Nikon 70-200 f/2.8 vs 80-400 f/4.5-5.6G

[mporter012]

I'm looking at picking up a zoom lens from Nikon and looking the the new 70-200 AF-S FL ED VR and buying the 1.4 teleconverter OR going the 80-40 f/4.5-5.6. They are both stellar lenses from everything I've read. The 70-200 has particularly beautiful clarity and contrast, and I've thought that when I'm not photographing wildlife, I wouldn't really need the longer focal lengths of the 80-400, and when I needed the extra focal length, I could throw on the teleconverter.

Thoughts/suggestions!?

Thanks!

 

[Russ - SVP]

You will definitely want to check out the superb Nikon 70-200 f/4 VR lens. It’s fantastic!

 

[Two23]

I have both. The best combo is the Nikon 300mm f4 VR PF with the TC-14. Of the two you mention, the 80-400mm VR (second version) is better than the 70-200 with TC. Neither are as good as the 300mm f4 PF with TC-14.


Kent in SD

 

[Tord55]

Agree with Two23. Have the 70-200/4G that I got after haven given up with the 80-400G. I've used the 300PF but not used it extensively, but my shots turned out better than I expected. The Sigma 100-400 C is in my book far better than the Nikon 80-400G, alas not perfect, as it focuses slower, and isn't dust-proof. But a delight in every other way, especially the price (bought it new, full price, at about 25% of the cost of the 80-400G)!