Do these lenses compare?

N'Kolor · Dec 28, 2007

Okay, I was a Canon guy until last week. I had a 40D with kit lens 28-135 and a 70-200 f4L IS. I had planned to trade the 70-200 in on something larger as 200 wasn't quite long enough.

Now that I am a Nikon user I need help. Since I am familiar with L series glass I need help in comparing two lenses. I really like the 100-400 L series lens by Canon. I would like to compare this lens to a Nikon 80-400 VR.

They seem to be close in price, the Nikon is a tad more, similar range, Nikon is a little wider, I don't know much about the glass Nikon uses vs. L series glass so any input is appreciated.

Thanks!
Mike

N'Kolor · Dec 28, 2007

Oh yeah, my budget is about $1500 so if you have another SHARP long lens in mind, please feel free to add.

Garbz · Dec 28, 2007

Do you need a zoom? The lens you mention is rather average sharpness and CA wise. http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/nikkor_80400_4556/index.htm Good lens otherwise.

N'Kolor · Dec 28, 2007

I guess not necessarily. A 400mm prime or larger would work.

kundalini · Dec 28, 2007

Have you priced the Nikkor 400mm primes?

An alternative is to get the 300mm f/4 (nice lens) and teleconverters.

N'Kolor · Dec 28, 2007

The 300mm is within my range and I could get a 1.4x. My concern is not having VR.

Garbz · Dec 28, 2007

How much of a concern is it? The D300 can quite comfortably go to ISO1600 without any kind of noise that would be of concern if you print a picture as opposed to look at it at 100%

And VR is a fairly recent technology whereas photographers have survived for hundreds of years without it.

Just get a monopod for your lens, you're likely to need it anyway. Shooting 300mm handheld is somewhat crazy.

N'Kolor · Dec 28, 2007

I am actually hoping to talk the wife into getting a 70-200VR with a 1.7 teleconverter...we'll see how it goes in the morning. I sold some stuff that is supposed to be picked up tomorrow so I should have an extra $425. If I can pick the lens up at my local Ritz for about $1600, then I will be set!

We'll see!

kundalini · Dec 28, 2007

Before you go Ritz, check out B&H.

B&H will cost be $1653.20 including 2 day shipping. I am on the East coast as well. The TC17EII was 349.95+, it was included in another order, but with 2 day shipping as well. I figure for an extra $9, the 2 day shipping is worth it if the total is large enough or if I just gotta have it.

N'Kolor · Dec 28, 2007

I think I can talk Ritz down a tad...they price match ya know...whether they like to tell you or not. Plus, I have a Ritz card with 0% interest for 10 months. Also, I would have it tomorrow so when I go to the zoo on Sunday, I will at least have a good distance lens, since the 18-200 seems to be a little soft at 200.

N'Kolor · Dec 29, 2007

Well I returned my 18-200 lens today and bought a 70-200 VR f2.8!!! This lens is bad arse!

sabbath999 · Dec 29, 2007

The TC17 is bard arse too when you get around to adding it... it doesn't degrade the image quality and all you lose is 2 stops in speed. I own both.

N'Kolor · Dec 30, 2007

Yeah I am definitely looking into one of those! But wasn't sure if I should get the 1.4 or 1.7.

itoncool · Dec 30, 2007

If you don't like the 18-200VR result, then I don't think adding any TC in behind of the 70-200VR is a good idea, any TC (no matter how excellent it is) will reduce sharpness and speed of the lens. But, it's an excellent way out to get longer reach with much lower cost (and less weight).