Nikon 70-200 f/2.8 VR + 2x Teleconverter Vs 80-400 VR

[radford999]

Both combinations add up to ~$2700

The 80-400 VR is $2630
and The 70-200 + 2x Teleconverter is $2750

Which one would be a better option? I currently own a D7100 and a 70-300 VR and Need more reach for my wildlife photography...

I wish there was a 400mm f/5.6 from Nikon aswell

So i figure the 80-400 will be more convenient to use as i will not need to keep adding and removing the teleconverter. I also think that adding a teleconverter will reduce the autofocus speed, so that may be an issue. I know the 70-200 has better Image quality and build but with the teleconverter reduce quality by "Bottlenecking" the lens...

 

[ultimadrift]

I would recommend the 70-200mm with 2x tele cause without the tele you would have an awesome 2.8 aperture lens and not some lame 4.5-5.6.

 

[SCraig]

I would recommend the 70-200mm with 2x tele cause without the tele you would have an awesome 2.8 aperture lens and not some lame 4.5-5.6.

And with the TC installed you would have an awesome 140-400mm lens with a maximum aperture of f/5.6 since a 2x TC adds 2 stops.

It depends on which end of the lens you shoot at most. If you stay at the 400mm end most of the time then I'd go for the 80-400. If you stay at or under 200mm most of the time, then I'd go with the 70-200.

 

[matthewo]

wait for the new 300mm f4 and put a 1.4x on it, should beat them all in IQ

 

[cgipson1]

I agree with Scott... if you want / need 400, go with the 80-400. I have the 70-200 2.8 and the 2X TC and it is not a happy making combo... not when compared to the 70-200 by itself!

 

[Derrel]

You're one of the few people who seems to actually "get" the bottleneck issue of using a TC on a zoom... a 2x costs two full EV in either aperture or shutter speed...a 1.4x TC is a better deal, but, it too causes the "bottleneck".

The lenses are really basically two, different things. A 300mm f/4 prime cannot compete with an 80-400 stabilized zoom for focal length flexibility...just not the same thing.

I dunno...what do you REALLY want the lens "for"? For general use, the 70-200 VR is a versatile, fine-quality lens; faster, more-desirable, and better in poorer light at lower ISO values. The 80-400 is much longer, with a wider zoom range, but is more suited to brighter light conditions and longer-range situations, like say when on a boat, at the beach, or shooting from one,restricted shooting location.

I own a couple 70-200's, one Canon, one Nikon, and two 80-400's, one a Nikkor, one a Sigma...they are totally different tools. the brand-new Nikkor is probably the best 80-400 on the market, but it is STILL only f/5.6 at the longer end of the range, so that means ISO elevation will be needed quite often, which may, or may not, be an issue.