70-200 f/2.8 +TC or 300 f/4 (Nikon) Or other light tele option

[Amp34]

I'm currently using a 70-300 VR since I swapped to Nikon a few months ago but, although it's a nice lens it's not quite up there with the L tele's I've been used to with Canon so need to have a swap some time soon. I may also be going on a safari (with a lot of walking and camping) next spring so a better long lens is essential in my book.

I have been umming about the new 70-200 f/4 but I don't think that would be long enough for my needs without something longer. The Nikon 300 f/4 looks nice but doesn't have VR and isn't as flexible (especially if I don't want to be changing lenses due to dust on a safari) so I'm wondering if I can get away with the Nikon 70-200 f/2.8 VR Mk1 and a 1.4/2xTC.

Has anyone used that combo before? What is it like at the long end and if anyone has had the chance of comparing it to the 300 f/4 that would be superb! There are another couple of options I've been wondering about, for example the Sigma 100-300 (no VR and some suggest fairly soft - but very cheap) or I could go really mad and look into the Sigma 120-300 f/2.8 and add on a TC for super long (HEAVY - 3kg and most expensive). Any other options I should be looking at? No rumours of of a new Sigma 100-300 f/4 (with OS) coming out?

 

[Raikiri]

I wouldn't go for the 300 f/4, I've owned one and whilst a great lens they're very specific in their usage. The 70-200 f2.8 is an amazing lens and performs very well with either a 1.4 or 1.7x teleconverter and would be my choice.

 

[D.P.]

Depends what your usage really is. If you find that you are needing the length and will be adding the TCs to the 70-200 a lot then the 300mm f/4.0 makes much more sense.

Ever since I purchased the Nikon 300mmm F/4.0 I have not touched my 70-700 2.8 once and I might get rid of it (replace it with a 85mm prime perhaps). Now I love the 70-200 but it just doesn't have the reach for wildlife work, even on a crop. Therefore TCs become paramount. That in itself is not too bad, the the 1.4xTC on the new 70-200mm f/2.8 VRII wont give image quality too far behind the 300mm prime, you still don't have that much reach, in fact you are still behind the 70-300mm VR and image quality wont be massively better despite the large lens and big investment, you will be a stop faster though.

So far so good, but if you want more than 280mm then you will ant to use the new 2.0xTC on the 70-200, netting you a 400mm f/5.6. This will push the 70-200 to its limits- the lens is a amazing, probably sharp than the new Canon if anything, but a 2x TC was never intended to be used on a zoom. Heck, most pros will say you should never use any TC on a zoom lens. The combo works and images OK images, but the Nikon 300mm + 1.4xTC is a much better option giving you a far sharper image at 420mm.

The 70-200 will win for flexibility of course, using on the wide end it makes a great portrait lens was wonderful bokeh. It i also great for landscapes, weddings, events, PJ.


So if you want reach over 280/300mm then the 300mm f/4.0 is the way to go, if you don't care about that and want wider then the 70-200 with TCs.

As for the lack of VR, not really noticeable. When you get to 300mm + on a crop sensor you really have to be using a tripod anyway. When it is bright the 300 is hand holdable, even with the 1.4TC. The VR version will come along soon but I wouldn't wait for it. I picked up my 300mmf/4.0 second hand and don't expect to loose much money if I sell it.


The thing with the 300mm f/4.0 is it is the fastest and longest Nikon lens you can buy without moving into the extremely expensive and extremely heavy category. The 300mm 2.8 is big and expensive and gains you no reach without TCs, the 400mm 2.8 is gigantic and astronomically expensive, you basically gain 2 stop over the 300mm + 1.4xTC. The only bigger lens that then really makes sense is the 500mm f/4.0, not as heavy or long or expensive as the 400mm 2.8 and 600mm f/4.0, more usable, can still take TCs well, even without any TCs you are both significantly longer and faster than the 300+1.4 combo.


The other lens to consider is the 80-400VR. There are a lot of bad myths on the internet surrounding this lens. te truth is is that it is a sharp lens with the usual pitfalls of a 5x variable zoom lens. The AF is dated but in itself fast enough and accurate. For some reason canon fan-boys seems to attack the Nikon 80-400 and praise the canon 100-400, which is weird because the lenses are more similar than different and both are old and need replacing (they are about the same age). Optically the Nikon is every
bit as good as the Canon. The Nikon has noisy AF-D motors, the Canon has a nasty push-pull dust vacum for a zoom mechanism.

Saying the the Nikon 80-400 must be one of the most likely lenses for Nikon to replace, so i would also look second hand.

 

[Amp34]

You've hit on a lot of the questions I'm asking myself. I've owned both the Canon 300 f/4 (for 2 years) and swapped it for a Canon 70-200 f/4 (for 2 years) when I needed a lighter, more flexible piece of equipment. The 70-200 was great, except it was invariably too short most of the time for wildlife, however it was massively more versatile. The big problem with the 300 f/4 is if it's not all in frame then you're ******* because it's a long walk backwards if you want it in... Especially if your other lenses stop at around the 50-70mm mark

The 70-200 is a very versatile lens, the 2.8 moreso as you can easily fit a TC on it and still get a fastish aperture, however it is heavier. It's one of the reasons I've been very interested in a 70-200 f/4 Nikon, at least you can use that in Tandem with the 300 f/4 if you have the space to carry both, especially with a 1.4 TC. My minimum aperture for 300mm is f/4 preferably, so the 70-200 f/4 and 1.4 TC is pushing that really.

I disagree however on the lack of VR not being an issue. 300mm is easily holdable, even with a 300 f/4 (on crop), in fact that is how I held mine most of the time, although did have it on a tripod at times when I was stationary. A lot of the time it was used while walking along or occasionally whilst in a boat. Having used other 300mm lenses with VR/IS it was a big stumbling block (my 300 f/4 was the older non IS Canon version). That's why VR for me is such a big thing. Something like 1/150s is fine for capturing most animal movements (unless they are going full pelt and you're not panning), but without VR/IS that is difficult territory for a 300mm+ lens on a crop body.

I'm not really interested in the 80-400 or Sigma 120-400 (or the Canon 100-400 when I used Canon) as the long end was just too slow and generally the IQ wasn't brilliant at the long end. I am starting to get very interested in the Sigma 120-300 f/2.8 however... It's heavy (massive negative) but ticks almost all the other boxes with room to spare and at a push could become a fairly decent 600 f/5.6, or more likely a 420 f/4... It's also around £1k used so in the ballpark of the budget I have... It's definitely something I'm going to be looking in to before I buy my next lens, cheaper, and around the same weight as the 70-200 f/4 and 300 f/4 together as well...