Imperio

Just in case you had not factored this in, the smaller than 35mm DX sensor on your D7000 turns the 70-200 zoom into a 105-300 lens.

michaelgem

haze99 Loc: Elizabethton TN

[quote=Adubin]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[/quo

That must be a great lense cause you've got some excellent pic's on that link