nikon 80-400mm
- Thread starter holty
- Start date
- Messages
- 911
- Name
- Ben
- Edit My Images
- Yes
- Messages
- 3,749
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Then why are you even on here? The whole point of this forum is to ask questions and share knowledge. Why not google everything? People here give very good reviews of items. :bang:
As for Ken Rockwell, a good read does not mean an accurate read and most people here know that the majority of what he posts is utter rubbish.
I can't offer the OP any advice but I am sure someone will be along shortly who can post some useful information.
- Messages
- 7,821
- Edit My Images
- Yes
It will not work with the Nikon TC's.
It is not bad optically, however it is slow to focus.
For around the same cost the 300 f4 AF-S + 1.4TC is the better option, far better optically (sharp wide open), and quicker to focus.
.
Last edited:
- Messages
- 45,340
- Name
- 'Gramps'
- Edit My Images
- No
I have one and 80-400 gives a useful range - to be able to hand-hold a 400 is very useful and the VR helps with this considerably. I have used it for wildlife and general photography but I have not used it for sports as I simply don't do sport. Bike riding would be fine I would think, motorsports would possibly need more thought.
Those who do motorsport seem to indicate that the AF is slow, I don't know whether that comes from rumour or experience of use, it hasn't caused me any problems with the type of use I've given it. You can't use Nikon TC's as the rear element would snag, I've used it with an older x2 in manual mode.
When you think what a fast 400 would cost it's a no-brainer for many pockets if you need a 400.
Those who do motorsport seem to indicate that the AF is slow, I don't know whether that comes from rumour or experience of use, it hasn't caused me any problems with the type of use I've given it. You can't use Nikon TC's as the rear element would snag, I've used it with an older x2 in manual mode.
When you think what a fast 400 would cost it's a no-brainer for many pockets if you need a 400.
- Messages
- 248
- Name
- Graham
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I think lens for hire sums it up http://www.lensesforhire.co.uk/nikon-af-80-400mm-f45-56-d-ed-vr-46-p.asp
- Messages
- 8,193
- Name
- Pat MacInnes
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Holty, have hired this lens for a few weeks in the past to cover angling events where my 80-200 can't give enough reach for far bank action.
Firstly, the zoom range is great. You can go from doing headshots at 80mm to shooting far off subjects on 400mm in one fell swoop, which is the beauty of superzooms like this. Build quality is good - this is quite a heavy lens - and it comes with a useful tripod bracket on the lens, which makes it much easier to both handle on a tripod (to spread the weight) and it also comes in handy as a carry handle.
AF is positive on my D2x, although not lightning quick. If you're flitting between subjects that are very near to each other then you'll have no problems with the AF; it's when you want to go from 3m to 100m in an instant - it just won't do it that quick.
Optically it's very good up to 300mm, good at 400mm, although don't think you'll be getting 400mm f/2.8-type quality. I've blown shots up to A3 when shooting at 400mm and they're fine, just not razor sharp like the pros get with their expensive glass.
The VR works very well, although I don't have really extensive first-hand experience with many of the Nikon VR lenses. I was getting good exposures wide open at 400m anyway but the VR just helped me to stop down to say f/6.3 and f/8 without running too much of a risk of horrific camera shake. It's a useful tool but not a total safety net.
It's probably one of the ugliest, most cumbersome looking lenses around (especially when the barrel zooms out to 400mm) and going out on a limb, it's not as good as Canon's 100-400mm equivalent both in terms of optical quality and AF speed.
However, it's a useful lens that when used right and when used without expectations that it'll produce images like you'll get from much more expensive glass, will do the job just fine.
I'll try to dig out some images to show
Firstly, the zoom range is great. You can go from doing headshots at 80mm to shooting far off subjects on 400mm in one fell swoop, which is the beauty of superzooms like this. Build quality is good - this is quite a heavy lens - and it comes with a useful tripod bracket on the lens, which makes it much easier to both handle on a tripod (to spread the weight) and it also comes in handy as a carry handle.
AF is positive on my D2x, although not lightning quick. If you're flitting between subjects that are very near to each other then you'll have no problems with the AF; it's when you want to go from 3m to 100m in an instant - it just won't do it that quick.
Optically it's very good up to 300mm, good at 400mm, although don't think you'll be getting 400mm f/2.8-type quality. I've blown shots up to A3 when shooting at 400mm and they're fine, just not razor sharp like the pros get with their expensive glass.
The VR works very well, although I don't have really extensive first-hand experience with many of the Nikon VR lenses. I was getting good exposures wide open at 400m anyway but the VR just helped me to stop down to say f/6.3 and f/8 without running too much of a risk of horrific camera shake. It's a useful tool but not a total safety net.
It's probably one of the ugliest, most cumbersome looking lenses around (especially when the barrel zooms out to 400mm) and going out on a limb, it's not as good as Canon's 100-400mm equivalent both in terms of optical quality and AF speed.
However, it's a useful lens that when used right and when used without expectations that it'll produce images like you'll get from much more expensive glass, will do the job just fine.
I'll try to dig out some images to show