Nikon 80-400mm f4.5-5.6 D AF VR Lens

meat

meat

Messages
849
Name
meat
Edit My Images
Yes
Hi all hope you can help me out a bit. i'am thinking of getting a nikon 80-400 lens... Just wondering if any one has on or used a one... want it for me bird watching...


cheers wayne
 
I have three of them.

The good news:
* Good solid build quality.
* Decent optics.

The not-so-good news:
* Autofocus is very slow and noisy.
* No full-time manual focus.
* Bizarre and unintuitive focus range limiter.
* Very bizarre implementation of VR (it might have been Nikon's first ever VR lens for all I know); there's a mode where the VR is not activated when you half-press the shutter, but is activated when you fully press the shutter. I can't for the life of me work out what that's for.

By comparison with the Canon 100-400L, it's a real embarrassment. I'm amazed Nikon have persisted with it for so long.
 
meat said:
Hi all hope you can help me out a bit. i'am thinking of getting a nikon 80-400 lens... Just wondering if any one has on or used a one... want it for me bird watching...


cheers wayne
Click to expand...

If you can stretch your budget get a second hand 70-200 f2.8 VR with TC.

I had a go on my Brother's 80-400 and found it very slow focusing. Ok if the bird is not moving but it was horrible when I was trying to track anything. :bonk:
 
cheers lads i will have a look for something else
 
I have one and yes,autofocus is slow. But if you allow for that when setting yourself up for your shots,it is a good ,reasonably compact lens to carry about,with a good zoom range.

People will offer allsorts of better alternatives,but at a price. 70-200 and a converter? Yeah that is a good cheap viable option......:LOL:
 
fracster said:
I have one and yes,autofocus is slow. But if you allow for that when setting yourself up for your shots,it is a good ,reasonably compact lens to carry about,with a good zoom range.

People will offer allsorts of better alternatives,but at a price. 70-200 and a converter? Yeah that is a good cheap viable option......:LOL:
Click to expand...

A new 80-400 is £800 and a second hand 70-200 is about £900 add a £200 TC and all in is £1100, only a extra £300 ;)
 
Snapper73 said:
If you can stretch your budget get a second hand 70-200 f2.8 VR with TC.
Click to expand...
Is that going to work? I should point out that I haven't specifically tried this combination, but my general impression is that zooms don't take a 2x TC very well; there's a big hit on image quality (much more so than with a 1.4x TC) and the focus speed drops. My concern is that, despite the undoubted quality of the 70-200, putting it with a 2x TC might give you something which is more expensive than the 80-400, more cumbersome, worse optically and no better at focussing.
 
Snapper73 said:
A new 80-400 is £800 and a second hand 70-200 is about £900 add a £200 TC and all in is £1100, only a extra £300 ;)
Click to expand...

Only £300?.........Wow,£300 is quite a lot of dosh. Plus with the 2x you lose two full stops and have a 140-400 zoom with debateable IQ.

;)
 
fracster said:
Only £300?.........Wow,£300 is quite a lot of dosh. Plus with the 2x you lose two full stops and have a 140-400 zoom with debateable IQ.

;)
Click to expand...


I was thinking of the 1.7x which does not lose as much IQ but you do lose some reach. Yeh £300 is a fare bit of dosh as well but was just a idea I thought i would throw in there ;)
 
300 works well with the 1.7 as well Joe, I did use the 70-200 with the same TC, but not enough to recall what it was like image and useability wise.

Anyway, I digress, I use the 80-400 quite a bit,it ain`t the best in the world,but it is far from the worst.
 
Like I said before I think he should try it first he might not find the focusing a problem. Do you know if Nikon have any plans in the future to update this lens.
 
God, I hope so......:LOL:

I think Puddleduck has heard something about a replacement,I have not heard nor read anything.........:shrug:
 
StewartR said:
Is that going to work? I should point out that I haven't specifically tried this combination, but my general impression is that zooms don't take a 2x TC very well; there's a big hit on image quality (much more so than with a 1.4x TC) and the focus speed drops. My concern is that, despite the undoubted quality of the 70-200, putting it with a 2x TC might give you something which is more expensive than the 80-400, more cumbersome, worse optically and no better at focussing.
Click to expand...

I agree. A 1.7x TC is the max I'd go on a 70-200 VR, and honestly I'd prefer to go no more than 1.4x.

I've not used the 80-400 VR much at all, but the lens would have to stink if it wasn't better than a 70-200 VR with 2x TC.
 
Snapper73 said:
Like I said before I think he should try it first he might not find the focusing a problem.
Click to expand...
I would have said that too, but I decided not to, because it might be perceived as a conflict of interest. ;)
 
Joe T said:
300 f4 with a 1.4x tc is another option. Less range, but much higher IQ and better AF.
Click to expand...

hmmm... food for thought, do you think that would be worth changing my 80-400mm for? or is it only worth it if you hadn't bought the 80-400mm already?
 
How about a 70-300VR and crop slightly more in PS to get 400mm, if you know what I mean.
 
cannockwolf said:
hmmm... food for thought, do you think that would be worth changing my 80-400mm for? or is it only worth it if you hadn't bought the 80-400mm already?
Click to expand...


Depends on whether you need the zoom or not?
I have the 300 f4 great lens.
Got a 1.4 TC but after a 1.7 as well.
 
Your going from a zoom with good range to two fixed length primes.....:shrug:


Though the 300 F4 is a peach of a lens.
 
I've been looking at his lens to replace my 70-300VR.

Sigma 150-500mm f/5-6.3 DG OS HSM, £650-£700.
 
fracster said:
Your going from a zoom with good range to two fixed length primes.....:shrug:


Though the 300 F4 is a peach of a lens.
Click to expand...

i have used my 80-400mm and when compared to my 70-200mm and 24-70mm 2.8's it doesn't seem to stack up as well, is it my technique? i use a monopod with it but it still doesn't seem to hit the spot
 
Scotty B said:
Sigma 150-500mm f/5-6.3 DG OS HSM, £650-£700.
Click to expand...

does anybody know what is the IQ comparing this to the nikon 80-400mm? i must admit i do miss the crop factor now i have a FF
 
Looking at images taken at 500mm, it looks every bit as sharp as my 70-300VR which is good to my eyes.
 
Scotty B said:
Sigma 150-500mm f/5-6.3 DG OS HSM, £650-£700.
Click to expand...

Downside is it's pretty small maximum aperture - even with the OS, I'd use a monopod wherever possible (my brother has the Bigma, similar size).

I'll throw another lens into the fray - what about the Sigma 100-300mm f/4? Larger, constant aperture, nice and sharp throughout the whole zoom range, even wide open. It's not quite as good as the Nikon 300mm f/4, but you do get the zoom to play with.

I know I keep harping on about the 100-300mm f/4, but it's a bloomin' good lens!
 
Hello all thanks for all the input. and i have just got my self the Sigma 100-300mm f4 EX IF DG Lens... can i just ask you what Teleconverters will work best with this lens.... cheers wayne
 
meat said:
Hello all thanks for all the input. and i have just got my self the Sigma 100-300mm f4 EX IF DG Lens... can i just ask you what Teleconverters will work best with this lens....
Click to expand...

You can use both the Sigma 1.4x and the 2x TC's, the 1.4 gives you an effective 140-420mm f/5.6 lens, retaining autofocus, a 2x TC a 200-600mm f/8. Sigma state that the lens using the 2x TC will not AF... Full Sigma TC compatibility chart here

The Kenko Teleplus DG 1.5x MC Teleconverter (Nikon fit) states: Full AF is capable with lenses having a maximum aperture of F/4.5 or brighter. (will AF with 100-300mm f/4)

KENKO MC7 AF 2x Teleplus converter: Auto focus is retained with lens that have a maximum aperture of F/4 or brighter. (will AF with 100-300mm f/4)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top