does anyone have experience with Tamron 70-200 f2.8 and Tokina 80-400 f4.5-5.6?

[Butzy]

Hi All,
I'm trying to decide on another lens for my Nikon D300.
The lens I mostly use at the moment is the Nikon 70-300 VR, esp for wildlife photography. I quite like the lens, but at times it would be nice to get the animals closer. Unfortunately, driving or walking up closer is not always possible.
I've seen 2 lenses that would more or less suit my budget, namely the
Tamron 70-200 f2.8 (with teleconverter) and the
tokina 80-400 f4.5-5.6

Does anyone have any experience with the above lenses?

In case of the Tamron, I would need a teleconverter as well to make it suitable for wildlife photography, taking away the advantage of the f2.8 aperture

What would the better choice be or am I better off sticking to my Nikon 70-300?

[rpcrowe]

I don't know if this has any connection with your question but, I once owned the 400mm Tokina f/5.6 ATX lens which was replaced with the 80-400mm f/4.5-5.6 zoom. The Tokina provided very good to excellent image quality and was quite close in image quality, when stopped down one or two stops, to my present 400mm f/5.6L. Where the lens lacked was in focus speed and accuracy, especially in lower light levels. It was a lot slower than my 400L. However, IMO, there are probably few lenses which can rival the focal speed and accuracy of the 400L.

[Butzy]

Thanks Richard, It certainly does!

I have just come back from a trip into the kafue national park in Zambia and I found the Nikon 70-300 VR adequate, but missing a bit of zoom at times, so started looking around at what was available.
Still got a couple of moths to make up my mind, as there is nothing available here (Zambia)

Just find it difficult to make a decission.
The 70-300 is good enough for me for most situations and easy to walk around with.
The 80-400 seems a bit heavy, but not really relative to it's size and it's price is attractive
The 70-200 is about the same weight (and price)
The 70-200 is maybe more versatile, but would need a teleconverter in certain situations, which would increase the aperture again. But maybe the quality of this lens with the converter is better than the 80-400?
Or should I save up to buy the Sigma 150-500 or a single focus lens (like the tokina 400)?

Or just use the 70-300 and crop?

there is just too much choice!!!!!

[rpcrowe]

Butzy,

If you decide on a Tokina 400mm f/5.6; ensure that you get the AT-X model whcih has far better image quality than the 400mm f/5.6 (I don't know the Tokina alphabet soup designator) it replaced. BTW: the 400mm f/5.6 AT-X Tokina is lighter in weight and focuses a tad bit closer than the Canon 400mm f/5.6L.

I don't know about the pricing in your area but, I bought the Tokina 400mm, used from eBay, for just above $100 (USD) and sold it a couple of years later for $125 (USD)... no loss ther

On the other hand, unless you are shooting with two camera bodies, a zoom is far more versatile than a prime lens.

I don't see how a 70-200mm will get you closer, unless you use a 2x TC. Nikon may be different, but the Canon 2x TC impacts image quaility quite a bit...

[SDChester]

I have the Sigma 15-500 and very happy with it. The OS make uo for most of the slower glass, and at 400, you will be pressed to beat it.

[Butzy]

Thanks all,
Yeah the idea behind the 70-200 was to use it as is and with a teleconverter when needed.
Suppose I'll have to go through all the options again and make up my mind before I go to Europe (still a couple of months from now) and browse the internet for good deals :-)