Nikkor 80-400 or
Nikkor 70-200 f/2.8 with 2x teleconverter


I'm guessing most (if not all) will say 70-200.
I'm not buying it any time soon, but I think this is what I want to get next; one of these two.

The only reason I ask, is I've never used teleconverters and don't know...really anything about them. Will is screw with the quality of picture coming from the nicer lens?? I didn't know if they were one of those things like filters where some people like them, and others think it's a complete waste to put a cheap piece of glass in front of/behind a nice lens.

 

Teleonverters are a great tool, but you trade light and a little bit of quality for the added reach. They also tend to work better on primes than they do on zooms, however the 70-200/2.8 behaves pretty well with the 1.4x extender. The 2x is asking a little much though...

If you're planning on using the lens with the extender a lot, then you should just to buy the proper lens at that focal length. In other words, consider the extender an "accessory" and not a primary part of your kit.

 

Stick with the 1.4 the other ones you lose more than a stop.

70-200 2.8 for the win but wait a bit the new revision is going to come out so the price will drop for the old one.

bytheway i have the 70-200 2.8 now i love it but im thinking i'm going to hold off on the 1.4 converter and get a grip =)

 

Doesn't Nikon have a 1.7? How well does that fair? I voted 70-200 with and extender because of the better flexibility.

 

They have a 1.7 but i heard if you really need that much range you lose quality. They say 1.4 because you almost retain all sharpness to your pictures.

 

Don't get a 2x, as stated above you lose a lot of light but the worst thing is that you lose a LOT of sharpness. Everything thats not dead center gets a little fuzzy.

 

Sounds like I'll be looking for a 1.4 whenever the time comes