Nikkor 80-400 or 70-300 and 1.4 converter

towershot

towershot

Points percy at the pedestal
Messages
4,237
Name
Rick.
Edit My Images
Yes
I have the sigma 170--500 but am not happy with the sharpness.
My shots with the nikkor 70-300 with a a 1.4 converter seem sharper.

I was lusting after the nikkor 80-400 4.5/5.6 VR but it would mean me selling a few of my lenses to pay for it.
The write up on the 80-400 says it is very slow to focus and I am after pics of a Kingfisher so think it would be no good,but the reports are sometimes wrong.

In you're opinion guys would I be better of staying with the 70-300 with the 1.4 con ,and save a lot of hassle exchanging lenses (I cannot afford the £1200 + for a new one) or is it worth the hassle .
Rick.
 
towershot said:
I have the sigma 170--500 but am not happy with the sharpness.
My shots with the nikkor 70-300 with a a 1.4 converter seem sharper.

I was lusting after the nikkor 80-400 4.5/5.6 VR but it would mean me selling a few of my lenses to pay for it.
The write up on the 80-400 says it is very slow to focus and I am after pics of a Kingfisher so think it would be no good,but the reports are sometimes wrong.

In you're opinion guys would I be better of staying with the 70-300 with the 1.4 con ,and save a lot of hassle exchanging lenses (I cannot afford the £1200 + for a new one) or is it worth the hassle .
Rick.
Click to expand...

I am surprised the TC works with the 70-300.

Anyway, I have owned the 80-400VR my recommendation would be the 300 f4 AF-S prime, which is sharp wide open at f4, and works great with the 1.4 and 1.7 Nikkor TC's.

Optically the 80-400 was great but not the fastest to focus.

The 300 f4 AF S is a superb lens, with the 1.4 TC gives you 420mm, and the 1.7TC 510mm
 
Here are a couple of images with the 300f4 AF S + 1.7TC ... shot at 3200 ISO ;)

Click the thumbnails:-



 
towershot said:
Thanks for that Martyn, images super.
Forgot to put the converter is a Sigma 1.4

I have an old Sigma 400m that needs servicing ,so might just send that away first and see what the IQ is like......

:thumbs::thumbs:
Click to expand...

That sounds like a good idea :thumbs:

Good luck in your quest for these elusive devils (took me a couple of years to get shots this good)





As you can see these were all caught in the birds natural habitat, hiding in a tree, I got lucky and there were not too many branches in the way.

These were taken a few days apart, once you find were one likes fishing they will return to that perch quite regularly, thats the hard part.
 
Pics to die for Martyn, I have been going to a hide ,but the little boogar only lands about 40 yards away ,much to far, so will have to find somewhere else.

And you are very right ,that is the HARD part.....:'(

70-200 :bang::eek: don't start me down that road.....:nono:
If it was for bigger prey then maybe, but for little Kingfishers I think I need more reach.:shake:
 
towershot said:
Pics to die for Martyn, I have been going to a hide ,but the little boogar only lands about 40 yards away ,much to far, so will have to find somewhere else.
Click to expand...

Those were with a 200-400VR + 1.4TC

See if you can put a stick out for it nearer the hide, or get some lightweight camo net and sit in wait closer to where the bird perches. Fracster on here is involved with Stealth Wildlife Supplies, they do a lightweight nettingCAMO NET.

I had a brilliant place sorted at Belvide, nicely concealed, fairly close to a small tree in the water where they fished, and British Waterways removed the tree :shake:
 
I rented a 80-400 from Stewart at Lensesforhire –*think it was about £50 for the week. I was impressed by the lens and although you're not getting a piece of kit up to the quality of a Nikon 200-400mm, it's more than adequate as a long., long lens. The VR works well too.

For kingfisher though it's probably too slow. I was shooting people, sitting and walking, and it was fine but quick birds might be too much. however, try renting and just see, you may be surprised.
 
specialman said:
I rented a 80-400 from Stewart at Lensesforhire –*think it was about £50 for the week. I was impressed by the lens and although you're not getting a piece of kit up to the quality of a Nikon 200-400mm, it's more than adequate as a long., long lens. The VR works well too.

For kingfisher though it's probably too slow. I was shooting people, sitting and walking, and it was fine but quick birds might be too much. however, try renting and just see, you may be surprised.
Click to expand...

Pat I used to have the 80-400VR and agree with your comments, but once I bought the 300f4 AF S the 80-400 never got used, and I sold it.

The 80-400 is approx £1100 new, the 300 f4 is approx £900 new, if I had to make the choice again now, I would go with the 300 f4 + TC's every time.

The 300f4 is sharp wide open, even when using a teleconverter, the 80-400 needs stopping down to get close to the 300 image quality wise.

However if you want something compact and portable, and do not use a tripod the 80-400 is a good choice, but following all the price hikes, in my opinion it is overpriced for what it is, if it was nearer £750 it would be a tough choice between the two lenses.
 
The 80 - 400 Nikkor is a 10 year old design, but it is still in production so they must be doing something right.
 
arclight said:
The 80 - 400 Nikkor is a 10 year old design, but it is still in production so they must be doing something right.
Click to expand...

According to reports redesigning / revamping it, whether that is true or just wishful thinking only time will tell. Optically it is fine, just needs some attention to the VR and AF speed.

It was Nikons first lens with VR.
 
I had the 80-400 and used it a lot.However, the autofocus speed was generally inadequate for flighty wee birds,unless you knew where they would land. Optically it was good and was fairly compact for the range.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top