Experience with the Nikon 80-400mm

The AF isn't what I would exactly call slow but it isn't one of the quicker lenses, you might struggle in the more active sports. It's not particularly heavy either but it is a bit bulky - it wouldn't be my choice for sport but is okay for certain wildlife applications etc where fast AF isn't a requirement.
 
Used Nikon AF VR 80-400mm 1:4.5-5.6D for the last three years always found it a joy to use, clear and fast, although I cannot compare to anything else so its a personal view not a comparison. Again with regards to weight I found it easy to hold for action shots but for long range shots I use a tripod/monopod. In short tho, I love it.
 
gramps said:
The AF isn't what I would exactly call slow but it isn't one of the quicker lenses, you might struggle in the more active sports. It's not particularly heavy either but it is a bit bulky - it wouldn't be my choice for sport but is okay for certain wildlife applications etc where fast AF isn't a requirement.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the help.

How would you compare it with the 70-200 f2.8 VR1?
 
Hutchison Haines said:
How would you compare it with the 70-200 f2.8 VR1?
Click to expand...

I haven't used the VRl as I have the VRll and it's nowhere near that, the VRll is probably my favourite lens and is both fast and true. If you have the option of a 70-200 I would consider using it with a Nikon TC, 1.4 will be excellent and both 1.7 and the new 2x will probably be better for sports than the 80-400.
 
gramps said:
I haven't used the VRl as I have the VRll and it's nowhere near that, the VRll is probably my favourite lens and is both fast and true. If you have the option of a 70-200 I would consider using it with a Nikon TC, 1.4 will be excellent and both 1.7 and the new 2x will probably be better for sports than the 80-400.
Click to expand...

Well that is something I thought about. The reason I am looking at another lens is that with a tele C I would need another 70-200, on my second body, for the close up bits that I cant reach at 140mm with a 2x.

Stuck between a rock and a hard place here!? ha
 
Such is photography! :D
Welcome to the forum by the way (y)
 
It's good but not class-leading - Canon has that wrapped up with the 100-400.

The 80-400 is a truly massive lens, especially at 400mm with the barrel extended and with the lens hood fitted. For a lens of its size it's not as heavy as you think it would be, but that's because of the amount of plastics in the construction. Opticaly it's quite good up to 300mm but it's average at its long end at f/5.6. Stopped down to f/8 it's much better.

The VR function works fine, but the AF isn't that fast. It is accurate though.

I've seen them for about £500 used, which makes it a decent buy, but at new prices there are better available from Sigma for less money
 
Slow in use, a big lump and not great beyond 400mm. New version lurks somewhere in the wings. I'd go for 70-200mm if possible.
 
Mountaineye said:
Slow in use, a big lump and not great beyond 400mm. New version lurks somewhere in the wings. I'd go for 70-200mm if possible.
Click to expand...

Most 400mm lenses are not great beyond 400mm :p

Have heard its not the sharpest lens and the 70-200 is in another league.
 
Mountaineye said:
Slow in use, a big lump and not great beyond 400mm. New version lurks somewhere in the wings. I'd go for 70-200mm if possible.
Click to expand...

I have the 70-200 already, I want something longer on a second body, not sure what you mean when you say not great beyond 400mm.

Is that not good at 400mm? Or not good beyond 300mm?

Thanks for the reviews everyone.
 
Actually its awful beyond 400mm.........however what i meant to say was in the 300-400mm region(Thanks Simon !).
 
Yup, when you just keep uncrewing the front group of elements, eventually they fall out....
 
Here's a sample photo...taken with a D80 at f/5.6, 400 mm, ISO 200 1/320 second. This is about the best you can expect with this lens; and it's pretty darn good for the money! This shot was taken with VR on, handheld. Be sure to go to my Flickr page to view the largest size to get a good idea about the available detail because the picture as viewed below is very misleading.


Nikkor 80-400 sample by hunter20ga, on Flickr

Link to larger version:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/58893878@N02/7057868773/sizes/o/in/photostream/

Everyone says that the lens is at it's poorest IQ wide open at the long end. I would tend to agree, but, with good light, you can still get some excellent shots. With a D80, I found that I had many near misses on focus, so had a relatively low keeper rate. A D300 improved that quite a bit. I've heard, but cannot attest, that the lens shines with a D700.
 
Last edited:
I would put the current 70-200 G SSM behind both Canon & Nikon's latest but we are talking small margins.
There is a rumour of an update for that as there is for the 70-400 & possibly a few others but the reality is that all 3 manufacturers are capable of great glass & he who has the latest design probably has the best (for now ;) ).
 
For around the same money you can get the Nikkor 300 f4 AF-S, and add a 1.4TC if you need 420mm, optically far better than the 80-400.

I have owned both, I still own the 300 f4
 
Martyn... said:
For around the same money you can get the Nikkor 300 f4 AF-S, and add a 1.4TC if you need 420mm, optically far better than the 80-400.

I have owned both, I still own the 300 f4
Click to expand...

Great idea, hadn't thought of that option, adds a little time for savings as its a bit more expensive, but a good option to think of nonetheless
 
Martyn... said:
For around the same money you can get the Nikkor 300 f4 AF-S, and add a 1.4TC if you need 420mm, optically far better than the 80-400.

I have owned both, I still own the 300 f4
Click to expand...

Same here..........(y)
 
Martyn... said:
For around the same money you can get the Nikkor 300 f4 AF-S, and add a 1.4TC if you need 420mm, optically far better than the 80-400.

I have owned both, I still own the 300 f4
Click to expand...

Not sure about the "far better" optical qualities, having never used the 300 f/4...but am sure about the greater versatility of the zoom. With the 300 and 1.4 TC you have 300 mm and 420 mm. With the 80-400 you have 320 different lens lengths available at a second's notice.

But...I'll be buying the 300 f/4 sometime soon. Certainly not knocking it.
 
hunter20ga said:
Not sure about the "far better" optical qualities, having never used the 300 f/4...but am sure about the greater versatility of the zoom. With the 300 and 1.4 TC you have 300 mm and 420 mm. With the 80-400 you have 320 different lens lengths available at a second's notice.

But...I'll be buying the 300 f/4 sometime soon. Certainly not knocking it.
Click to expand...

I have owned and sold the 80-400, I still own the 300/4.

The 300 f4 AF-S is one of the sharpest lenses that I own, and it retains it's quality with the 1.4 and also the 1.7TC. As an added bonus it has a MFD of 5 feet, which makes it a great choice for Butterfly and Dragonfly shots.

There is no comparison between the image quality of the 80-400, and the 300 f4 AF-S.

The 80-400 is a handy compact zoom, but it is not in the same league as the 300, it may be versatile but give me the 300 every day of the week.

You will see what I mean when you get one, I had fully intended to move it on when I got the 200-400, but it is such a versatile lens in it's own right I kept it, and during the summer it gets a lot of use.
 
I also own the Nikon 300mmf4 and Kenko 1.4TC, producing some great sharp shots. But still intend getting the new Sigma 50-500 OS lens for the convenience of a zoom.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top