80-200 f/2.8 vs 70-300 vr

[ericande]

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?

 

[sabbath999]

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

 

[JIP]

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

 

[sabbath999]

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

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.

 

[Devananda]

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

 

[ericande]

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.

 

[Devananda]

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.

 

[coastietech]

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

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.

 

[Mike_E]

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!