Nikon full frame Long lens options

SFTPhotography

SFTPhotography

Ranger Smith
Suspended / Banned
Messages
20,926
Name
Steve
Edit My Images
Yes
Presently I have a 16-35 and 24-70 to take care of my short end of the focal length range. I mainly do landscapes but do find from time to time a longer lens is useful....

So last year I added a 70-210 F4 zoom to the kit bag. Its a good thing but as its quite an old design its soft(ish) in the corners and not as sharp as a newer offering. For occassional use it is fine but I find myself using it more and more.

I would from time to time like something with reach beyond 200mm.

Would you go for the following

a 70-200 F4 and a 200-500mm F5.6 -

Or one 80-400mm f4-f5.6 lens - 400 is probably long enough though

Anyone here used both, what are your thoughts. The speed of the lens isn't a big thing as it will be stopped down a fair bit.

There is a used 70-200F2.8 in the ads thats caught my eye, but am aware its really a bit heavy and beyond what I need.

Leaning towards the 80-400 option more and more actually.
 
80-400 is cracking lens
 
The only one mentioned that I don't have personal experience with is the 200-500, but I know enough who own it and have been impressed enough with the results to know it's a good lens/choice. But it really depends on what you primarily want the lens for.
The 80-400 is great for working the end of the field on a sunny day... the current one, not the earlier model.
IMO, the 70-200/4 is the one to get for events (weddings) and portrait type work *if* you have no need for f/2.8.
The 200-500 would probably be my choice for wildlife/birds (or maybe one of the 150-600's).

And, I also own/use a 28-300/3.5-5.6 as a general purpose do-it-all lens... in good light and used optimally the results can be indistinguishable from more expensive options (i.e. 70-200/2.8).
 
The 80-400 main issues are that its a little bit slow for what most people use it for( wildlife), depends on what your using it for Steve but dont expect it to be as good as the 70-200 VR 11 your looking at for landscape stuff. The 70-200 is heavyish but you soon get used to it and is very sharp including the corners.

Can you justify the cost of a 70-200 for occassional use, if so then that will give you the best picture quality and it takes a 1.4tc very well if required.
 
markyboy.1967 said:
The 80-400 main issues are that its a little bit slow for what most people use it for( wildlife), depends on what your using it for Steve but dont expect it to be as good as the 70-200 VR 11 your looking at for landscape stuff. The 70-200 is heavyish but you soon get used to it and is very sharp including the corners.

Can you justify the cost of a 70-200 for occassional use, if so then that will give you the best picture quality and it takes a 1.4tc very well if required.
Click to expand...

I tend to do quite a lot of landscapes at the 90-200 range, certainly more and more. Its something that I am really getting into. It would get used quite a lot hence the reason to upgrade the old long lens that doesn't quite have the optical quality I really want.

The suggestion of the TC is a good shot for the few times I would foray beyond 200mm. Someones selling a VrII on here for £1200. Its very tempting.

The construction also bugs me, I bash things about a bit. A more solid thing would make me happier.
 
Last edited:
Yeah i saw you were interested in that. I have the VR11 and wouldnt part with it. If your pixel peeping Steve then i feel the 70-200 is the way to go as the image quality will be slightly better. The 1.4tc will help compress landscapes when you require it and take up little or no room at all.
 
markyboy.1967 said:
Yeah i saw you were interested in that. I have the VR11 and wouldnt part with it. If your pixel peeping Steve then i feel the 70-200 is the way to go as the image quality will be slightly better. The 1.4tc will help compress landscapes when you require it and take up little or no room at all.
Click to expand...

Yep. Its these bloody 36mp cameras, they do benefit from better glass. The TC is a great shout.The sensors will only get higher in pixel count so good lenses are the way to go.
 
Only just got my 70-200 f4 but by all accounts its a great lens. The 80-400 is not in the same league.
 
SFTPhotography said:
I tend to do quite a lot of landscapes at the 90-200 range, certainly more and more. Its something that I am really getting into. It would get used quite a lot hence the reason to upgrade the old long lens that doesn't quite have the optical quality I really want.

The suggestion of the TC is a good shot for the few times I would foray beyond 200mm. Someones selling a VrII on here for £1200. Its very tempting.

The construction also bugs me, I bash things about a bit. A more solid thing would make me happier.
Click to expand...

Have you discounted an older (and tougher) 80-200 f2.8?
 
I have the 70-200 f4 and it is very good. I think it is excellent for landscapes.
I had and sold the 80-400 ((latest version) as I used it mainly at the long end and I found it not so good. At the short end it was fine.
 
Steve, as others have said the 70-200 F4 is a great lens, it performs brilliantly on a D800/D810 level body - the other one that I found good stopped down was the very cheap Tamron 70-300 USD VC lens, its not all that quick but on a tripod I found it very nice for the price.
 
If you don't think you'll go above 200mm very often I'd probably say save your cash and just get a used TC. Alternatively I can whole heartedly recommend the Tamron 150-600mm and a used one shouldn't break the bank.
 
Last edited:
I have both the 70-200 vr2 & the 80-400 (newest model) . They weigh almost about the same.
The 80-400 @ 400 is quite badly balanced but it is a do it all lens, a lens for using when changing just isn't an option - just not a master of anything.
The 70-200 is qiute simply a work of art.
Excellent at all of its range, takes a 1.4 tele very well ( to the point you won't think about it), portraits, sports, night, anything you point your camera at, in short, Buy it.
 
Last edited:
Yep. The tele and 2.8 version is a great suggestion. That ones disappeared off the classifieds alas. Hopefully it'll reappear. I'd really rather buy into good quality as it's something that I find I'm using more and more.

It would be the last expensive lens I'd need to buy as I'm good pretty much gear wise
 
Last edited:
Bit late but...

I owned the 70-200 F4 but found the range a bit too limited, bought the 70-300 VR and was happy with that for a good while. Having decided try a bit more wildlife stuff I bought the Sigma 150-600 contemporary and have been very impressed, bang for buck I'm sure it takes some beating. Obviously doesn't have the speed of a 2.8 but in decent-ish light it's excellent

Simon
 
Now you have your 70-200mm I would just keep a eye out for a s/h 150-500/600mm that can be had at a good price :)
A couple of fellow togs both have the Nikon AFS VR 200-500mm and the results are impressive with amazing VR.
If you get the 1.4 or 1.7x you should be able to use it on both lenses.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top