80-200 f2.8 AF-D with Nikon 2x TC vs. 80-400 VR
Which setup do people prefer: 80-200 f2.8 AF-D with Nikon 2x TC vs. 80-400 VR? I am leaning towards the VR, as I am not too excited about dealing with a TC and the 80-200 would have a slow aperture with the TC anyway. Plus, I like the idea that I won't always have to setup a tripod as much as now. On the other hand, the 2.8 is an excellent lens, and it might be worth it to deal with the TC and an excellent lens. I heard BJ Nicholls has the VR, if you can BJ, please share some quick points on it.
"There I was...holy cow, there I am!"
#1. "RE: 80-200 f2.8 AF-D with Nikon 2x TC vs. 80-400 VR" | In response to Reply # 0Tamronguy Basic MemberWed 29-Aug-01 12:15 PM
If you use the shorter focal length most of the time, then go with the 80-200mm 2.8 AF-D, it is an optically better lens than the VR lens at these focal length and is 2 stops faster. However this lens is not optimised towards the long end and using it with a 2x converter will only give mediocre results. OTOH, if you mainly uses the longer focal length and must have the versatility to cover the shorter end as well, then the VR lens is the way to go. I have the VR lens and I feel that the optical quality can be better, but I like its 5X zoom range.