AF VR nikkor 80-400 f/4.5-5.6D ED any good?

D

dogfan

Messages
77
Edit My Images
Yes
Looking at one of these. But a bit worried it may be soft at the high end.

No way can i afford a 2.8 so i am trying to get the best i can for £600 considered getting a 70-200 and a tc14 x 2 . But the 4.5 worries me would it be a waste and especially poor in poor light/winter.

My head hurts. Basically its for either Football or Dog Racing (IE both).

Have been dog racing and cricket and taken some shots with a Tamron 28-300 .. not bad but i want better colours, and bigger images/crops. Of course this costs money.

Any experienced Nikon guys who have shot similar have any suggestions or maybe you have a lens that would do the job well?

For the money would it be worth upgrading from the tamron 28-300 3.5-6.3 or adding a TC to the tamron. Would the quality be that much better on the Nikon?

My head HURTS!

Ta
 
Don't know about the 80-400 but you would want good light for both of the event types you mention and they frequently happen at night under floodlights.

With it starting at 4.5 this may not work well even with VR.
 
I have one and love it, I can`t remember taking it off my 300 for a while.
 
dogfan said:
Looking at one of these. But a bit worried it may be soft at the high end.

No way can i afford a 2.8 so i am trying to get the best i can for £600 considered getting a 70-200 and a tc14 x 2 . But the 4.5 worries me would it be a waste and especially poor in poor light/winter.

For the money would it be worth upgrading from the tamron 28-300 3.5-6.3 or adding a TC to the tamron. Would the quality be that much better on the Nikon?

My head HURTS!

Ta
Click to expand...

I doubt the Tamron would be much good with a TC on it if it is already a 6.3 at the long end. At best you'll have no autofocus and at worst you'll need to shine a torch down it to see anything :bang:

The 80-400 isn't the fastest lens in the world, but the VR will help a little, even so it wouldn't be my choice for a sports lens. To be honest though, at £600 I doubt there is really anything that is going to give you the reach you require without sacrificing something.

To get the kind of reach/quality you are probably looking for you really need something like a Sigma 120-300mm or 300mm f/2.8 and the matching TC, but that little lot is about 3x your budget. What about something like the 100-300 f/4 Sigma or the 300mm f/4 AF-S Nikon. You should just about get those within your budget if you buy from HK....
 
Flash, Many Thanks i will have a look.

I wanted to stay with nikon and considered the 70-300VR but i will look at the ones you mention.

I do accept that for the budget i will have to sacrifice.
 
I doubt you'll get a 80-400mm for £600 - used they've been going for £700+ on Ebay.
 
AFAIA the 80-400 will not take any TC.

Mine seems to be sweetest at F7.1/8, I had a 70-200 that I used for a while with a 1.7 tc, the images were not as good as the 80-400 IMO. So I sold the 70-200 and have put the money in my 400 F2.8 biscuit tin.........:D
 
The 70-300 VR is a good lens for the money, but doesn't work with even a 1.4tc, unless you want to be shooting at 1600 iso and a really slow shutter speed. Even then you'll be lucky to get a usable image.

Have you thought about something like an 80-200 f/2.8? That will work with a 1.4tc (although images are still a bit soft for my taste) and £600 will buy you both new from HK or from some UK dealers for a bit more money.
 
 
Flash

I almost bought one (80-200) but then read the feedback (Hong Kong) and a large amount of people got smashed for import tax.

Stevie... will have a look now, thanks.
 
dogfan said:
Flash

I almost bought one (80-200) but then read the feedback (Hong Kong) and a large amount of people got smashed for import tax.

Stevie... will have a look now, thanks.
Click to expand...

Just buy from a seller who guarantees to pay the vat and pay with a credit card via paypal so you are covered
 
The Nikon 300 f4 is a great lens and works fine with a 1.4 TC
 
Hi dogfan,

I have and love the 80-400. It was a bit frustrating at first, since no AF-S means it can "hunt" ocasionally. However if you set the limit switches (limits the extent of any hunting), and prepare the shot properly, the lens and AF will pick up focus properly. Once grabbed, it will hold and follow focus very well. I use it for birds in flight, even F1 cars with no trouble.

Big (y) from me
 
Moadib said:
Hi dogfan,

I have and love the 80-400. It was a bit frustrating at first, since no AF-S means it can "hunt" ocasionally. However if you set the limit switches (limits the extent of any hunting), and prepare the shot properly, the lens and AF will pick up focus properly. Once grabbed, it will hold and follow focus very well. I use it for birds in flight, even F1 cars with no trouble.

Big (y) from me
Click to expand...

I know I shouldn't be quoting Ken Rockwell :bonk: but even he describes the 80-400 VR as the slowest focusing AF lens ever made by Nikon

Not really what you want for any kind of sports shooting.....
 
Hi, Dogfan...I feel your pain!

Actually, I bought the 80-400 about two months ago and have gotten some excellent, excellent pictures with it. I've also been frustrated by it from time-to-time. I have used it on both the D80 and D300. It is definitely a better lens on the D300, though I'm not saying it won't work on the D80!

I'm glad I bought the lens...because I can't afford the 400 mm prime! I use it primarily for wildlife and candid portraits, though I've used it to capture my dogs while running, etc. I think I could be happy with it at a track meet, for example, with good daylight...but at night...could be marginal depending, in part, on your camera.

I think it works better with the D300 because you can shoot at higher ISO, such as 1600, with noise roughly equivalent to the D80 at ISO 400. Also, the lens doesn't hunt as much for focus on the D300. (I can't quantify that...it's just my perception.) For fast moving objects, the D300 is also superior to the D80 at maintaining focus. You also get more frames per second...and a better chance of hitting that "perfect" photo.

I find my copy to be only slightly soft at 400, wide open. I really cannot complain about IQ. It produces a pleasing bokeh at wide apertures. I also find the lens to render color very well and to be quite contrasty. It does throw some chromatic abberation if you have strong backlighting, but with the hood on, I've found very little flare short of shooting directly into the sun!

So...all-in-all...I've found the 80-400 is a good lens for the money. Can it compare to a 400 mm f/2.8 prime...no, but under reasonable conditions, it gives you good reach, good IQ, and a load of opportunity. If this is the lens that best fits your budget, go for it! (If you could rent one for a day, or borrow one, of course, that would be the safe route!)

Best wishes...
 
Flash In The Pan said:
I know I shouldn't be quoting Ken Rockwell :bonk: but even he describes the 80-400 VR as the slowest focusing AF lens ever made by Nikon

Not really what you want for any kind of sports shooting.....
Click to expand...

Well, I own and use the lens in those situations. Maybe Mr. Rockwell is a klutz, but using the 80-400 I have shots of puffins in flight, panned F1 shots at top speed, dolphins appearing from the sea, you name it. I don't find it limiting in those circumstances.

As I said, it can hunt, which is slow. Once you've learned how to avoid that, it takes focus and holds focus very well. I'd prefer it to be AF-S, but for what it is I still find it a very good lens.

A good review is here
http://www.naturfotograf.com/VR80_400_review.html
("Autofocusing is fairly fast, although by no means setting a thrilling standard, and there is some focus hunting under low light conditions.")
 
It is fine if you use it correctly and know its limitations.


Peregrine_15.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top