canon 100-400mm v Nikon 80-400mm

corny

corny

Messages
1,566
Edit My Images
No
Whilst I persevere with the Bigma, and being a former Canon user, I enjoyed using the 100-400mm Canon.

I'd be interested in opinions comapring it to the Nikon 80-400mm VR. The Fred Miranda reviews are not encouraging, but would rather hear first hand experieinces of those who have used both.

Thank you for your patience!!;)
 
corny said:
Whilst I persevere with the Bigma, and being a former Canon user, I enjoyed using the 100-400mm Canon.

I'd be interested in opinions comapring it to the Nikon 80-400mm VR. The Fred Miranda reviews are not encouraging, but would rather hear first hand experieinces of those who have used both.

Thank you for your patience!!;)
Click to expand...

I had the 80-400 Nikkor, nice and compact, optically OK if stopped down a little, lost a bit of sharpness after 350mm.

I sold it once I got the Nikkor 300mm f4, and 1.4TC much better option and about the same cost.
 
Canon.
Way better, not just saying it because im a Canon user,it just is.
Faster af by a long while.
Stewart from Lenses for hire, could give you an impartial opinion, as he has both in stock, well, lots of both in stock.
I think his website has a bit of a review of each lens.
LENSES FOR HIRE WEBSITE.
Dean:)
 
Oh dear oh dear. I think the Nikon 80-400VR is a positive embarrassment by comparison with the Canon 100-400L. I am absolutely amazed that Nikon have tolerated it for so long and I feel sorry for all the Nikon owners who have this lens and don't know what they're missing.

Optically there might not be much in it. I've never been able to bring myself to use the Nikon 80-400VR in anger, but I gather it is decently sharp, like the Canon, except possibly at 350-400mm (again like the Canon).

But:
* The Nikon AF is much much slower, and very very noisy.
* The Nikon implementation of VR on this lens is positively nonsensical.
* The Nikon has a stiff twist-ring to zoom, whereas the Canon push-pull mechanism means it is always instantly ready to shoot.
* The extending section of the Nikon feels like it's not going to stand up to as much abuse as the Canon will happily take.

If you need good telephotos then you really should be a former Nikon user, not a former Canon user. It's the one area where Canon's offerings (100-400, 300mm f/4 L IS, 400mm f/5.6 L) are vastly superior to Nikon's.
 
StewartR said:
Oh dear oh dear. I think the Nikon 80-400VR is a positive embarrassment by comparison with the Canon 100-400L. I am absolutely amazed that Nikon have tolerated it for so long and I feel sorry for all the Nikon owners who have this lens and don't know what they're missing.

Optically there might not be much in it. I've never been able to bring myself to use the Nikon 80-400VR in anger, but I gather it is decently sharp, like the Canon, except possibly at 350-400mm (again like the Canon).

But:
* The Nikon AF is much much slower, and very very noisy.
* The Nikon implementation of VR on this lens is positively nonsensical.
* The Nikon has a stiff twist-ring to zoom, whereas the Canon push-pull mechanism means it is always instantly ready to shoot.
* The extending section of the Nikon feels like it's not going to stand up to as much abuse as the Canon will happily take.

If you need good telephotos then you really should be a former Nikon user, not a former Canon user. It's the one area where Canon's offerings (100-400, 300mm f/4 L IS, 400mm f/5.6 L) are vastly superior to Nikon's.
Click to expand...
But the Nikon is a bit cheaper.:D
 
If you need good telephotos then you really should be a former Nikon user, not a former Canon user. It's the one area where Canon's offerings (100-400, 300mm f/4 L IS, 400mm f/5.6 L) are vastly superior to Nikon's.[/QUOTE]

:bang:Now they tell me!!!

Looks like the Sigma 120-300mm or 200mm VR with TC then
 
Ok Martyn, think I'll look into your suggestion a bit deeper, especially as its cheaper!!

Hmmm......poetry corner!
 
StewartR said:
If you need good telephotos then you really should be a former Nikon user, not a former Canon user. It's the one area where Canon's offerings (100-400, 300mm f/4 L IS, 400mm f/5.6 L) are vastly superior to Nikon's.
Click to expand...
corny said:
:bang:Now they tell me!!!
Click to expand...
Well, it was never really a secret.... Whenever we get one of these "should I switch" threads here, I try to suggest looking at the different lens line-ups to see whether there are any significant gaps. Sorry I didn't manage to get to you before you jumped!
Martyn... said:
I'm telling you to get the 300mm f4 :D
Click to expand...
I'd agree - if you can find one, which might be difficult. If you're a Nikon user and you want a hand-holdable telephoto then it's really your only option. (Shame it hasn't got IS/VR like the Canon!)
 
corny said:
Ok Martyn, think I'll look into your suggestion a bit deeper, especially as its cheaper!!

Hmmm......poetry corner!
Click to expand...

Sharp wide open, great contrast, nice balance on the camera, then when you have the funds add a TC14E II convertor.
 
Stewart....no worries....I'd still switch as I know what the 120-300mm can do and the D700 is far more versatile for my needs than any of the Canon current offerings.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top