want to get a good lens like a 80 to 200mm AF D Nikon.  I figure I am
looking at about a grand for this lens, but I hope to have it a good long
time.  Here are a few questions.  Is there a better third party lens?  Will
I notice a $1000 difference in the photos from the lens I current use?  It
is my understanding that I will get a greater distance with this lens over
the curretn 70 - 300 kit lens.  If I want to add a converter at a later
time, does anyone have this setup with a converter for the 80 to 200mm AF D
on their D70 which is working well for them?  Any info on this would be very
helpful.  Thanks Joe

The best?  70-200 with VR.  The one I use?  80-200 af-d for less than $1000.
It's optics are the same, or damn near the same, and it's one of my sharpest
lenses.  I've never used it with a converter, but from all reports, quality
takes a hit when used with one, and no one I've heard has recommended using
it with anything more than the 1.4 converter.

Please set your newreader to wrap your posts at something less than 80
char/line.

Best? I'll agree with Matt and say the 70-200mm f/2.8G ED-IF AF-S VR
Zoom-Nikkor. I love mine and use it quite a bit with the TC-20E II
Teleconverter as well. Is the VR worth the extra cost to you? Only you can
answer that. It is for me. Both this and the 80-200 F/2.8 are BIG lenses,
so you have to deal with that as well as the price, such as when I carried
mine to the top of the 700+ ft cinder cone in Lassen Volcanic Park this
summer.  Look at many of my wildlife shots, which were shot with this
combo. Anything over 200mm fl will be this combo.

I don't have Nikon equipment, but here's my take:
Get the Nikon.  Pay a bit more.  Sleep well.  Consider the VR version
(70-200 f/2.8 G EDIF AF-S VR) if you're not overly dedicated to your tripod.

The 80-200 f/2.8 lenses are a lot sharper and render beautifuly
contrasted images compared to the 70-300mm consumer lenses.  The
difference in image quality is immediate and will amaze you.  Hint:
photojournalists often depend on three fast zooms:  17-35 f/2.8, 28-80
f/2.8 and 70|80-200 f/2.8.

Distance?  All lenses cover the same distances.  A 300mm will have 50%
more magnification than a 200mm, if that's what you mean.  But the
quality of the 80-200 over the 70-300 will more than make up the
difference.  Further, it can be used with a 1.4x or 2x TC to get further
reach with little loss in quality for most images.

Have fun.
Alan.

What characteristics do you want to improve on?  Without knowing
what you don't like, it is very hard to suggest a better lense
to suit your specific needs.  As a result you will get comments
about lenses that are _generally_ better but in fact may not
suit your needs any better than the one you have.

That particularly applies to your question below about whether
there is a $1000 difference with the Nikon 80-200mm f/2.8 AF D
lense.

And... I got the impression, since you mention "distance" more
than once, that it is not the optical quality, but simply the
focal length (magnification) that you are unhappy with.  If that
is true, the possible replacements are significantly more
numerous (and less expensive) than if your problem is low image
quality that would be improved only with better optical design.

They can be purchases for significantly less than $1000.  But
there are several versions, and you will want to study the
differences and make sure that you actually get the one you
want.  The ED version for example will cost more, and might be
worth the difference too.

But the 200mm maximum focal length will *not* get you closer to
the subject, hence you might be even less satisfied with the
significantly better optical quality of the 80-200mm lense!

Since you haven't detailed which parameters you want to improve,
there cannot be an answer to that.  Overall there probably is no
better lense on the market, in that focal length range, than the
Nikon 80-200mm f/2.8 AFD ED lense.

But there certainly are longer focal length lenses which might
be suitable, if you don't need better optics.  Sigma has a
170-500mm f/5-6.3 and a 50-500mm f/4-5.6, both of which can
be found at significantly less than $1000.

You could also search out a good bargain on a used Nikon
80-400mm f/4.5-5.6 too.  It will certainly cost more than
$1000, but if you wait for a good price you might well get
a used one for close to that.  If optical quality is your
problem with your current lens, this one may be the right
one to replace it.

Well, it is only a 200mm lense, while you currently have a 300mm
lense.   With a 1.5x tele-extender you would get identical results
in terms of image magnification.  With a 2x lense you have a 400mm
f/5.6 lense, which costs another $300+ too.  The optical quality
will not be impressive, but it would get you "closer".

If your problem with the 70-300 is strictly one of focal length,
not image quality, then almost certainly a Nikon 80-200mm AFD ED
with a Nikon TC-20E 2x tele-extender is going to be slightly
better (i.e., 400mm rather than 300mm).  And when you don't use
the tele-extender, you do have an truly fabulous f/2.8 80-200mm
lense (which is *significant* and none of the other options
listed will give you).

But... if you don't need a fabulous f/2.8 80-200mm lense, that
Sigma 50-500 is probably a much better choice, and will get you
almost twice as close as your 70-300mm does now.  Not that
either of them have very good optics at maximum focal length
though.  But the 50-500 at 400mm is probably optically better
than your 70-300mm is at 300mm, and I would assume it is also
better than the 80-200mm with a TC-20E extender.

I have a 80-200mm AFD that is an ED version.  I have used it
with a tele-extender (several of them).  I've also read various
reviews where people have gone to a lot of effort to determine
the answers to your question.

There is pretty much a 1 to 1 relationship between how much you
spend on a tele-extender and how well it will work with the Nikon
80-200.  Less expensive models give very poor results.

The Kenko PRO and Tamron SP models (are the same item and) do
pretty well.  The Nikon TC-201 is optically better, but is not
AF.  The Nikon TC20E and TC20EII are optically the same, and
probably the best.

A tele-extender is never as good as a quality lense in the same
focal length.  That said, the Nikon 80-200 zoom is such a good
lense that even with a 2x tele-extender it is better than an
"economy" 400mm lense (for example, anything you can purchase
for twice the $300+ price tag of a good tele-extender).  It does
not compete with a quality (Nikon) 400mm lense though...

--
Floyd L. Davidson           http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)                      floyd@apaflo.com

Thank you to all of you for your information.  This gives me a lot of different ways that I can look at.  Jo

--
jvolcek

The 70-300 G is not as you have surmised a very a good lens.   I will
offer some real life experience.  I have  Nikonn N90s and a D70s.   I
hve the Nikon 70-300 4.5/5.6 ED verson which is quite a good lens
except at 300 where contrast and sharpness take a nose dive. Its great
at 290 but that extra 10mm kills it.    The 70/300 ED is much better
than the 70-300 G/

I also own the 80-200 f 2.8 AF-ED. A blind man can tell which lens is
better.  Yes you will notice the diffetence,.   I uses  the 70/300 when
I want a lght weight easily packed lens.