80-200 f/2.8 vs 70-300 vr

Discussion in 'Photography Equipment & Products' started by ericande, May 18, 2007.

  1. ericande

    ericande TPF Noob!

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2006
    Messages:
    136
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Seattle
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos OK to edit
    Does anyone have experience with the image quality of the 80-200 vs the 70-300vr while using an extender? Specifically with a 1.4x, 1.7x or 2.0x on the 80-200, how will the image quality compare to the 70-300vr w/o one?
     
  2. sabbath999

    sabbath999 No longer a newbie, moving up!

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2007
    Messages:
    2,696
    Likes Received:
    62
    Location:
    Missouri
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos OK to edit
    Never used one with an extender... my question is, why would you want one? There really isn't much difference between the 200 and 300 settings (I know this for a fact, shooting both a 18-200 VR and a 70-300 on two different cameras while doing my Zoo pictures. Yes, you can get a bit closer, but the difference between 200 & 300 on the telephoto end is minor compared to the amount of light gathering you are giving up if you cripple a lovely 80-200 2.8 with a teleconverter.

    Me, given the choice, I would rather keep the light and crop the image. There is not that much difference in practical terms between 200 & 300 if you are shooting a picture with a camera with good resolution.

    IMHO
     
  3. JIP

    JIP No longer a newbie, moving up!

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2006
    Messages:
    3,019
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    Pittsburgh PA
    You are not giving the full stats of the 300. Extender or not the image quality is always going to be better with the 80-200 because it is a 2.8 even though you did not state it I am sure the 70-300 you mentioned is not a 2.8 lens
     
  4. sabbath999

    sabbath999 No longer a newbie, moving up!

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2007
    Messages:
    2,696
    Likes Received:
    62
    Location:
    Missouri
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos OK to edit
    VR means Nikon and the only VR 70-300 they make is the f/4.5-5.6 lens, a consumer grade product (although it's a pretty sharp lens, the VR gives me 4 or so stops of steadyness... since I virutally always shoot it wide open that's a good thing for me).

    The 80-200 he's talking about is the pro-level non VR, a very sharp and lovely lens.
     
  5. Devananda

    Devananda TPF Noob!

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2006
    Messages:
    187
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Jackson hole wyoming
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos NOT OK to edit
    well I have the 80-200 F2.8 and been thinking about aTC also...
    even thought itis a fast lens most people will advise not to put a TC on it.
    the TC that I was told to get if I was going to do it was the nikon TC20IIE however I went to the shop the other day and it DOES NOT WORK, the lens will not fit the TC .

    look up some revies on TC, will give you an idea on the quality of them. there is no point to put a cheap TC on a great lens.

    I hear you I have been playing around alot with defferent ideas to give my 80-200mm a little more reach...the only thing I found so far is working with the pic is PS .

    hope this was some what usefull
    Deva
     
  6. ericande

    ericande TPF Noob!

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2006
    Messages:
    136
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Seattle
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos OK to edit
    Thanks Deva.


    BTW, amount of light doesn't matter much. I have to shoot at about f/8 to slow down the shutter enough anyways.
     
  7. Devananda

    Devananda TPF Noob!

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2006
    Messages:
    187
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Jackson hole wyoming
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos NOT OK to edit
    I been looking in to the 80-400 VR as well....you can read some fedback about that idea on my thread somewere down the page.
     
  8. coastietech

    coastietech TPF Noob!

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2007
    Messages:
    155
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Va, USA
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos OK to edit
    Since when does speed of a lens equate to better image quality? Just because a lens is faster doesn't mean it is sharper, or has more constrast or color.

    To the original poster I own the 70-300mm and it's a great lens. It's sharp and the VR is awesome. If you are constantly shooting in daylight and you don't have to worry about low light situations then I would take the extra 100mm over the faster apereture. If there is any chance that you will be shooting in low light then go for the 80-200mm because I will tell you that the 70-300mm VR is not made for low light. The AF hunts and the VR won't make up for the lack of speed in all situations. I disagree with the other posters saying that the extra 100mm doesn't matter. I personally like the extra 100mm and I have shot a 18-200mm and didn't think it was long enough. But once again that's just me. I don't like having to crop a photo to make it look like I was closer. But then again there are times when even the 300mm isn't enough and I wished I had more.
     
  9. Mike_E

    Mike_E No longer a newbie, moving up!

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2007
    Messages:
    5,327
    Likes Received:
    264
    Location:
    The Upper West Side of Mississippi (you have no i
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos OK to edit
    I have a 2.8 80-200 and a 2X using them together is doable but I don't think you will want to very often. You are going to need a rock steady tripod and you are most likely going to want to focus manually, so, unless you are wanting to take photos of a nest or some other specific stationary object get a single lens.

    mike

    btw the setup will only be as strong as it's weakest link but if you really need 600m as opposed to 450 then go for it!
     

Share This Page

Search tags for this page

80-200 2.8vs 70-300 4.5-5.6

,

nikon+70-300+vr+vs 80-200