Jerrin1 Loc: Wolverhampton, England

Hi Chums, does anyone have any first hand experience using a Nikon AF-S 80-400mm f/4.5-5.6G ED VR + 1.4 TC 111? If so, I would be grateful if you would append your assessment to this topic. It has to be this exact combination as I already have the 1.4 TC 111. Thanks a lot.

DaveO Loc: Northeast CT

I stopped using the 1.4 with mine. Typically used in lower light for wildlife. Tends to hunt for focus and enough image degradation to preclude my use. Unless I'm in the woods, I use my 200-500 instead. The 80-400 offer more flexibility in marsh areas.

If I had used the 1.4 111 prior to buying it, I would not have. I do occasionally use it with my 70-200 2.8 when I don't feel like carrying the heavier lenses and obviously shorter needs are prevalent.

Quixdraw Loc: x

Many sources advise that Telextenders work best with 2.8 primes. My experiences tend to support that info. I never use an extender on my 80-400.

Dr.Nikon Loc: Honolulu Hawaii

All the forums and tests seem to support this notion that the extenders work best on 2.8's .. I would not use it on my 80-400 ...since purchasing the 200-500
My two 80-400 have sat in the safe ..actually I sold one recently and hooked the other up to my 7100 .., .the tests and various forums conclude that the 1.4III works well on the 200-500 ... I was considering a 1.4 III , but with the 200-500 on my D810 .. I would rather crop in post as I have 36 pix to play with ..

You can rent did lenses and tele converters and try them out ... That might save you some bucks ..

Jerrin1 Loc: Wolverhampton, England

Thank you for your reply. I had considered the 200 - 500mm but it is somewhat heavy. I changed my Canon APS-C system for an Olympus M43 system due to the fact that my APS-C stuff was too heavy to cart about for 7 hours a day. My Nikon D500 + Nikkor 300mm f4 PF VR + 1.4 TC 111 are really lightweight and compliment my M43 stuff brilliantly. I was looking for a lightweight lens with further reach than my Nikon 300 f4 + TC (as an addition, not as a replacement). I was looking for something that weighs about the same as my Olympus 300mm f4 PRO + 1.4 TC and the 80 - 400mm fitted the bill.

Jerrin1 Loc: Wolverhampton, England

Thank ypu for your reply. I appreciate it.

Jerrin1 Loc: Wolverhampton, England

Thanks a lot for your reply. I certainly looked the 200 - 500mm + 1.4 TC 111 but it's a question of weight - hence the reason I have not considered one of the 150 - 600mm lenses from Sigma and Tamron. I would like the extra reach over my Nikkor 300mm f4 PF VR + 1.4 TC 111 but I need a lens which weighs in at about 1500g. By the way, I haven't taken the 1.4 TC off my 300mm f4/D500 since I bought my Nikon system; and I reckon the combination provides excellent results for BIF, dragonflies in flight and close up images. As for renting, my nearest camera shop is 50 miles away, though they do have a used 80 - 400 VR 11 for sale. I may be able to test it, but I wanted to hear from owners on UHH before committing to a 100 mile round trip.

pmackd Loc: Alameda CA

The Nikon 80-400 VR weighs 1570g by itself; the 1.4 TC iii weighs 190 grams, so the combination is 1760 grams or 3.87 lb. By comparison the Nikon 200-500 by itself (no tripod collar) is 2090 grams or 4.60 lb.
Both of these are quite heavy. ..for some people. If you are concerned about the weight of the 200-500 handheld, the 80-400 + TC might also be too heavy for you for prolonged hand held use. One thing for sure, the 200-500 at 500 will outperform the 80-400 + TC in every way. With the latter you would be shooting at f8 minimum versus f5.6 with the 200-500 and suffering with auto focus, especially on moving targets.

I just got the 300mm f4 VR PF and am enjoying it. I rarely use it with a TC, though would in certain circumstances. There is a small though noticeable loss of sharpness with my Kenko 1.4x TC and with careful testing I'm pretty sure you would see something similar with your Nikon TC. I did a lot of hand held shooting with my 200-500 until I overdid it one day, and injured my left elbow tendon, possibly permanently. So I now use the 200-500 only on a tripod or with a monopod. All who hand hold these lenses and are older or smaller should be extremely careful, especially not to lift them too quickly. Tendon damage is cumulative and you may have no warning before a life changing injury.

texaseve Loc: TX, NC and NH

I really like my old 80-400mm, however, it is not a great low light lens so I would not put an extender on it.

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

If you are expecting critical sharpness I wouldn't bother. The VR version is sharper than the old version, but it will not provide crisp images when zoomed out to 400mm with the TC. As it is the lens struggles without it. There are far sharper lenses, in particular, the Sigma Sport 150-600, that will provide very sharp images, very close to what a 600mm F4 will give you, and the price is a little less than the 80-400.

You might find this article useful - and it has some comments on using the 80-400 (and other lenses) with a TC -

http://photographylife.com/reviews/nikon-200-500mm-f5-6e-vr

joer Loc: Colorado/Illinois

I have this lens and 1.4X II version which is said to be the same optically.

The lens takes a big hit loosing one full stop. I find the image quality is very good at f11. Didn't care for anything below that.

So in my opinion it limits you to static images or very bright light.

Trabor

I have this exact combination on a D800 I find it to be marginally useful except on bright sunny days and then when used on a monopod or tripod
Yes the image is enlarged, but slightly degraded sharpness
chromic aberration definitely degraded

Overall some improvement in bright light for birds etc

It might be more useful on a camera with fewer pixels

mongoose777 Loc: Frisco Texas

I have the 1.4x III and would only use it for my prime lens like my 400 2.8 FL and 600 F/4 VR2 as I would NEVER use it for my zoom lens such as my 200-400 VR2 and my 70-200 VR2 lens.
The 200-500 and the 80-400 lens are really nice lens, but if used with a 1.4x III they will suffer immensely in comparison to most prime lens.

mongoose777 Loc: Frisco Texas

Sorry, but you are incorrect in your comments between the version 2 and 3 TC's.
Who said they were the same?
I've had both and tested them via real world sporting event gigs and the version 3 is superior!!
I have never been a fan of TC's, but the latest version has called me back as I use it with my 400FL for all my paid sporting gigs
as it has absolutely no IQ loss with this setup.

mongoose777 Loc: Frisco Texas

The 80-400 and the 200-500 are great lens as they are a lot of bang for your buck for those on a budget, but lets get real here,
there is no damn way your gonna get great results with those zoom lens and a tc in comparison to the nikon elite primes.
If this were true, then why in the hell would Nikon make a 200,300,400 & 600 prime lens to name a few?
I would then sell all my prime lens to buy these cheaper lens if they were equal in quality of these said primes.
Just be happy that these cheaper zoom lens are out there with a budget in mind and that they will get the job done for almost everybody
who uses them, except for most if not all professionals.
Happy Shooting as Nikon has given us all a great variety of wonderful lens to use for almost all out there.