Which one for low light wildlife and birding: For use with D7000 or D7100 1. Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 80-400mm f/4.5-5.6G ED VR Lens (#2208) with possibilityTC in the future. 2. Nikon AF-S...

DaveO Loc: Northeast CT

For use with D7000 or D7100

1. Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 80-400mm f/4.5-5.6G ED VR Lens (#2208)
with possibilityTC in the future.

2. Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 70-200mm f/2.8G ED VR II Lens (#2185)
with 1.7 TC if needed. (#2151)

Both reviews look good, #2 may be better in low light, but TC could make a tie. One last shot and I'll drop the subject.

DLM Loc: Callawassie Island, SC

If you put a TC on the 80-400mm you will lose the ability to AF. Lens will bounce around in low light and not find its subject.

On the other hand, the 70-200mm f2.8 - Even if you put a 2XTC on it, it will still AF. I use it all the time for birds and wildlife.

DaveO Loc: Northeast CT

:thumbup:

Bozsik Loc: Orangevale, California

DaveO wrote:

For use with D7000 or D7100

1. Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 80-400mm f/4.5-5.6G ED VR Lens (#2208)
with possibilityTC in the future.

2. Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 70-200mm f/2.8G ED VR II Lens (#2185)
with 1.7 TC if needed. (#2151)

Both reviews look good, #2 may be better in low light, but TC could make a tie. One last shot and I'll drop the subject.

I have both lenses. The 80-400 is the way to go for sharpness. I used the 70-200 with the teleconverter before I purchased the 80-400mm. The 80-400 is sharper by itself, and can use a 1.4 teleconverter without losing autofocus, but I shoot it without the converter. Very fast focusing over the previous version...and very sharp indeed.

If you already have the 70-200 and converter, you will get a lot of use out of it. But having to swap out the converter in the field is somewhat of a hassle over time.

It also depends what you are wanting to shoot in low light. I wouldn't even worry about a converter since you are shooting with cropped frame already. The 80-400 would be the choice.

DaveO Loc: Northeast CT

Bozsik,

I do not have either lens. I'm reasonably sure that I want one of them. A fair amount of my animal shooting is early in the morning or at dusk. We're getting into birds shortly. I would prefer the longer reach with no TC, but I didn't want to lose detail in the lower light by giving up the 70-200 2.8.

I really want to cover the 100 to 300mm range,so the 400 is fine if it will be a good as the 70-200 2.8 with a TC. Am I making myself clear?

According to the Nikon app chart, the 1.7 should allow autofocus on the D7100 with the 80-400, but I may never get that, just a thought.

Mac Loc: Pittsburgh, Philadelphia now Hernando Co. Fl.

DLM wrote:

If you put a TC on the 80-400mm you will lose the ability to AF. Lens will bounce around in low light and not find its subject.

On the other hand, the 70-200mm f2.8 - Even if you put a 2XTC on it, it will still AF. I use it all the time for birds and wildlife.

Actually if you would check the Nikon compatibility chart you will see the Nikon's teleconverters are AF compatible with the 80-400mm f/4.5-5.6 when used on the D7100 (and D7200).

http://www.nikonusa.com/en_INC/IMG/Assets/Common-Assets/Images/Teleconverter-Compatibility/EN_Comp_chart.html

DaveO Loc: Northeast CT

:thumbup: Yes, I caught that.

Bozsik Loc: Orangevale, California

DaveO wrote:

Bozsik, br br I do not have either lens. I'm rea... (show quote)

I think you will find the extra mm in the 80-400 more beneficial than the extra stop in the 70-200. The other option would be the 300mm prime that someone already mentioned.

Why not rent an 80-400 and give it a test run. The 120-300 was another great idea. I do not own one of those, but I have not heard anything bad about one either. You might be able to get a refurbished or used one for an excellent price. They don't have the higher resale as the Nikon lenses do, which is an advantage for you in this case.

If you are looking at 100 to 300 range, I presume the birds, etc., you are interested in are larger birds, otherwise the 400mm is the better way to go. If you are mainly working from a hide at a feeder, then the shorter focal lengths will work.

Mac Loc: Pittsburgh, Philadelphia now Hernando Co. Fl.

DaveO wrote:

I do not have either lens. I'm reasonably sure th... (show quote)

Dave
I had the 70-200mm f/4 and tried it with a 2x teleconverter on both a D600 and a Df and I didn't really care for the results. I traded it in and got the 80-400mm f/4.5-5.6 and I'm glad I did. It is a very sharp lens. It's also expensive, if you can swing the cost, I'm sure you'd be happy with it.

DaveO Loc: Northeast CT

Bozsik and Mac,

Good info, you are helping!

Thank you much!

Mac Loc: Pittsburgh, Philadelphia now Hernando Co. Fl.

DaveO wrote:

Bozsik and Mac,

Good info, you are helping!

Thank you much!

:thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:

Bozsik Loc: Orangevale, California

DaveO wrote:

Bozsik and Mac,

Good info, you are helping!

Thank you much!

Dave, you are very welcome. One of the things you might also consider is that the 7000 and the 7100 are not the ideal bodies for shooting in low light. I have them both, but since I upgraded to the 610 and 810, I never really use them any more. I have considered selling the 7100 several times. I just don't use it. Both of the cameras are excellent cameras, but I find in low light, they don't render as nice of image as the other two mentioned. That is probably one of the other reasons for the 80-400mm. You can get the longer focal length you need for birds without having to use the converter route. 400mm on a 7100 is about the same mag as a 600mm on an FX body.

I just received an email that Nikon is releasing a 200 to 500 lens next month, so you might not want to rush out and get anything yet. You might want to see how this plays out.

Glad we could help you out with some ideas to consider. :thumbup:

DaveO Loc: Northeast CT

Bozsik, Thanks again!

I could do better for low light, but I'm sticking with the D7100 for a while, hopefully a long while. Got to behave at some point. Right after I get the 80-400. :cry: :cry:

dcampbell52 Loc: Clearwater Fl

DaveO wrote:

For use with D7000 or D7100

1. Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 80-400mm f/4.5-5.6G ED VR Lens (#2208)
with possibilityTC in the future.

2. Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 70-200mm f/2.8G ED VR II Lens (#2185)
with 1.7 TC if needed. (#2151)

Both reviews look good, #2 may be better in low light, but TC could make a tie. One last shot and I'll drop the subject.

I would probably look at the new Nikon 200-500 f/5.6. Don't know alot about it yet as it ships in September but it is f/5.6 across the board and on a D7100 would be similar to a 300-750 in 1.5 mode or a 400-1000 in 2.0 mode and a constant 5.6 wide open rather than the skewed 4.5-5.6 on the 80-400 where you are at f/4.5 at 80 and 5.6 at 400. I realize that you are giving up aperture at 200 ont it because that would be somewhere around 4.9-5.1 but the new lens is about $1400 vs $2300. That said, the 80-400 has nanochrystal coating and the new 200-500 doesn't so, choose your poison.

DaveO Loc: Northeast CT

Right about the poison, trying to be cautious on this one! Thanks for your response!