Redundant focal length?
Aug 27, 2015 11:28:11 #
If your 80-400 VR is the older model, I would definitely go with the 70-200. I have the 70-200 which I use with the Nikon 2x TC. IQ is 10 times better than the 80-400 which I also owned & have since sold.
Aug 27, 2015 11:28:46 #
NormanHarley wrote:
I have looked for a GASaholics meeting in my area, don't seem to be any around here...
Without much encouragement, my wife would have one with both of us. :roll: :roll:
Aug 27, 2015 11:29:51 #
Aug 27, 2015 11:33:44 #
DaveO wrote:
I have a Nikon 80-400vr with a 1.4 TC, but I've always had the hots for the 70-200 2.8.
For walk around, lower light wildlife, would the 70-200's extra stop be worth it? Closer shots, not across a field. Walking in the woods, Limited birding.
I am aware of losing a stop with the 1.4.
For walk around, lower light wildlife, would the 70-200's extra stop be worth it? Closer shots, not across a field. Walking in the woods, Limited birding.
I am aware of losing a stop with the 1.4.
It's not exactly a walk-around lens, weighs about the same as the 80-400. It is a bit more than 1 stop faster; the 80-400 starts at f/4.5 and goes up from there.
If you're thinking of using the 1.4TC on the lens, well it then becomes equivalent to the 80-400 without the reach.
Now if you are looking for shallower DOF and better low light performance, it's great. But I like it for events and sports, as it's a bit short for wildlife (even considering the crop factor).
Aug 27, 2015 11:39:16 #
jcboy3 wrote:
It's not exactly a walk-around lens, weighs about the same as the 80-400. It is a bit more than 1 stop faster; the 80-400 starts at f/4.5 and goes up from there.
If you're thinking of using the 1.4TC on the lens, well it then becomes equivalent to the 80-400 without the reach.
Now if you are looking for shallower DOF and better low light performance, it's great. But I like it for events and sports, as it's a bit short for wildlife (even considering the crop factor).
If you're thinking of using the 1.4TC on the lens, well it then becomes equivalent to the 80-400 without the reach.
Now if you are looking for shallower DOF and better low light performance, it's great. But I like it for events and sports, as it's a bit short for wildlife (even considering the crop factor).
Yes, I get it with regard to stop loss and weight so, while I like the responses, I do want the reach.
Rongnongno and Norman said it right, but.....I want the new 24-70 more and wife is going to get in trouble for ambushing the Brown Truck.
Aug 27, 2015 11:53:11 #
naturepics43 wrote:
If your 80-400 VR is the older model, I would definitely go with the 70-200. I have the 70-200 which I use with the Nikon 2x TC. IQ is 10 times better than the 80-400 which I also owned & have since sold.
I was sold when you said better IQ... yeah... I'm weak like that ;-)
Aug 27, 2015 12:04:11 #
naturepics43 wrote:
If your 80-400 VR is the older model, I would definitely go with the 70-200. I have the 70-200 which I use with the Nikon 2x TC. IQ is 10 times better than the 80-400 which I also owned & have since sold.
Therein lies part of the story. I got the newest 80-400VR and 1.4 TC three weeks ago, just before surgery. I'm headed out on a trip in late Sept and had this wonderful afterthought while in recovery. I would have grabbed the 24-70, but it's not available and I really have to somewhat justify buying three lenses in such a short period of time. I;ve got a few primes and a 18-140 for the lower end and am thinking irrationally about the top end!
Aug 27, 2015 12:42:48 #
DaveO wrote:
I have a Nikon 80-400vr with a 1.4 TC, but I've always had the hots for the 70-200 2.8.
For walk around, lower light wildlife, would the 70-200's extra stop be worth it? Closer shots, not across a field. Walking in the woods, Limited birding.
I am aware of losing a stop with the 1.4.
For walk around, lower light wildlife, would the 70-200's extra stop be worth it? Closer shots, not across a field. Walking in the woods, Limited birding.
I am aware of losing a stop with the 1.4.
I have both the Canon 70-200 2.8 and the 100-400 f/4-5.6. About the same overlap as you are considering. Usually I keep the 100-400 on my APSC 7DII and the 70-200 on my full frame 6D. For me, that combo works fine. I find that the 100-400 on an APSC does a good job for what wildlife shooting I do while the 70-200 2.8 combined with the high ISO performance of the 6D is very good in low light situations.
Aug 27, 2015 12:52:30 #
Aug 27, 2015 13:41:37 #
Similar to your problem. I own the Tamron 150-600 and the Canon 100-400 mkI. A lot of overlap, but used under two different sets of circumstances. (Canon 6D and 7DII)
Tamron, pre planned shoots when needing max reach with tripod and gimbal head. Often with manual focus, setting birds, moon etc. I can hand hold it some, but use a lot of props to lean against.
Canon, heavy but better for walking around, focus closer (I have missed shots because I was too close with the Tamron). AF is better with my 7DII for moving subjects etc. Plus is is faster for a bit lower light.
I may upgrade to the 100-400 mkII one day, or something that isn't even on the market yet. But for now I own both, use both.
In your case the f2.8 will be a lot faster, so the uses are more plainly differentiated. Low light, the f2.8, good light and need max reach then the 80-400
Tamron, pre planned shoots when needing max reach with tripod and gimbal head. Often with manual focus, setting birds, moon etc. I can hand hold it some, but use a lot of props to lean against.
Canon, heavy but better for walking around, focus closer (I have missed shots because I was too close with the Tamron). AF is better with my 7DII for moving subjects etc. Plus is is faster for a bit lower light.
I may upgrade to the 100-400 mkII one day, or something that isn't even on the market yet. But for now I own both, use both.
In your case the f2.8 will be a lot faster, so the uses are more plainly differentiated. Low light, the f2.8, good light and need max reach then the 80-400
Aug 27, 2015 14:21:59 #
robertjerl,
Thank you for response, it makes good sense. Got to put my big boy pants on or rent one to test and buy in the March sale! Bummer is, I don't really have to rent one to know how I'll use it, you already pointed that out! Dave.
Thank you for response, it makes good sense. Got to put my big boy pants on or rent one to test and buy in the March sale! Bummer is, I don't really have to rent one to know how I'll use it, you already pointed that out! Dave.
Aug 27, 2015 15:25:34 #
Aug 27, 2015 15:29:46 #
Aug 28, 2015 06:51:40 #
I have both lenses. The 80-400 stays on the D7100 which makes it about 120-600. I have the 1.4 TC but have only used it a few times with the 80-400 on the D750. I will try to find a use for the D7100/80-400/1.4 tc just to try it out sometime. Probably at a zoo or wildlife park where the subjects are captive and generally calm as getting sharp focus at the far end of that focal length is a challenge.
The 70-200 is used often on the D750 for sports, especially indoors and night outdoors and also is useful for portraits at the 85-105 range and up.
The 70-200 is used often on the D750 for sports, especially indoors and night outdoors and also is useful for portraits at the 85-105 range and up.
Aug 28, 2015 06:55:53 #
DaveO wrote:
I have a Nikon 80-400vr with a 1.4 TC, but I've always had the hots for the 70-200 2.8.
For walk around, lower light wildlife, would the 70-200's extra stop be worth it? Closer shots, not across a field. Walking in the woods, Limited birding.
I am aware of losing a stop with the 1.4.
For walk around, lower light wildlife, would the 70-200's extra stop be worth it? Closer shots, not across a field. Walking in the woods, Limited birding.
I am aware of losing a stop with the 1.4.
Maybe yes, maybe no, but the extra sharpness over the 80-400 definitely would be worth it.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.