Ok so I've done the math.

If I hit my asking prices on my gear and after buying the D7000 and selling off my D90 I will have enough money in my savings, if I choose to blow it, to either buy the 70-200VR or the 80-200 AF-S + TC.

Now, thanks to Yazki, I know the TC20EIII will work fine on the 80-200AF-S I am wondering if the VR on the 70-200 will really make a difference?

I mean those of you that have it, do you use VR often?

krevlingoodspeed said:
Ok... so now you're saying it works with the TC20EIII?

AWESOME! Yay! Ok, now I need to get the cash.

Yup 100% works and compatible even bit slower focusing
About compatibility you can also check on
http://imaging.nikon.com/products/imaging/lineup/lens/teleconverters/af-s_tc-20e_3/index.htm

yazki said:
I just went to local shop last night currious about combo AF-S 80-200 + TC20EIII.
Bring my 80-200 AF-S and try TC20EIII. I was really impressed by TC20EIII, SHARP more than I expected.

This picture below just quick and dirty snap taken by hand held,
19' or 6 meters distance and on long end focal length 400mm (or 600mm on 35mm)

http://www.flickr.com/photos/29196735@N04/4997427113/

Surely soon I'll purchase TC20EIII, ....

Ok... so now you're saying it works with the TC20EIII?

AWESOME! Yay! Ok, now I need to get the cash.

I just went to local shop last night currious about combo AF-S 80-200 + TC20EIII.
Bring my 80-200 AF-S and try TC20EIII. I was really impressed by TC20EIII, SHARP more than I expected.

This picture below just quick and dirty snap taken by hand held,
19' or 6 meters distance and on long end focal length 400mm (or 600mm on 35mm)

http://www.flickr.com/photos/29196735@N04/4997427113/

Surely soon I'll purchase TC20EIII, ....

SBGrad said:
OK, I've shot a 300+1.4, an 80-400, and an AF-S 80-200 + 1.7, all on my D90. Photo subject was airliners. In terms of IQ, I'd say 80-400 was softest by far, then 300+1.4 and the sharpest pix came from the 80-200 AF-S + 1.7. The 300 and 80-400 were shot at the same location, I didn't have the 80-200 at the time. There was definate heat haze at the 300 vs 80-400 shoot-off, so that may be affecting the results.

Judge for yourself:

80-400: http://www.flickr.com/photos/18842924@N03/tags/80400mmf4556dvr/
300 + 1.4: http://www.flickr.com/photos/18842924@N03/tags/tc14eii/
80-200 + 1.7: http://www.flickr.com/photos/18842924@N03/tags/tc17eii/

Wow, thank you.

I'm currently selling off my gear to get the D7000, but hopefully I'll have enough left over to pick up the 80-200.

Man, the D7000 + 80-200AF-S,drool

I also have 80-200 AFS, want to know performance 80-200 AF-S with TC20EIII. If anyone has done that, I'd be appriciate it or any links for the review.

OK, I've shot a 300+1.4, an 80-400, and an AF-S 80-200 + 1.7, all on my D90. Photo subject was airliners. In terms of IQ, I'd say 80-400 was softest by far, then 300+1.4 and the sharpest pix came from the 80-200 AF-S + 1.7. The 300 and 80-400 were shot at the same location, I didn't have the 80-200 at the time. There was definate heat haze at the 300 vs 80-400 shoot-off, so that may be affecting the results.

Judge for yourself:

80-400: http://www.flickr.com/photos/18842924@N03/tags/80400mmf4556dvr/
300 + 1.4: http://www.flickr.com/photos/18842924@N03/tags/tc14eii/
80-200 + 1.7: http://www.flickr.com/photos/18842924@N03/tags/tc17eii/

Drab said:
I think one can easily argue that VR is more valuable the slower the lens. You'll be spending more time sub 1/500th.

That's an entirely different issue. "Action photography" demands shutter speed. Either fat apertures or high ISO. (assuming quantity of light is not changeable)

What you're asking for is a quality fast 400mm lens on a small budget. Such things do not exist.

Quality. Fast. Long. Cheap.
Pick two or three. Not all four.

Mmm well I think I can settle with the 80-200 AF-S and a TC-17eii.

I only lose 60mm and 340mm at f/4.8 isn't so bad. I could probably go to 5.6 and it'd be sharp.

I just wish I could see some shots taken with that combo, my google fu and flickr searches have come up nada.

Thanks to all.

krevlingoodspeed said:Will VR really make that much of a difference on such a slow lens?

I think one can easily argue that VR is more valuable the slower the lens. You'll be spending more time sub 1/500th.

krevlingoodspeed said:
I mean it won't make it any better for action photography will it?

That's an entirely different issue. "Action photography" demands shutter speed. Either fat apertures or high ISO. (assuming quantity of light is not changeable)

What you're asking for is a quality fast 400mm lens on a small budget. Such things do not exist.

Quality. Fast. Long. Cheap.
Pick two or three. Not all four.

ShadeofBlue said:
Given what you are willing to spend, you are probably best off finding a used 300 f/4 AF-S plus a 1.4x TC. It will get you much nicer images than any 2x TC combo. I've never used it personally, but it's a combo lots of people use and are happy with. I've also heard that you can put a 1.7 on it in good light, so if you prefer the extra reach you can always get that instead of the 1.4 and just crop if the light gets bad. A used 300 f/4 should be around $1000 if you are reasonably patient about it.

Basically my budget is whatever I get for my D80 + the Tokina lens + a little I can take from what's left of my savings. I really want an f/2.8 telephoto and since the 70-200VR is out of my range and I've been use to shooting without VR anyways the 80-200 is perfect for me.

I really love the 80-400 range but I don't know if I'd want to be stuck at 300-400mm.

If I had money to get both the 80-200 and 300f/4 + 1.4, then I'd have money to get the 70-200VR + a TC and this thread wouldn't even exist, but alas I don't :(

adamz said:
krevlingoodspeed - if You want decent IQ @400mm for less go for 80-400vr, excellent IQ even wide open - drawback = slow AF (scredriver) or af-s 300 + TC 14

The whole reason I bought this Tokina lens was because at the time I couldn't afford the Nikon version. Will VR really make that much of a difference on such a slow lens?

I mean it won't make it any better for action photography will it?

Because if you can convince me it's a better option then I can easily get one for around $800 bucks.

krevlingoodspeed - if You want decent IQ @400mm for less go for 80-400vr, excellent IQ even wide open - drawback = slow AF (scredriver) or af-s 300 + TC 14

Given what you are willing to spend, you are probably best off finding a used 300 f/4 AF-S plus a 1.4x TC. It will get you much nicer images than any 2x TC combo. I've never used it personally, but it's a combo lots of people use and are happy with. I've also heard that you can put a 1.7 on it in good light, so if you prefer the extra reach you can always get that instead of the 1.4 and just crop if the light gets bad. A used 300 f/4 should be around $1000 if you are reasonably patient about it.

Ok, how about the TC-E17?

I am pretty much sold on the idea of the 80-200 AF-S but I'm going to be selling my Tokina lens to fund it and I really enjoyed the reach it had.

Any idea on how to get to a decent 400mm with either the 80-200 AF-S or another lens + Tc combo.

Unless again, there is some 400mm AF f/5.6 out there that won't cost a ton.

on the 70-200 it is pretty good, at f8. f 5.6 is not very good.

what do you expect on the 80-200?

i think youd get better results from the 70-300 if you're at the long end.

ain't gonna work good

Web-fotografen.dk said:
Nikon 80-200 f/2.8 AF-S and TC20EIII

Don´t go there, i got better results cropping the image!!!

Really? :(

Nikon 80-200 f/2.8 AF-S and TC20EIII

Don´t go there, i got better results cropping the image!!!

Drab said:
I'd either buy a used 80-200 AF-D or the 70-200 new. The 80-200 AF-S is at a nasty price point, IMHO.

Like I said I can get it for 900$ used which is way cheaper than the 70-200VR used and I've done fine without VR or 10mm at the wide end with my Tokina.

Also the whole point is I don't want to lose 400mm range, which is why I need the AF-S version so I can use a TC unless Nikon has some magic 400mm f/5.6 or f/4 that doesn't cost a ton.

I'd either buy a used 80-200 AF-D or the 70-200 new. The 80-200 AF-S is at a nasty price point, IMHO.

PB PM said:
Best advice, learn to save your money and get the 70-200mm VR.

Sigh. I have a hard time saving, between bills and the girlfriend, I'm lucky I even have anything saved for photography. Plus I seem to be an impulse buyer.

But 900$ for the 80-200 AF-S just seems like an awesome deal.

I wish Nikon had a 400mm 5.6, I'd buy that up along with this and forget about the TC because I hardly use the 200-300mm range.

Best advice, learn to save your money and get the 70-200mm VR.

Does anyone have the Nikon 80-200 f/2.8 AF-S and TC20EIII?

I keep trying to look for reviews of them together but keep finding other people looking for the same thing or reviews of the 80-200 AF-S with the TC20EII and how not so great the combo is.

I currently own the Tokina AT-X840 AF D 80-400mm f/4.5-6.

I like this lens a lot and I love the reach I get with it on my D90 but since I also own a Tokina 16-50 (AWESOME AND AMAZING LENS) with a constant aperture of f/2.8, the non-constant aperture of the 80-400 is starting to annoy me.

I would LOVE to buy the 70-200VRI but I'm like 8 months away from being able to afford it and I'm getting restless saving my money.

I figure the next best thing is the 80-200 AF-S with a 2X TC to make up for the loss in range. It would be practically the same at 400mm as the Tokina but probably a hell of a lot sharper and I miss owning Nikon glass.

So anyone got any info or input?