Nikon 80-400 vr

R

Runner

Messages
199
Name
Martin
Edit My Images
Yes
Has anyone got any experience with this lens? Any recomendations. Or negatives all welcome. Thanks
 
It's a very useful range, the VR means it can be handheld well and is quite small for transporting compared to a 400mm prime. It is not as fast as say the 70-200 f2.8 so wouldn't be the best choice for fast moving shots such as racing but for other types of photography is fine.
 
Not terribly fast focusing, so not a lens for action sport really.

(no, I'm not saying its going to miss every shot, but its not a good choice really).

Not as good IMHO as the Canon 100-400 that most people think this is a Nikon equivalent of.

Long been rumours of Nikon sorting this lens out, but those have been rumbling on for years.

There's not really much other choice in that focal length, plenty of decent fast choice up to 300mm (Nikon 70-300 VR, Nikon 28-300, Sigma 100-300 f4 or Sigma 120-300 f2.8), but beyond that its either the VERY expensive Nikon primes or a teleconvertor on something else.
 
I had one a few years back, nice and compact, optically sound but slow to focus.

I then got a 300mm f4 and 1.4TC, much better optically and a lot quicker to focus.

If I was starting again I would go with the 300mm f4 and 1.4TC, which can also be used with the 1.7TC giving you a 500mm f6.7 lens.
 
Ok thanks for comments, it would be for sports and birds etc, so i think a 500mm would be a better option.
 
If your budget can stretch to it the 70-200 2.8 coupled with the Mk3 x2 extender is a very good combo.
 
Runner said:
Ok thanks for comments, it would be for sports and birds etc, so i think a 500mm would be a better option.
Click to expand...

You mean a Nikon 500 f4???

I mean, yes, it is better but...

For most people beyond 300mm involves adding a teleconvertor to a 300mm lens. Primes take TC's better than zooms generally, so your options are:

1) Nikon AFS 300 f4

2) Nikon AFS 300 f2.8 (in various non-VR/VR/VR2 configs)

And then slap a 1.4x TC on and loose very little IQ, or add a 1.7x TC and loose a bit or ironically the new MkIII 2x and loose somewhere between the 1.4 and the 1.7.

Of course you also loose some stops of light, which may or may not be critical - a 1.4x is minus one stop, a 1.7x is minus 1.5 stops and a 2x is 2 stops.... and thats hard loss, on top of that you need to stop it down by the same amount again before you will find the sweet spot...

Ignoring the sweet spot issue, I think the D5000 you have possibly won't focus if the glass isn't f5.6... on the pro Nikon range this is different and will focus to f8.
 
Last edited:
how about the sigma 50-500 os ?
I looked at the 80-400 but the slow af meant that I didn't like it so got the 70-300 VR instead. This is fine but it doesn't have a tripod mount so has a noticeable wobble (though the VR helps) and feels wrong.
 
The Nikon 70-300 VR isn't really designed for tripod'ing, its a cheap lightweight ultra zoom not a dedicated long distance lens.
 
Can you give an idea of your budget? It is much easier if we know the say up to 1k is fine but 5k plus is not
 
Sloooooow focus in anything but optimum lighting. Get 70-300mm VR instead, and focus with your feet where needed. Of course, that's not always possible, but still. A much better focus system, and cheaper.

I'm selling one now in Classified (a shameless plug)
 
Agree with that the 70-300 is not a good tripod lens at all.
When I bought it I didn't have a tripod so that wasn't really a problem :)
Now seriously thinking of selling it for the 50-500 as a result
 
I have the Nikon 70-300 so i imagine i would need to go for 150-500 sigma?
 
The Sigma 150-500 is also a bit of a dog to be honest.

I'd think about the Nikon 300 f4 and a 1.4x TC
 
Or how about 300 f4 + 1.4x in gopping weather at very fast superbikes:

thruxton1.jpg
 
I agree with the others - with the body you have, the Nikon 300 f/4 would be a good choice. Both the Siggy 50-500 (old and new OS version) and the Nikon 80-400 would be fine for perched birds and some action shots in good light, but comparatively slow AF (next to the Nikon 300 f/4) would potentially mean less 'keepers'. Just search on here for the various comments that I and many others have said about the 'old 80-400 question' in recent months
 
So you dont think the like of VR on the 300 is too much of an issue ?
a 300 f4 vr would be ideal if it existed or an upgraded afs 80-400
 
I am new to this photography so what will i be getting from the f4 300 over my 70-300 vr.
 
mountainpenguin said:
So you dont think the lack of VR on the 300 is too much of an issue ?
Click to expand...

I have never found the lack of VR an issue on the 300, good technique will allow shooting at 1/200 hand held, or pop it on a mono pod or tripod.

Runner said:
I am new to this photography so what will i be getting from the f4 300 over my 70-300 vr.
Click to expand...

Superb optics, razor sharp wide open at f4, ability to take either the 1.4 or 1.7 TC, giving you a 420mm f5.6 or 510mm f6.7 lens.

It has a minimum focus distance of 5 feet, which makes it an ideal lens for butterfly or dragonfly shots.
 
I have learnt to dislike VR with a passion, so if it had it I'd be paying extra money for extra weight for nothing.
 
So are we saying i would get a better zoom than my 70-300 as i need a lens for birds/wildlife?
 
D3S said:
I agree with the others - with the body you have, the Nikon 300 f/4 would be a good choice. Both the Siggy 50-500 (old and new OS version) and the Nikon 80-400 would be fine for perched birds and some action shots in good light, but comparatively slow AF (next to the Nikon 300 f/4) would potentially mean less 'keepers'. Just search on here for the various comments that I and many others have said about the 'old 80-400 question' in recent months
Click to expand...
what are you on about have you tried a 150-500mm or a 50-500mm os the af speed is quick the only lens that i have had that is faster is the nikon 70-200mm f2.8.
the sigmas are fine for anything you use them for birds in flight no probs.
50-500mm os.
SJB_8708.jpg


SJB_8865.jpg


SJB_8867.jpg


SJB_4539.jpg


happy to provide many more pics.
 
Runner said:
So are we saying i would get a better zoom than my 70-300 as i need a lens for birds/wildlife?
Click to expand...

Just to recap, your original question was regarding the 80-400, from personal experience the 300 f4 AF-S + 1.4 is the better option.

For birds you want as much reach as possible, and then you never have enough, which means it becomes a case of getting closer to the subject.

Your options at your budget point are the 300f4 AF-S + TC, or one of the Sigma Zooms.
 
Martyn... said:
Just to recap, your original question was regarding the 80-400, from personal experience the 300 f4 AF-S + 1.4 is the better option.

For birds you want as much reach as possible, and then you never have enough, which means it becomes a case of getting closer to the subject.

Your options at your budget point are the 300f4 AF-S + TC, or one of the Sigma Zooms.
Click to expand...

Yes Martyn you are correct the question was regarding 80-400. But reading the comments I am now interested in the 300f4 + TC if it will be capable of capturing birds in flight and also wildlife.
 
Runner said:
Yes Martyn you are correct the question was regarding 80-400. But reading the comments I am now interested in the 300f4 + TC if it will be capable of capturing birds in flight and also wildlife.
Click to expand...

I have never had an issue with focus speed with the 1.4TC, it will slow a touch with the 1.7TC, but camera settings, camera body, technique and practice have a far greater bearing on the ability of a lens to focus.

The 300f4 + TC (1.4 first then add the 1.7 later), would be my choice.

I still have and use mine, even though I have the 200-400, it is great when I want a lighter option.
 
I have just been through the same decision making process and ended up with the 300 f4 with tc. It works very well with the 1.7 tc on a D300s with the autofocus still being fast ( best to set the focus limiter if you won't need the close focus as this speeds it up ). I also bought a kenko extension tube set and they work very well on this lens for close up shots of butterflies etc. The combination gives me a great deal of versatility and acceptable amount of weight to carry about. I prefer to keep on the move with my wildlife photography and will switch from bird photography to insects during a wildlife walk. I used to use a 70-300 VR and am a great fan of this lens but the 300 f4 is sharper and with the tcs gives valuable extra reach so I only use it if I need the zoom range. I have yet to try the 300 f4 with tc combination on my D90 so will be interested to see how the autofocus on this camera copes.
 
So in beginners terms the 300 f4 would be a good option for birds and wildlife with the tc over my 70-300?
 
Runner said:
So in beginners terms the 300 f4 would be a good option for birds and wildlife with the tc over my 70-300?
Click to expand...

Yes :thumbs:

Do not restrict it to birds and wildlife, I have taken portraits and landscape shots with mine, but it's main use these days is for Butterfly and Dragonfly shots, when I want to travel light.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top