80-400 afs vs 70-200F2.8+TC20 vs 70-200f4+TC17

heartyfisher

saw this comparison between Canon's 70-200+2X vs 100-400 and wondered how the nikon versions would compare ..



In the canon version, the 70-200+2X beats the 100-400. However, I have a feeling the Nikon lenses would be different.

I myself am aiming for the 70-200f4+TC17 setup (Just waiting for a cheap TC17 to surface :-) ) but I think it could be an interesting discussion.. especially if there are some example photos ..

spraynpray

My Canon shooting partner says the Canon 100-400 is crap which may explain the skewed results. It would not compare to the Nikon 80-400G, or even the older D.

sevencrossing

I have compared the
AF-S NIKKOR 70-200mm f/2.8G ED VR II plus Nikon TC-20E AF-S Teleconverter III
with the
AF-S NIKKOR 80–400mm f/4.5-5.6G ED VR
The 80 -400 wins hands down

haroldp

Not even close, the 80-400G wins in every parameter.

...H

tcole1983

Is the is the mk1 or mk2 of the 100-400? They have a new version that just came out.

I think it is probably about equal to the two versions of the 80-400...the old was terrible and the new is much improved.

Killerbob

I have the new (and improved) AF-S NIKKOR 80–400mm f/4.5-5.6G ED VR, and think it is a decent lens. It is pretty good at being what it is, an OK zoom lens with a great range. It is however not a what other owners make it out to be, IMHO. It is a BIG SOB, and though I am not known to travel light, it is by far the biggest I will travel with... It weighs in at 1.6kg, and can't stand up in any travel bag. Also, due to its size, it requires a mono/tripod.

The 80-400mm takes OK pictures, but it is not as sharp as say the 70-200mm, and the AF can be funky. I don't know how to explain it, but sometimes it just doesn't AF... It gets there a bit slow, and when there, it continues to try and get better AF.

Also, you NEED to replace the tripod foot. I changed to the RRS offering (LC-A11/LCF-10), so that's an additional USD200. Finally, the VR is well working, but slow.

All-in-all a decent lens, but I probably would buy differently today. I'd get the AF-S NIKKOR
70-200mm f/2.8G ED VR II, along with the AF-S Teleconverter TC-20E III (if 400mm was important)...

Msmoto

My thoughts....the new 80-400 Nikkor is quite good, possibly better than the 70-200mm f/2.8 VRII plus TC-20EIII. But, my results with the old 80-400 is also quite acceptable, although I never use it anymore.

Size wise, well, I am used to some big stuff so weight and size are not a concern.

sevencrossing

...
All-in-all a decent lens, but I probably would buy differently today. I'd get the AF-S NIKKOR
70-200mm f/2.8G ED VR II, along with the AF-S Teleconverter TC-20E III (if 400mm was important)...

I used to use the 70-200mm f/2.8G ED VR II, along with the AF-S Teleconverter TC-20E III
I now use the AF-S NIKKOR 80–400mm f/4.5-5.6G ED VR,

Unsurprisingly, at 200mm the f 2.8 will focus faster than 80 -400 at 200m when it is effectively f 5.6
but add the AF-S Teleconverter TC-20E III to the 70 -200 and you lose 2 stops
at 80mm and no TC the 70 -200 f2.8 will win every time
but at 400mm the 80 -400 wins by a mile

( I sold my 70 -200 but the AF-S Teleconverter TC-20E III, in mint condition is, for sale )

JonMcGuffin

I have compared the
AF-S NIKKOR 70-200mm f/2.8G ED VR II plus Nikon TC-20E AF-S Teleconverter III
with the
AF-S NIKKOR 80–400mm f/4.5-5.6G ED VR
The 80 -400 wins hands down

I have read/heard this comparison many times and can back up this statement. The 80-400 beats 70-200 plus tele all the way around. I own the 70-200f4, honestly don't think I'd put a tele with it. Consider maybe just picking up a D7100 refurb, put that in the back of the lens and that'll net you a damn good "105-300" and you don't lose the f4.

JonMcGuffin

Is the is the mk1 or mk2 of the 100-400? They have a new version that just came out.

I think it is probably about equal to the two versions of the 80-400...the old was terrible and the new is much improved.

And his I've read/heard too. Their new 100-400 is quite superb and when paired with a 7dm2 makes an exceptionally wonderful combination. It seems all the Canon "Mark ii" lenses are actually stellar and state of the art.

Gaptoothedgypsy

I had the 70-200 and used it with both the TC-17II and TC-20III. After persevering for several months I traded them in for an 80-400 and could not be happier. On it's own the 70-200 is a brilliant lens, but it really suffers IMHO, on AF for instance, with the TC's when shooting BIF and Sport; better with the TC-17 than the 20III. I don't have any examples to post and I don't believe that I have rose tinted specs because I bought the new lens. I think I get better results; just sayin'

retread

I have the 70-200 2.8 and the 2X converter. The new version of both. I am happy with what I get both with and without the converter.

Is the 80-400 better. I have no Idea as I have never used one.

Photobug

Good discussion and I wonder which is better. Keep the information coming on comparisons.

heartyfisher

I have compared the
AF-S NIKKOR 70-200mm f/2.8G ED VR II plus Nikon TC-20E AF-S Teleconverter III
with the
AF-S NIKKOR 80–400mm f/4.5-5.6G ED VR
The 80 -400 wins hands down

I have read/heard this comparison many times and can back up this statement. The 80-400 beats 70-200 plus tele all the way around. I own the 70-200f4, honestly don't think I'd put a tele with it. Consider maybe just picking up a D7100 refurb, put that in the back of the lens and that'll net you a damn good "105-300" and you don't lose the f4.

I already have the 70-200 F4 and a D7200, its a very nice combination, very nice :-). I have an old Kenko 1.4 TC but I have not tried it yet though It worked fairly well when I used it with my D7000.. I am thinking it will be much better with the D7200 since the D7000 Af is a bit weak and it did hunt a tiny bit when used with the 70-200f4+K-TC1.4.. I would be interested to hear how you go with the 70-200f4 + whatever TC you have especially the TC17 as I am considering that though hearing your experience with the TC20 would be great.

I may just go for a little walk with my D7200+70-200+TC1.4 later today just to test it out :-)

esquilo

Today I use Nikon 70-300 VR and Sigma 150-500. My intention is to replace them both with the Nikon AF-S 80-400. When I can afford it.

tcole1983

Might wait for the new 200-500 to be released and see how that does..

TriShooter

I use three lenses in this focal range. The Nikon 70-200mm af-s VRII, the af-s 80-400mm VRII, and the Sigma 120-300mm f/2.8 OS. Each of these lenses is in my bag for a specific reason.

I concur with everyone above who said the af-s version of the 80-400mm version is superior to the 70-200mm with teleconverters, but think it is important to note that the 80-400mm is not a substitute the 70-200mm, nor is my Sigma 120-300mm because of its size, and weight.

If you bought the 70-200mmm and applied the money you would pay for a couple of Nikon's teleconverters toward buying Nikon's new 80-400mm you will have already paid for half the cost of the new 80-400mm.

AKUKANKA

Forget about TC-17EII. According to my experience its good just with 200/2 and 400/2.8, ok with 300/2.8 but not so good with anything else. Better results with 70-200/2.8VR with new TC-14EIII and cropping.

DaveyJ

The camera or lens I would most like to own that I don't is the 80-400 Nikkor (the new one). Yet my farm work is paying low enough despite having produced great projects and tremendously satisfied customers.....as mostly retired but with the same numbers of hours working....I just can't pull this trigger. However I did get the 16-80 Nikkor as it was less money and I felt I needed it. I also would NOT use the 80-400 Nikkor at work. On a construction site it would be nearly worthless although we do have eagles fly overhead now and then. Since I usually need MORE THAN 200 the advantage of the 70-200 2.8 is totally lost on me. Since I OWNED the 80-200 2.8 and PREFERRED the 70-300 I will not go to the 70-200 needing the tele converters. I have had VERY POOR luck with Nikon TCs.

TriShooter

Forget about TC-17EII. According to my experience its good just with 200/2 and 400/2.8, ok with 300/2.8 but not so good with anything else. Better results with 70-200/2.8VR with new TC-14EIII and cropping.

My older TC-14EII is actually slightly sharper than my TC-14EIII on the current version of the 70-200mm f/2.8 VRII.

I felt the same way about the TC-17EII until I recently put it on the AF-S NIKKOR 600mm f/4E FL ED VR just for fun, and was dumbstruck at how sharp this combination works together at 200 plus yards, where TC-17EII performed noticeably poorer with my older af-s 300mm as close as 100 yards out. So add this lens to the ones that work with the TC-17EII. I agree with your comments on the other lenses.

....Since I usually need MORE THAN 200 the advantage of the 70-200 2.8 is totally lost on me. Since I OWNED the 80-200 2.8 and PREFERRED the 70-300 I will not go to the 70-200 needing the tele converters. I have had VERY POOR luck with Nikon TCs.

I love my 80-200mm so much they may have to bury me with it. lol. Another lens to consider is the last version of the af-s 300mm f/4 which is razor sharp, and faster focusing for bif than the new 80-400mm, although admittedly not as flexible. I have shot a lot of swallows with the 300mm f/4, and think it is still a great lens, especially at the prices they are selling them for used at now.

DaveyJ

Tri-Shooter has a combo that works for him! I'd like to put the NEW 80-400VR to work but my days of being in great places in Alaska, etc. are pretty much over. Now I mostly shoot photos and videos of our farm work. Less need for telephoto. When I was shooting telephoto I did notice that I had to either carry two cameras to get close up action and a longer lens for more distant wildlife. I have had wild 700 pound Brown Bears within four foot of me and I can assure you it is wise to back up and not run.....and Not to be using a even 200mm lens.

tektrader

I use the TC1.7E2 on my 70-200 VR1 and its surprisingly good after its been MFT'd

heartyfisher

Thanks to the comments here.. and the good fortune of finding a good price for a second hand tc17, with any luck, I will be picking it up the tc17 sometime next week.. :-)

heartyfisher

Just got my TC17eii and took some shots with it with my 70-200 F4 == 120-340 and on the D7200 with the 1.3 crop makes it about 600+ FOV .. noticeable degradation in IQ but really quite happy with it.. :-) AF is pretty good too ... no issues .. seem better than the kenko 1.4 tc that I have..

:-) maybe I dont need the new 200-500 ;-) .. at least for a while ..

https://www.flickr.com/photos/104392783@N07/21843104059/
https://www.flickr.com/photos/104392783@N07/22017693012/

autofocus

For the money, Zoom Range, VRII, Focus Speed, and Sharpness I don't think you can beat the 80-400mm G. Yes, you lose a few stops with the 5.6 but the alternative will cost almost 10k more. I have carried it shooting hand-held all day and it does get heavy at the end of the day but that's with nonstop shooting motocross.

Photobug

For the money, Zoom Range, VRII, Focus Speed, and Sharpness I don't think you can beat the 80-400mm G. Yes, you lose a few stops with the 5.6 but the alternative will cost almost 10k more. I have carried it shooting hand-held all day and it does get heavy at the end of the day but that's with nonstop shooting motocross.

For those of us with a 70-200 F2.8 the new 200-500 5.6 looks like an excellent combination. Waiting to get my hands on one and the lab test results and in field testing. I like that option over the 80-400.