Paralysis by analysis

Parke1953

@ThomasHorton I second that. LOL.

dkookymonster

Hi all - forgive me if this has been beaten to death, but couldn't find a discussion. Does it make sense to own both a 70-200 f/2.8 VRX, and the 80-400G f/4 VR? Lotta overlap there, but seems if one could afford it, they'd both be solid pieces of kit for different uses. If you had neither to begin with, which lens first? Any thoughts appreciated - thinking of upping the lens count of the household.

Photobug

You said it correctly, lots of overlap between those two zoom lens. I know some photographers that prefer no overlap and some that don't mind a small overlap.

IMHO the only reason to have both lens is due to the size. For many pictures the 70-200mm lens can be hand held while the 80-400mm lens can only be hand held for short intervals. The 80-400 belongs on a monopod or tripod for the majority of shooting situations. For wildlife and BIF photography the 80-400 is great. I don't have a problem with someone having both lens...in my mind they are for two different uses and compliment each others strengths.

There are several on NRF that have both...will be interested in hearing their response.

heartyfisher

80-400G f/4 VR? you mean the the 4.5-F5.6?

sevencrossing

IMHO the only reason to have both lens is due to the size. .

????????

I have both the AF-S NIKKOR 70-200mm f/2.8G ED VR II and the AF VR Zoom-Nikkor 80-400mm f/4.5-5.6D ED they virtually identical in size
The only time I use the 70-200 is in poor light, when I need f 2.8
The 80 -400 can be handheld without any problems
I hate tripods and monopods, they are unnecessary with this lens, unless you are shooting at 400mm at less than 1/125

dkookymonster

Thanks guys - appreciate the input.

...hmm...an 80-400 f/2.8G ED VR....that would be an interesting wildlife lens.

PB_PM

The question is, could anyone afford it, or for that matter hold it for more than 10 seconds.

PB_PM

Considering that the shot isn't very sharp, that's not saying much... :P Not saying a tripod or monopod would have helps, but just throwing it out there.

Edit: Looks like the larger version appears sharper.

sevencrossing

Considering that the shot isn't very sharp, .

Thanks for the compliment
I am wonder why I waste my time here

Msmoto

I cannot figure out what you are all talking about..... oh, that is the thread topic, yes, I see now.....

dkookymonster

Ok guys and gals..it's GO time. Spousal approval points, in the bag...so last question. If you didn't own either one, which lens would you buy first: 70-200 f/2.8 VRII, or the 80-400 f/4.5G? I believe my current lenses are in my signature... Cheers!

dissent

Depends what you're most interested in capturing better right now. If your needs are in the 200-400mm FL range, get the 80-400. If shorter, then go shorter.

I wish I had your problem.

spraynpray

Depends on what you shoot!

Wildlife - get the 80-400 and flog that old 70-300. Portraits - go 70-200 f2.8.

Edit: As the 70-300 is soft soon after 200 (230-ish), flog it anyway coz you won't need it either way.

dkookymonster

Thanks Spraynpray -yes, that old 70-300 is soft as it can be...it's a dog.

sevencrossing

i have both but rarely use the 70 -200
get the 80 -400

tcole1983

My vote would be the 80-400. Although the 70-200 is a great lens...if you check out my lenses I have a large gap and I don't really miss it. I would own the 70-200 if I did wedding photography, but for me it isn't really long enough for my liking to shoot most wildlife. So I am not sure what I would use it for personally. However I know the 70-200 is a great lens and lots of people own it. Search on flickr Nikon 70-200 to get an idea. It is a useful range in that at F2.8 from 70-200 you can get decent bokeh throughout that range. I am a sucker for more mm though and larger flexibility. I haven't looked into the image quality enough for the 80-400, but from the bits I have seen it is excellent.

Photobug

As the others said, it depends, what do you shoot? How much wild life and how much scenery and at what distance for the wildlife? Answer those questions and you will know which lens to buy.

The 70-200mm 2.8 + a TC 1.4 works for me. I have held that beautiful 80-400mm. Lots of weight to go around your neck and if your shooting a lot you will need a Monopod IMHO. Be sure to allocate $$$ for a good filter.

sevencrossing

. I have held that beautiful 80-400mm. Lots of weight to go around your neck and if your shooting a lot you will need a Monopod IMHO. .

The AF VR Zoom-Nikkor 80-400mm f/4.5-5.6D ED and the 70 -200 f 2.8 they virtually identical in size
and weight
The 80 -400 has better VR than the 70 -200 and does not need a tripod or a monopod for most work
This was my first shot in a cafe with the 80-400

Handheld 1/500 @400mm ISO 6400 f5.6

another hand shot @400mm

No possibility or using a tripod in either situation

Golf007sd

Both of these lenses are outstanding...so you really cannot go wrong with either lens. Having said that, I'm love having fast lenses, so in that case, +1 on the 70-200 VR II. The 80-400 does have its own pluses, namely 400mm and the newer VR system. Regardless which you go with, by all means replace the foot on the 70-200 or if you go with the 80-400 replace the color with one made by RRS.