Nikon AF Nikkor 80-400mm f/4.5-5.6D VR ED Lens Opinions / experiences with this lens

LASTOLITE

LASTOLITE

No longer has 4 inches
Messages
2,617
Name
Bill
Edit My Images
Yes
Nikon AF Nikkor 80-400mm f/4.5-5.6D VR ED Lens

:thumbs: OR :thumbsdown:

Any experience with this lens? good or bad

And how would a 70 - 200 f2.8VR with 1.7 tc11 fair against it?

:)
 
With a 1.7 tc11 you will be loosing approx 1.5 of a stop = f4.5 now becomes approx f8= a little slow. At the 400/f5.6 you will be using approx f11.= slow speed.
The 70-200/f2.8 is a much better option-I speek from experince.
 
On the 70-200 with a 1.5x converter it'll be f/4.5 won't it, not f/8?.....

Anyway, have used the 80-400mm as a rental from LFH and was really impressed with it. Okay, it's not new tech these days but as a consumer/semi-pro lens it's more than adequate and possibly as good as the 100-400mm Canon. The VR function works well, although i didn't ultimately test how low I could go with shutter speeds; hand-holding at 1/100th was fine though. It's a big lens and the zoom extends quite a bit but on a tripod it's easy to use. It's sharp throughout, better stopped down a notch, and metered well on my D200. All in all, I thought it was a very good lens and probably the one I'd buy if that was the kind of thing i was looking for.
 
My mates dad let us borrow the 80-400mm lens for a day. Took it to a BTCC practice session at Silverstone, same day as the WAC was on.

I was really impressed with it, but its the most expensive lens I have used so not got anything to compare it with. Also quite heavy, couldn't really just leave it hanging on my neck, needed to support camera for most the day. We managed to snap about 1700 pictures in the day with it, so gave it plenty of use. My D80 impressed me as well, as that was all on one battery!
 
The lens is pretty good for the money, although its looking a little old now. The lack of AF-S is the main problem for me.

Dont think its a good match with any TC (although I've never tried) I think you need to be looking at an f2.8 lens to have a chance of success with TC's.
 
Some people swear by it, but I couldn't stand it. I found it slow, the VR was just annoying and it just never agreed with me. Sold it and bought a 300 F/4 AFS instead (which I have now regrettably sold too!!!). Cracking lens.
 
Johnny Thunder - Cheers for the link -and thankyou very much to the balanced opinions

Hope that helps mate.
Click to expand...

Yes it has helped alot:thumbs:

Funny - I have come to the same conclusion as you did on this one ;)


Thanks for all your honest opinions.
I will have a rethink on this.
Click to expand...

:thumbs:
 
If you are interested, on another forum not photographic exclusively there is a guy who uses this lens, his gallery of wildlife is amazing, i have just got this lens (now starting to learn it!). If you want a link to it drop me a pm happy to pass it on.

Brian
 
I was really tempted to get one to replace the 100-400. I just wasn't confident enough from the reviews so ended up getting the 300 F4. Can't complain about it :)
 
Johnny Thunder, what's the verdict on the 300mm f/4? Is it the original (pre-2000) version or the post-2000 AF-S version? Is the tripod mount flimsy?
 
So far Pat, all I can say is that is looks and feels superb. It is a newer model.
I have not used it yet.
 
Really fancy that lens. My 80-200mm f/2.8 is good but for longer stuff I'm just thinking a prime 300mm will offer me more.
 
specialman said:
Really fancy that lens. My 80-200mm f/2.8 is good but for longer stuff I'm just thinking a prime 300mm will offer me more.
Click to expand...

I've been using it with a 1.4X, really nice combo
 
Pat, you may be doing a shoot on a river or lake near to me some time soon.;)
If you are, give me a shout and I will bring it along for you to have a play.:thumbs:

Or you could always take up my offer of the lake in France.:naughty:
 
The 80-400 needs a serious kick up the chuff and upgraded to AFS.

Its far too slow for any kind of action photography.

Maybe if you bird is stuffed and in a glass cabinet it would be ok? :D

From what I've seen of bird photography you are rarely at anything but max zoom anyway (because getting closer is the problem), so you might as well use a prime.

I am sure the 300 AFS f4 with a 1.4x TC will be far, far better.
 
desantnik said:
The 80-400 needs a serious kick up the chuff and upgraded to AFS.

Its far too slow for any kind of action photography.

Maybe if you bird is stuffed and in a glass cabinet it would be ok? :D
Click to expand...
I've got to agree with that.

The Nikon 80-400 has to be my least favourite lens, ever. I guess at least part of the reason is because it's up against the Canon 100-400L, which beats it hands down for ergonomics despite being an older design.

Plus points:
- very solid construction
- optically not bad given the zoom range

Minus points:
- very slow AF
- doesn't have full-time MF
- bizarre and unintuitive VR implementation
- front end of barrel feels quite fragile when fully zoomed
- zoom and MF very heavy
 
Johnny Thunder said:
Pat, you may be doing a shoot on a river or lake near to me some time soon.;)
If you are, give me a shout and I will bring it along for you to have a play.:thumbs:

Or you could always take up my offer of the lake in France.:naughty:
Click to expand...

Cheers for the JT - France sounds nice what with the crappy weather we're having now, especially some summertime fishing while sipping beer....



...must remember I have a 4-month-old and that my social life has now officially ended :D :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top