Can anyone tell me with certainty

If you would like to post, you'll need to register. Note that if you have a BCG store account, you'll need a new, separate account here (we keep the two sites separate for security purposes).

Thanks for that Steve I have a very good relationship with the local camera store so I will have the opportunity to test before hand. Do you know if an E version is any better if they actually offer an E version yet. I own the Nikkor 200-400 and the 300PF I am preparing to equip myself with some lighter glass from around 100mm to the 400 or 600mm range for easier travel weights. I considered the Sigma 100 -400 with a sigma TC 1.4 which may still be an option, I just thought Nikon would have been a better glass but I don't know with any certainty
I once rented an AF-S Nikkor 80-400 about 6 years ago. It is a decent lens, but not great optically. It also didn’t play well with my Nikon 1 bodies and FT1 adapter. A number of Nikon 1 users sang the praises of the Sigma 100-400. I took photos with one outside the store and bought it based on those photos. I have been very happy with that lens. I posted some photos taken with that lens in a thread in the Wildlife Presentation forum. I think it is worth at least looking at.
 
Hi Craig I just looked at your Pintail Duck images very very nicely done. I owned an 80 -400 mm Nikkor once before and sold it, but for the life of me I can not recall why I sold it. I am seriously looking now at the Sigma, price size and if once I too test it and it works to my satisfaction both a friend and myself will be buying one. Mine for Nikon, his for Canon. Those images truly were beautifully done, very clear showing nice detail thanks for that.
Ray
 
That would be great I hope you would take the time to let me know your results, it would be truly helpful to me thanks. I've had good luck with the 300PF and the 1.4x TC to where it is a go to lenses for me. But mostly it fills a void between my smaller lenses and the heavy weight 500mm. Often I take most of my gear with me on a shoot pulled in a wagon, unless I have a specific location or shoot in mind etc shooting from my kayak. Where I was falling short was from 200mm up to the 400mm range. I found multiple opportunities where that flexibility would have come in really handy. Nothing is perfect but a good work arounds solution would be nice. The real motivation for sourcing a solution comes from my need to lighten up my bag for the future safari's that I'm planning to go on over the next few years. At the moment I am very well equipped to move my heavy gear around by using multiple ways of handling it, but it's time to rethink how I work, and everyone on this forum has offered some very good insights. I look forward to hearing how the 80 -400 VR performs for you!!
I saw the word kayak and instantly got a smile. If you had gone with the 80-400mm for kayak use I would have recommended investing in a set of outriggers. If you used the D500 and 80-400 lens at eye level in a kayak your center of mass could roll you over and you'd have to right yourself;) It's a beast in weight and performance. If you ever find one priced right for you buy it. Don't buy any of the stuff knocking it's optical performance. The 80-400 is a great Nikon lens in the hands of competent photographers. Serious Nikon users will be using it long after the generics have become F rated parts lenses. It shoots great and it is heavy enough to anchor a kayak in a hurricane;)
 
Good Morning I have a old AF-Nikkor 80 - 200mm f/2.8 D version ED Lens and would like to use a 1.4 and 2.0 TC with this lens. Can anyone tell me what version Nikon TC is needed as I'm not certain the newer TC's work on this lens, I felt the mounting was my issue. The camera bodies I use are the Nikon D5 and D500. Also regarding the cheaper generic TC's is there one better then the others that you would recommend. I prefer to use Nikon gear but in this case I am open to everyones input. Thank You in advance any help would be appreciated. Ray
I just tested it.
Unlike the 70-200mm AFS all three of the mk II teleconverters seem to work on the 80-200mm f2.8 AFD lens.
Unless its essential and because its a zoom I would only use the 1.4x TC or the image quality will suffer a little ... 🦘
 
Good Morning I have a old AF-Nikkor 80 - 200mm f/2.8 D version ED Lens and would like to use a 1.4 and 2.0 TC with this lens. Can anyone tell me what version Nikon TC is needed as I'm not certain the newer TC's work on this lens, I felt the mounting was my issue. The camera bodies I use are the Nikon D5 and D500. Also regarding the cheaper generic TC's is there one better then the others that you would recommend. I prefer to use Nikon gear but in this case I am open to everyones input. Thank You in advance any help would be appreciated. Ray
I love the 80-200 D, used $ here generally go for $400-$500AUD USD $325.
70-200 G lenses with VR,
are dirt cheap and will work with Nikon Tcs, but would get the Tc version III.

I went from the $500 AUD 80-200 D to the 70-200 FL i can hand hold at 1/10th of a second and even they are selling cheaply

Only an opinion
 
Last edited:
I saw the word kayak and instantly got a smile. If you had gone with the 80-400mm for kayak use I would have recommended investing in a set of outriggers. If you used the D500 and 80-400 lens at eye level in a kayak your center of mass could roll you over and you'd have to right yourself;) It's a beast in weight and performance. If you ever find one priced right for you buy it. Don't buy any of the stuff knocking it's optical performance. The 80-400 is a great Nikon lens in the hands of competent photographers. Serious Nikon users will be using it long after the generics have become F rated parts lenses. It shoots great and it is heavy enough to anchor a kayak in a hurricane;)
Bob you made me laugh, my kayak is a beast (Jackson Kayaks Big Rig), equipped with a Min-Koto electric motor and rudder controlled by my feet. I have a small tripod mount set up so I have a solid mounting. My greatest danger of capsizing is getting in and out. My core muscle group isn't what it use to be, so I'm somewhat unstable at those two times. So I've invested in a cotton carrier so that my hands are free on entry and exit. Unfortunately outriggers would make my footprint on the water too large to get into some of the best shooting situations. I do truly believe you are correct about the quality of the 80-400mm. Enjoyed reading your response. Happy shooting.
Ray
 
I just tested it.
Unlike the 70-200mm AFS all three of the mk II teleconverters seem to work on the 80-200mm f2.8 AFD lens.
Unless its essential and because its a zoom I would only use the 1.4x TC or the image quality will suffer a little ... 🦘
Is the 80-200 AF D the push pull lens or the one with the internal zoom, my lens does not change in length, which would be a newer D series lens. I know that my newer TC's won't mount this lens.
 
I love the 80-200 D, used $ here generally go for $400-$500AUD USD $325.
70-200 G lenses with VR,
are dirt cheap and will work with Nikon Tcs, but would get the Tc version III.

I went from the $500 AUD 80-200 D to the 70-200 FL i can hand hold at 1/10th of a second and even they are selling cheaply

Only an opinion
After sourcing prices on used 80-400mm, TC's that potentially would work, (most made focusing manual), which was not an option, I made a potential offer for a 100-400 Sigma, because of size & price. I hope this fills the void I am trying to fill, I'll see how that goes first.
 
May i ask, What is it you doing with the 80-200D, or is it out of the equation completely.
What is it exactly you want to achieve other than having Tcs the work on a lens that gives you auto focus.
What if any Tcs do you have.
 
According to BH Photo chat technical expert the Kenko will only work with that model of Nikon D series in manual only. Not knowing for sure I don't what to put out the money on one.
I had the Kenko TC on my 80-200 2.8 D that auto focused. I bought it in 1998 from B and H, i used it for years..........i don't know if they make them anymore, maybe not.
It worked fine.

Its in a box or i have tossed it ? LOL.
 
Thanks Karl I'm keeping my 80 -200 it is a tank and has a purpose in my bag for sure so I may consider the Kenko 1.4xTC, once I see how the lens I buy fills the zoom range up to the 400mm as a walk around lens to compliment my big glass. I shoot with the 300mm PF f/4 and a 1.4xTC now but in some situations I miss having the lower mm range and the 80 -200 just falls short. I'm more concerned with the 300 -500 area of coverage which is why I am considering the Nikkor 80 -400 or the Sigma 100 -400 with the 1.4xTC at this time. Mostly having those shorter smaller zoom options are for trips and walking trails. When the big glass comes out I would rather be stationary by a pond, in a blind, or settled with camo gear on. I'm finding carrying the heavy gear around isn't impossible yet but not as easy anymore. I appreciate your input Karl thank you for that.
Ray
You don't like the 200-500 there cheap as used.........
 
May i ask, What is it you doing with the 80-200D, or is it out of the equation completely.
What is it exactly you want to achieve other than having Tcs the work on a lens that gives you auto focus.
What if any Tcs do you have.
Good Morning O in answer to your questions I mostly use the 80-200D lens for portraits, I was hoping that it could work as a walk around hand held lens to bridge the gap from 80 mm up to 400mm. Since it is an old out date lens I was attempting to find a Nikon TC to work with it in auto focus, I found out with the help of this forum the Kenko does make a TC that will work as needed but I believe the 2xTC only worked as manual focus. So with a 1.4TC I fall short of the 400mm goal. I'm also not a fan of the fact that it slows down the auto focus.
What I am attempting to do is fill the gap, but more importantly in a lighter combination of lens. I have own the 200- 500 felt it was to big and bulky, did not much like it so I bought the AF-s Nikkor 200-400mm f/4G which is much smaller circumference but as it turns out not a hand held lens. So I liked the idea of the Nikkor 80-400, but used, they are twice the price of new Sigma 100-400 lens so I am leaning towards the Sigma with its own 1.4xTC. Just to let you know I try not to push lens with the 2xTC mainly because I don't like to push up my f/stops (background control is important to me), so I prefer to stay with the 1.4xTC. I own both the Nikon versions of the 20E III, and the 14E II TC's the 2x is mostly used on my 105 macro lens, the 1.4 on all the other lens. Occasionally I will use the 2x on my 500 f/4 and the 200-400mm but not that often.
If I use the Sigma 100-400 (small compact easy to shoot hand held) along with my 300 f/4 PF & the 1.4xTC for walking around and travel, I have in those to lenses a great range of coverage. Throw a macro lens in the mix a light tripod, and my TC's and I have a well rounded easy to use kit. That is ultimately my goal. Sorry for the long winded explanation.
Ray
 
Last edited:
I used the Kenko 1.4X TC on the 80-200. That TC has a 2.5:1 gear reduction on the AF screw, so it does slow the AF significantly, but it worked without issue. Used that 1.4X for quite a while and wasn't disappointed with it.
Not to go too far off topic, but I didn't know that! Explains why my Tokina 300 F/4 ATX was so slow to AF with the Kenko TC. I just thought it was due to the extra resistance the TC screwdrive extension gave. The TC screwdrive also had a tiny amount of play so AF wasn't always 100% accurate.
 
FWIW - I used the most recent version of the 80-400 AF-S and LOVED it! It was a LOT better IQ than previous models. I used it on my D850 as back up to my D5+600mm f4 on trips to Florida and Africa.

Those two lenses covered all my wildlife needs.

Since putting a tele on the 80-400 resulted in such a small f stop - and I have the other lens to cover longer focal lengths, I never used a tele on the 80-400 AF-s.
 
Good Morning O in answer to your questions I mostly use the 80-200D lens for portraits, I was hoping that it could work as a walk around hand held lens to bridge the gap from 80 mm up to 400mm. Since it is an old out date lens I was attempting to find a Nikon TC to work with it in auto focus, I found out with the help of this forum the Kenko does make a TC that will work as needed but I believe the 2xTC only worked as manual focus. So with a 1.4TC I fall short of the 400mm goal. I'm also not a fan of the fact that it slows down the auto focus.
What I am attempting to do is fill the gap, but more importantly in a lighter combination of lens. I have own the 200- 500 felt it was to big and bulky, did not much like it so I bought the AF-s Nikkor 200-400mm f/4G which is much smaller circumference but as it turns out not a hand held lens. So I liked the idea of the Nikkor 80-400, but used, they are twice the price of new Sigma 100-400 lens so I am leaning towards the Sigma with its own 1.4xTC. Just to let you know I try not to push lens with the 2xTC mainly because I don't like to push up my f/stops (background control is important to me), so I prefer to stay with the 1.4xTC. I own both the Nikon versions of the 20E III, and the 14E II TC's the 2x is mostly used on my 105 macro lens, the 1.4 on all the other lens. Occasionally I will use the 2x on my 500 f/4 and the 200-400mm but not that often.
If I use the Sigma 100-400 (small compact easy to shoot hand held) along with my 300 f/4 PF & the 1.4xTC for walking around and travel, I have in those to lenses a great range of coverage. Throw a macro lens in the mix a light tripod, and my TC's and I have a well rounded easy to use kit. That is ultimately my goal. Sorry for the long winded explanation.
Ray
Thank you for clearing all that up for me.
 
I was able to test my 80-400G lens late this afternoon with and without my 1.4x iii teleconverter. The teleconverter seems to work well and be just about as sharp as the bare lens, which has been my experience using it with my 70-200 f2.8E lens. Keep in mind this is the latest version iii of the teleconverter, so I cannot guarantee earlier versions will be as good. I have not tested its capabilities for fast action (eg birds in flight), but considering the combination drops the maximum aperture to f8, I don't think it's well suited for this. I tested it (with a tripod and wireless remote) on a great horned owl sitting in a nest. Based on these tests I would not hesitate to snap on the teleconverter when I really need it. One odd note: the EXIF data on my computer shows the focal length with teleconverter as 550mm, when it should be 560mm (400 x 1.4 = 560). I don't think I pulled the zoom back at all, but maybe? These are all out-of-camera JPEG for comparison purposes.

Bare lens at 400mm (full image)​
Lens with 1.4x at 550mm (full image)​
DSC_2610.JPG
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.

DSC_2623.JPG
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.

Bare lens at 400mm (actual pixels)​
Lens with 1.4x at 550mm (actual pixels)​
DSC_2610 copy.jpg
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.

DSC_2623 copy.jpg
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.

Later shot, high ISO with slow shutter, with 1.4x (full image)​
Later shot, high ISO with slow shutter, with 1.4x (actual pixels)​
DSC_2653.JPG
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.

DSC_2653 copy.jpg
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.

 
I was able to test my 80-400G lens late this afternoon with and without my 1.4x iii teleconverter. The teleconverter seems to work well and be just about as sharp as the bare lens, which has been my experience using it with my 70-200 f2.8E lens. Keep in mind this is the latest version iii of the teleconverter, so I cannot guarantee earlier versions will be as good. I have not tested its capabilities for fast action (eg birds in flight), but considering the combination drops the maximum aperture to f8, I don't think it's well suited for this. I tested it (with a tripod and wireless remote) on a great horned owl sitting in a nest. Based on these tests I would not hesitate to snap on the teleconverter when I really need it. One odd note: the EXIF data on my computer shows the focal length with teleconverter as 550mm, when it should be 560mm (400 x 1.4 = 560). I don't think I pulled the zoom back at all, but maybe? These are all out-of-camera JPEG for comparison purposes.

Bare lens at 400mm (full image)​
Lens with 1.4x at 550mm (full image)​
View attachment 57189
View attachment 57190
Bare lens at 400mm (actual pixels)​
Lens with 1.4x at 550mm (actual pixels)​
View attachment 57191
View attachment 57192
Later shot, high ISO with slow shutter, with 1.4x (full image)​
Later shot, high ISO with slow shutter, with 1.4x (actual pixels)​
View attachment 57193
View attachment 57194
Thank you for this clearly your 80-400 with the III series TC does work very well. Unfortunately I only have the 1.4 x TC version II and don't own the 80-400 yet which does start to add up quickly, my 2.0x TC is a III version but with the f/stop going up two more stops I seldom like using it. Lots to think about that you for keeping me posted with your test results. You have been a big help.
Ray
 
Thank you for everything, you have all offered some valued insights. Gmart I do believe the TC-201 is the go to option, that article was very helpful. Oddly my old AF-Nikkor 80 - 200 2.8 D ED lens has the internal focusing not the push pull version, and yet it is only an AF not an AF-S, and it only has 4 electronic pins on the f mount, not sure if that matters.
It does appear that the TC-201 is a manual focus TC, (not the best option for me). I read the following regarding theTC-14A /B --- For an instance, the TC-14A is designed for use with all Nikkor lenses up to 300 mm focal length, with Reflex-Nikkor lenses, and virtually all Zoom Nikkor lenses of up to 100 mm focal length can also be used. While on the other hand, the TC-14B was specifically designed for use with Nikkor telephoto lenses over 135 mm focal length and many Zoom Nikkor lenses over 200 mm focal length.

This leaves me with one question when it says up to all Nikkor lenses up to 300mm do you think that includes zoom lens example the 80 - 200, or only the zoom lens that go to 100mm ? This is like trying to learn a new language, it's all clear as mud which is why I look to those with experience. It may just be simpler to up-grade to a current version etc the 70 -200!
Even the older 70-200 f/2.8 VR was optically a good lens. It vignettes a bit more than the newer 70-200 f/2.8 VRII. I sold the older version years ago, and sold a copy of the 70-200 VRII about two years ago for $750. It's a bargain at that price and works nicely with all the newer teleconverters as well as the FTZ adapter for the Z cameras. My wife still uses a copy of the 70-200 VRII on her Z50.
 
Even the older 70-200 f/2.8 VR was optically a good lens. It vignettes a bit more than the newer 70-200 f/2.8 VRII. I sold the older version years ago, and sold a copy of the 70-200 VRII about two years ago for $750. It's a bargain at that price and works nicely with all the newer teleconverters as well as the FTZ adapter for the Z cameras. My wife still uses a copy of the 70-200 VRII on her Z50.
Thanks Eric I know for sure my old 80-200 simply won't mount the new TC I have the 1.4x TCEII and the 2.0x TCEIII but the mounts do not match. I don't use my 80-200 that often so I do not plan to up grade to the newer 70-200 when I have other options that will suit me better. I gain a lot of valuable insights from this forum over this question which has lead me to a solution. I hope you and all of the other members who offer insights realize that it is members like yourself who make this a great forum. I can't thank you guys enough. Thank you Eric
Ray
 
Regarding teleconverters, my own experience confirms the general consensus of people who post online (this is true of all brands, not just Nikon). That consensus is that for SLR (but not necessarily mirrorless) 1.4x teleconverters work well but 2x teleconverters are not sharp enough to be useful.
 
Regarding teleconverters, my own experience confirms the general consensus of people who post online (this is true of all brands, not just Nikon). That consensus is that for SLR (but not necessarily mirrorless) 1.4x teleconverters work well but 2x teleconverters are not sharp enough to be useful.
Yes from my experience I would also agree with you.
 
Good Morning O in answer to your questions I mostly use the 80-200D lens for portraits, I was hoping that it could work as a walk around hand held lens to bridge the gap from 80 mm up to 400mm. Since it is an old out date lens I was attempting to find a Nikon TC to work with it in auto focus, I found out with the help of this forum the Kenko does make a TC that will work as needed but I believe the 2xTC only worked as manual focus. So with a 1.4TC I fall short of the 400mm goal. I'm also not a fan of the fact that it slows down the auto focus.
What I am attempting to do is fill the gap, but more importantly in a lighter combination of lens. I have own the 200- 500 felt it was to big and bulky, did not much like it so I bought the AF-s Nikkor 200-400mm f/4G which is much smaller circumference but as it turns out not a hand held lens. So I liked the idea of the Nikkor 80-400, but used, they are twice the price of new Sigma 100-400 lens so I am leaning towards the Sigma with its own 1.4xTC. Just to let you know I try not to push lens with the 2xTC mainly because I don't like to push up my f/stops (background control is important to me), so I prefer to stay with the 1.4xTC. I own both the Nikon versions of the 20E III, and the 14E II TC's the 2x is mostly used on my 105 macro lens, the 1.4 on all the other lens. Occasionally I will use the 2x on my 500 f/4 and the 200-400mm but not that often.
If I use the Sigma 100-400 (small compact easy to shoot hand held) along with my 300 f/4 PF & the 1.4xTC for walking around and travel, I have in those to lenses a great range of coverage. Throw a macro lens in the mix a light tripod, and my TC's and I have a well rounded easy to use kit. That is ultimately my goal. Sorry for the long winded explanation.
Ray
I sold my much loved D5 D4s with absolutely no regrets and bought 2xD850 cameras.
I have a grip on one and enjoy 9 fps which is plenty most of the time, i do rent or borrow a D6 if and when its a really lower light challenging shoot, but its rare now.
For me the benefit of the D850 was 45mp 9fps allowing very good crop ability, i could use a 70-200FL which is super sharp and a light lens, with 45mp i could crop the image and be on par with a 300mm- 400mm lens on a lower res camera, something not as tolerable with the previous cameras. I hardly touch a TC now.

The 70-200 FL is unique, its the best Nikon has ever made, it handles a 1.4 TC III or II brilliantly, for me there is a difference between the TCII and III.

Its hard for me to go back to a D4s D5, i do love them, adore the D6 D850, getting used to my Z9.

For me on the D850 I had 45mp corp ability, 9 fps, back light sensor, stunning image quality, excellent all round performance that also grew the legs on many of my lenses through excellent crop ability, something i would choose over using a TC.

I sold one D850, keeping the one with the optional grip, i can leave the grip off and travel with that D850 so gladly.

I then bought a Z9, for me the Z9 main advantage is the focusing system, optional FPS, 45mp, crop ability, true silent mode, backwards compatible with DSLR lenses.
Option to grow into new small lighter glass, makes any DX camera obsolete as did the D850, the Z9 is basically the brilliant D850 on Cocaine.

From the left field, only and totally absurd, Maybe consolidate everything you, ditch all you have, build again from a blank canvas with a simple system that eliminates the use of Tcs, gives you access to newer glass options in the future, which may allow you to focus on and enjoy more your photography with newer technology, maybe not?

The industry is going light small powerful and up in resolution, yet is still backwards compatible, for now, once you enjoy the use of 45mp its hard to pick up a D4s D5 again, i mean i love the D5 miss the D6, but am so happy with the D850 as back up to the Z9 i like.

The Z100-400 is a great all round lens, the 200-600 coming i hope it will be small and light, i really hope similar in size to the Canon 100-500.

Any way i have no simple solution for your needs, but maybe my rambling will excite something to think about, that may or may not help...........

Only an opinion
 
Last edited:
I once rented an AF-S Nikkor 80-400 about 6 years ago. It is a decent lens, but not great optically. It also didn’t play well with my Nikon 1 bodies and FT1 adapter. A number of Nikon 1 users sang the praises of the Sigma 100-400. I took photos with one outside the store and bought it based on those photos. I have been very happy with that lens. I posted some photos taken with that lens in a thread in the Wildlife Presentation forum. I think it is worth at least looking at.
I've been rather impressed with the Sigma lenses I've tried and owned over the years.
 
Regarding teleconverters, my own experience confirms the general consensus of people who post online (this is true of all brands, not just Nikon). That consensus is that for SLR (but not necessarily mirrorless) 1.4x teleconverters work well but 2x teleconverters are not sharp enough to be useful.
Or is it that the 2.0 TC magnifies the hidden flaws in the lens enough to make them noticeable? Or a combination of the two?
 
Back
Top