Nikon TC 20E and 70-200mm VR or 80-400mm VR

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Ahhhhh, Nov 22, 2004.

  1. Ahhhhh

    Ahhhhh Guest

    Hi wonder if anyone could let me know which is the best way to go?
    I currently have a Nikon 70-200mm F2.8 VR Lens and I am thinking of
    purchasing a TC-20E Teleconvertor to use with this lens, but I would like to
    know if anyone in this newsgroup has had experience of this setup?, if so
    what were the results?, or would I be better going for the Nikon 80-400mm
    VR? Any links to relative information or reviews would be also appreciated.

    Thanks Dougie
    Ahhhhh, Nov 22, 2004
    1. Advertisements

  2. With the TC20-E + 70-200, you gain

    nearly two stops of speed at the shorter focal lengths
    faster autofocus

    You lose

    the ability to cover the entire range without changing lenses
    the range between 70 and 80 mm

    The 70-200+TC-20E combination is more than $500 more expensive. Ya pays yer
    money and ya takes yer choice.
    Andrew Koenig, Nov 22, 2004
    1. Advertisements

  3. Ahhhhh

    Mick Brown Guest

    I have that set up, click on the link under my name, and look for the
    cricket shot, it's the only one I took thats on that site with that set up.

    I shot around 150 shots of the cricket that day, using the 2 x and a
    monopod, dont be disheartened if you get a few that are blurry, it takes
    some pratice, but out of the 150 I got around 130 keepers.
    Mick Brown, Nov 23, 2004
  4. Ahhhhh

    Ed Ruf Guest

    I'm looking at doing the exact same thing. When I bought the D70 I
    considered the 80-400 VR, but decided on the faster lens. How important is
    this to you? It is quite useful to me.

    To add to Andrew's pros/cons. It would also appear the 70-200 is faster
    focusing being an AF-S vs the 80-400 and AF. On the other hand the 80-400
    is definitely smaller.

    Reviews of both lens and the TC can be seen at:
    Ed Ruf Lifetime AMA# 344007 ()
    Ed Ruf, Nov 23, 2004
  5. Ahhhhh

    Mick Brown Guest

    I thought the 80 to 400 was bigger...

    Anyway, yes losing the 2 stops with the converter on is a pain, but then
    again, you have a 2.8 lens without the converter, remember when you are
    shooting without the converter on a digital body, it's effectively a 300 2.8
    go and price one of those bad boys.

    Mick Brown
    Mick Brown, Nov 23, 2004
  6. No: It's a surprisingly small lens with a surprisingly big hood.
    Andrew Koenig, Nov 23, 2004
  7. Ahhhhh

    John Guest

    Having handled both of them, I can make these observations:

    - the 80-400 is shorter but much bigger around than the 70-200 - the 70-200
    is thus "easier" to handle, for me (small hands)
    - though the 80-400 is a couple ounces lighter than the 70-200 (47 vs. 50
    ounces), I found the 70-200 actually "felt" lighter in practice because it
    balances better on the camera (to me, the 80-400 felt like a concrete block
    attached to the camera, while the 70-200 felt more like a well-balanced
    rifle, if you will)
    - compared to the 70-200, the 80-400 takes forever to focus and feels really
    "torque"-y, if that's a word; i.e., you can actually feel the camera motor
    grinding / pushing the lens into place. On the other hand, you can also
    feel the 70-200 VR in action (kind of like holding a gyroscope in your hand)

    In the end, it's certainly your choice. I went with the 70-200 for "feel"
    (it just felt better to me, same reason I went with Nikon over Canon in the
    first place), but I sometimes miss the reach of the 80-400 - but couldn't
    afford both. I'm thinking about the 1.7 converter. . .

    - John
    John, Nov 23, 2004
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.