< ! --Digital window verification 001 -->

Another Nikon 80-400mm f/4.5-5.6 lens patent filed in Japan

Pin It

A new Nikon 80-400mm f/4.5-5.6 lens has been rumored for a while. There were several patents filed in the past (20100214667201002840922009282214) and another one was just published in Japan (2012113182):

  • Patent release date: June 14, 2012
  • Patent filing date: October 26, 2010
  • Focal length: 81.6 - 392.0mm
  • Aperture: 4.6 - 5.8
  • Lens length: 300.0mm
  • Lens design: 20 elements in 13 group, 1 ED element
  • Internal focus and zoom
  • VR
This entry was posted in Nikon Lenses, Nikon Patents and tagged . Bookmark the permalink. Trackbacks are closed, but you can post a comment.
  • http://www.flickr.com/photos/ilovewalkman/ Abhinav

    this will be awesome if this lens becomes reality .

    • Chaitanya

      I just hope its better than the old 80-400 which was a terrible lens.

      • catinhat

        Why is it so terrible?

        • bikinchris

          I used the old 80-400 and was not impressed. I don’t think it was a BAD lens, but the out of focus backgrounds had a weird look to them and the focus was pretty slow.

          • catinhat

            I asked because I know people have a habit of bashing this lens which actually contributes to quite low used prices, which could be a good thing too, as I find that new ones are overpriced.
            I have actually used the old/current 80-400 and found it much sharper than I expected based on the reviews I read. I would consider it a pretty sharp lens, especially in the center, all the way to 400mm. It was way better than Sigma 150-500 which I also tried and returned. I know some people really like this Sigma, so maybe I just had a bad copy, but it was bad enough for me to never try another one (I actually really like many other Sigmas, so nothing against Sigma in general).
            It is interesting that you brought up the out of focus rendering of 80-400. I also do not like it, and it might be the thing I like the least about this lens. I find that the AF speed on a capable body isn’t too bad if one uses focus limiter, especially with prefocusing into the general area. Overall, if one needs 400mm in a package that could be carried around all day and used without tri-/mono-pods, I think it is a decent lens.
            I expect the new one if/when Nikon makes it to be better in every way, but also quite a bit pricier.

            • janneman

              We bash it because it is slooooooow, the optics are excelent that we can’t deni.
              But canon has a darn fast(focus i mean and a working vr) 100-400 and it fals into the same class as the 80-400.
              The fast focus and a good working vr is a lack on this lens.
              I made some very good photo’s with this lens but focus was troublesome and the vr was always off because it ruined the most easy shots when it was on.
              So get over it and build a new one nikon…..
              And by the way this old one is overpriced already..
              I sold mine within a year…..so this is good news for me..

        • Steve McEnroe

          I have it and the optics are crap, especially at longer lengths. The lens is LOUSY! My friend shoots wildlife with me and uses a cheap Nikon 50-300 zoom and his images are vastly sharper than mine, shot at the same time in same conditions.

          • catinhat

            Assuming your technique is good, you must have a really bad copy.

      • http://www.vogelbild.ch/photo/photodb/photo.php Simon Speich

        In my opinion the optics were pretty good, only the AF was very slow.

        • iamlucky13

          I don’t own it myself, but I’ve seen plenty of excellent photos taken with the 80-400.

          The biggest problem that I know of with the 80-400 aside from focus speed is that too many people compare it to higher end lenses like the 70-200 or even primes like the 300 F/4.

          It’s not unnatural to make such a comparison, because a given shopper might readily consider any of those three or several other options to fill a similar role in their camera bag, but just because the 80-400 is optically the weakest of the three and has mediocre sharpness at 400mm doesn’t make it a bad lens.

          It’s not like there’s other lenses of genuinely similar specs that clearly outperform it. As far as I know, it beats the Sigma supertelephotos, and squeaks in just a hair behind the Canon 100-400 for sharpness. It’s obviously a lot bigger and more expensive than the 70-300 VR, but the overall compromises it makes are pretty similar.

          • catinhat

            I agree that it is similar to 70-300 in overall picture quality, i.e. color, contrast, sharpness, etc, — which is not such a bad thing. I actually think that 80-400 degrades less wide open at 400mm than 70-300 at 300mm, though individual samples may vary of course. The main difference with the higher end lenses is not necessarily in sharpness. Both 70-200 and 300 f4 have very nice bokeh, and 80-400 can’t really compete. Sharpness wise your mileage may vary.

  • http://www.alldigi.com/ Geoff

    Let us hope that one of these eventuates.

    • iamlucky13

      It seems this has become the Duke Nukem of the camera industry. Continual rumors and teasers, but it never quite seems to materialize.

  • Michael

    Looks like it might fullfill some people’s needs.

    • Michael

      Anyone could tell me why a 80-400mm is so damn large?

      • Nikon Shooter

        Because it’s a heavy lens.

        • NYC

          Huh?

          • AlphaOne

            Exactly!

      • Chicken

        Because it’s an 80-400. ’nuff said?

      • Spacedog

        It´s because of the internal focus and zoom. The “old” one has a moving tube. The static size is great for balancing and to avoid dirt and sand in the Lens, but it needs more room to be build. A Focus limiter and a fast AF would be great, i think it will be an interesting lens.

      • http://www.bythom.com Thom Hogan

        Most telephoto lens designs require that they actually be about the length of the focal length from front to focal plane (e.g. 400mm here). Given that, the front lens element is then determined by the aperture. 400mm divided by 5.6 means that the front element must be about 72mm. By the time you add filter rings, etc., you’re probably at 77mm. So we’re at 14″ long and 3″ diameter. (Wait, 14″? Yes, you have to adjust for the mount to focal plane distance.)

        Now, there are lens designs where you can compact the length, but they have some fairly big issues. Mirror lenses are a really good example of the extreme: we collapse the length by doubling the light path back via a mirror, then again via another mirror. So, technically, we can get down to perhaps 7 or 8″ that way (though we’ll significantly widen the diameter to deal with the light path).

        There’s no simple way around the geometry. If there was, the observatories on top of those mountains would be little boxes, not huge buildings ;~).

        • dps

          +1

          • Toyu

            +463

        • Collins

          Your comment was so informative ^__^

          Thank you so much

          +1

          • Collins

            O…. That was Thom Hogan
            …. Mmmm no wonder i read his blog >__<

        • Spacedog

          Wow, much input.

          Thanks Thom, I learned a lot!!

        • http://Flickr.com/inthemist InTheMist

          Wow, now I get it. Thanks Thom

        • Raymond

          since you have a lot of optical background: would it help the IQ if the lens was only a 5.6/200-400 or even better a 5.6/200-500 instead of a 80-400?

      • Nathan

        It’s “huge” to impress the opposite sex.

      • Kon_head

        Definitely fits my needs, where do I pre-order? :-)

  • 400 5.6 is good

    If it’s sharp, then I’d be interested.

    Sharp like a 70-200 2.8 VR II.

    Also… could a lens like this use teleconverter?

    • chris zeller

      Well of course it won’t be sharp like the 70-200. It won’t be a pro lens with a pro lens price and weight. For that there is the 200-400. It has pro weight AND price. At f8 you won’t notice the difference though.

      • chris zeller

        And of course you can’t use a teleconvertor. For that, try the 400mm f2.8 prime and lots more $$$$$. Or just get closer for free.

        • Brent

          But what if my restraining order won’t let me get closer?

          jp

          • joey

            +1

          • Yatz

            +5

        • Confused

          The guy below said it might be able to take one… so what is it?

        • Bear Man

          “Or just get closer for free.” … easy to say if you aren’t shooting bear.

      • 50 1.8 and 85 1.8?

        Who said “non-pro” lenses can’t be sharp?

        You every try a 85 1.8G? OR the cheaper 50 1.8G?

        • http://www.bobcooleyphoto.com bob cooley

          f/1.8? its a pro lens.

          • James

            None of the f/1.8 is a pro lens… all same class with the current 80-400.

            • Michael

              Yes, the 50mm 1.8G is a pro lens

            • James

              If we follow Nikon’s own grading of “gold ring” or “no gold ring”, then they are not. Similar to Canon’s L and non-L. L and gold ring = pro, others not really.

        • chris zeller

          F1.8 PRIMES are vastly different than prosumer level ZOOMS. All of these prosumer-level f4 and up variable aperature zooms are sharp when stopped down. But their sharpness wide open isn’t in league with the 70-200mm. Check out the MTF curves and ratings on DXOMark. I have, and frequently use 85/1.8 and the 28-300mm and they are nowhere near my 70-200 VRII. Expecting to get 2x the focal length at 1/2 the cost and weight is pretty silly.

          • Prime = good

            The 85 1.8G at 2.8 would be very similar if not better than the 70-200 wide open at 85mm. The 85 kicks its butt t 1.8. ;)

      • 28-300?

        28-300 isn’t a “pro” lens and that’s pretty sharp.

        • Henri108

          But it has a pro price (almost) 1000 €

        • preston

          He didn’t ask for it to be “pretty” sharp. He asked for it to be 70-200 level sharp. And the 28-300 isn’t nearly as sharp as any pro level zoom or prime lens in it’s focal length range. See charts on lenstip.com – very informative.

          • iamlucky13

            Correct. The 80-400 is much less sharp when used in the F/2.8 to F/4 range than the 70-200 is.

            I shouldn’t have to explain that the above is sarcasm, but I know a lot people here don’t have sarcasm detectors. Just like a lot of people here don’t seem to understand there’s more to lenses than focal lengths.

          • 28-300?

            You may see my response was to the guy who seemed to suggest only pro lenses are “sharp”. Of course it’s not 70-200 sharp.

            Also it’s a variable aperture lens… And a super zoom and it’s still quite sharp.

    • Spacedog

      If a TC would fit then AF would only work with new bodys:

      5,6 x 1,4 (1,4TC) = 7,86

      The new Nikons got up to 8 in the center, older ones up to 5,6 or 6,3 i think.

    • nawab

      it is not that we cannot, but the golden rule is we MUST NOT. Never use a TELECONVERTOR with a ZOOM LENS

      • Maji

        Check Thom Hogan’s website on the Nikon 200-400 and TCs. I have personally used 1.4 on the 200-400 and on 70-200. The degradation of IQ was not detectable by me. I am sure there will be some because of the laws of physics, but if I can’t see it, then it does not matter to me.

      • peter2

        I’d change your statement just a tiny bit: …on a variable aperture zoom lens.
        Or any lenses that have max aperture smaller than F4. But hey who knows, D800 and D4 owners will disagree with all that.

    • iamlucky13

      Nikon says not to use teleconverters with the 80-400, and in fact, I’ve the Nikon brand teleconverters don’t work at all with it.

      Others have said some 3rd party TC’s work, but are counterproductive. The 80-400 is already at the limits of its sharpness with most bodies, and adding another couple pieces of glass to the stack makes things worse, so you’re better off just cropping instead.

      Plus, with the relatively small effective aperture that results, you need very good light and high contrast scenes for the autofocus to work.

  • chrs zeller

    This is good news. This lens needs a remake worse than any other lens. It may be in keeping with a D600 and those wishing they didn’t give up their digital crop. Here’s to hoping that one materializes finally.

    • WoutK89

      Digital crop, you mean Photoshop?

      • http://www.f1album.com Simon G

        Nope, he mean DX body crop.

        80-400 on DX != 80-400 on FX

        • chris zeller

          400mm on FX will frame like a 250mm on DX. I think many telephoto users will be dissapointed that they now need mega zoom optics to get the same view as they get with DX. If you plan to crop a D800 in CS, then you might as well use a D7000. FX certainly has its advantages but a lot of us have gotten used to the way lenses look on DX.

  • Jason

    I liked the idea of the 100-300mm/f4 that they patented a few weeks back – that and a 1.4x TC gives the reach we want, and could replace both the 300mm/f4 and the 80-400mm lenses.

    • Talkontar

      Exactly. We shouldn’t care about old classics. What’s the point of 80-400 when there could be 100-300/4 with TC? The one I don’t understand the most is 400/5.6. What for??? You add 1.4x TC to 300/4 and you’ve got something like that. There should be 400/4 though. The price gap between 300/4 and 500/4 is way too big.

      • WoutK89

        F/4 isn’t necessarily a budget aperture, just look at the size of the front element on the 500mm compared to the 300mm f/4. You can not compare the price of a lens by aperture alone, or you think the gap between a 180/1.8 and 400/2.8 is too big too?

        • WoutK89

          Oh, and to add to that, you can already buy a 400/4.0 it is called Nikkor AF-s VRII 200-400mm f/4.0

      • D600 will cause this

        For the D600 I suppose. Cheaper…

      • Pat Mann

        A 400mm f/5.6 would have better optical quality including greater sharpness and less chromatic aberration than the 300 f/4 + TC. TCs are always at least to some extent a compromise. I’m looking for a no-compromise 400mm f/5.6 lens for birds. Such a lens would also be likely to focus faster than the 300 + TC combination.

        I would also expect this new prime to have VR, which the 300 f/4 does not. It will also take a 1.4 factor TC to give 600mm f/8, which will AF with the new AF systems, performing better than the 300 with 2x TC.

      • Pat Mann

        A 400mm f/4 lens requires a 4-inch objective, about the same diameter as the 300mm f/2.8. The price would be somewhere between that of the 300mm f/2.8 and the 200-400 zoom – that is, no bargain (except in comparison with its performance, of course – I’m sure there are those that are disappointed that they must compromise with the 200-400 zoom and would prefer a 400mm f/4 prime).

        A 400mm f/5.6 requires a 72mm objective, similar to the 300mm f/4 and the 70-200mm f/2.8, putting it in the same general size/price class.

    • http://www.zhovtenko.net Vsevolod

      I have sigma 100-300 f/4 and a TC/ A superb lens, why bother waiting for nikon version ?

      • Spacedog

        I use to 100-300 and the 1.4 TC too. Focus could be faster and i miss a focus limiter.

  • jorg

    finally 15% of the lens-complainers satisfied.

    on we go:
    af-s 70-200/4 VR
    af-s 300/4 VR
    af-s 16/4

    • Mike

      + 24mm f/1.8 DX
      + 16-85mm f/4 VR DX

      + Tokina please add VR to the excellent and highly overlooked 50-135mm f/2.8 DX.

      • catinhat

        That tokina 50-135 needs AFS even more than VR. Otherwise an optical gem all the way around.

    • Peter

      + 1.8/135mm

    • Roberto

      You are right everyone, I see only too many patent and too few lenses

  • tjay

    The worse thing is only, that you can´t make pictures with patents. I hope they bring this lens and we don´t must wait for another year. A 300 (DX 300 =450) lens with converter is not the same as a 400 (DX 400 = 600) than here you can use the converter too.

    A 200-400 is mostly to big and heavy for safari trips and shooting per hand, not to speak from the price gap.

    I hope they bring the lens this year and I will buy it.

  • Sebastian

    Patents aren’t announcements, but I would also guess this will come with a D600. I have the 80-400 and it’s really not a great piece of glass for current sensor tech. Not sure I would buy a new version, though.
    I would like to know how many pictures with the 80-400 are taken at which focal length around the world. Would be nice to see stats on that. I use mine nearly exclusively at 400, and sometimes at 80. in other words, I would be much better served with a 400, but there is nothing affordable. 300+TC, but then there’s no VR. may still be better.

  • Donald T

    70-200 2.8 & 2.0 TC ?

    • Calibrator

      Price?

      • T Donald

        Assuming that one has already bought a 70-200mm and is looking for extra reach is it then worthwhile going for a xx-400/f4 or just get a 2.0TC?

        • Raymond

          That would be exactly my question too!

        • Some hit

          I have a x1.7 for my 70-200. Bit sharper than the 2.0 and close enough. Only lose 1.5 stops too.

  • Chris P

    With only one ED element it won’t be any better, and probably worse, than the 70-300. Not what is wanted at all. I’ve been waiting for a replacement 80-400 ever since I bought my D700, sorry Nikon but this built down to a price rather than up to a standard lens isn’t it, and I won’t be buying it.

    • Me

      I don’t think Nikon is too worried about what you think….sorry Chris.

      • Chris P

        I don’t expect Nikon to be worried about what I think, unless they want me, and others, who care about the optical and mechanical quality of the lenses they make, to buy the lenses they produce..

        I was stating my opinion that, apparently, Nikon are continuing to go down the road of producing excellent FX cameras, D700, D800 and rumoured D600 but adhering to a policy with their middle range lenses, the ones most likely to be used with this type of camera, of producing lenses which are not much above consumer grade.

        A classic example of this was the old 18-35 and 28-105 zooms, which instead of being replaced by optically and mechanically excellent f4 lenses of the same range; were replaced by the 16-35, optically poor between 16 to 18 and 30-35, and the 24-120, actually only 25.5 to 115 and with excessive distortion at both the lower and upper ends. Regarding the latter, I have read one review, backed up by tests and examples, which shows that it is only between 28 & 105 that it performs satisfactorily. So why didn’t Nikon produce lenses of those focal lengths with better quality instead of ‘never mind the quality, feel the width’ designs.

        We have exactly the same thing happening now with the 80-400. A couple of the patent designs previously reported on here were excellent and would have replaced the existing 300 f4 and hoped for 400 f5.6 as well as the existing 80-400. Suddenly a patent appears for a lens which will be barely adequate up to 300 mm and almost useless beyond that. I was expressing the opinion that if that is the one that is produced I will leave it on the shelf in the shop, which is what I have done with the 16-35 and 24-120.

        • Stefan

          I have the 28-105.
          For me the replacements would be the 16-85 for DX an the 24-70 for FX.
          Both are said to be fine.

  • Mike M

    Nikon needs to rush this one, might sway me from buying a Bigma.

  • Pat Mann

    What I really would prefer is a 400mm f/5.6 AF-S with quick AF, VR.

    Tack-sharp at 400mm, no compromises. With 2x the elements and all that slop in the zoom mechanism, an 80-400 is bound to be compromised on the long end. I already have an 80-200 that does fine for the shorter focal lengths.

    If a new zoom is reasonably fast focusing and reasonably good at 400mm, I will probably compromise and go for it, reluctantly. If not, I’ll probably give up and go with the 300 f/4 + TC. We budget birders have been waiting a VERY long time for this.

    • Justin

      Couldn’t agree more. I’d pay up to 2500 if it were super sharp edge to edge at 5.6.

    • PAG

      Agreed. Nikon seems to view the non-pro long telephoto market (birders, wildlife shooters, amateur sports enthusiasts, wannabe’ paparazzi, perverts, divorce attorneys) as very low on their priority totem pole.

      I love my 30mm f/4 + Tc1.4. The only complaint I’ve really got is that now I’m shooting more midlight flash (for fill, added contrast, and a little light boost) I really wish I had VR.

  • Zeb

    Make an 80-500mm f4- 5.6 Nikon.

  • elph

    Any update on the 18 & 20mmm 1.8 by chance?
    I’m really looking at getting the 20 1.8 for the rumoured price of about 800-900$.

    • Justin

      18 for me. 18 at 1.8 would kill. Although I’d prefer a 17 ts-e to the 18

    • Michael

      I’ve already saved up for this lens; This is the ultimate wide angle prime that would work well on DX as well as FX. So anxious to hear more!

  • http://poloslides.smugmug.com William Jones

    I have used the existing 80-400 lens for several years on a D3X (mostly horse polo), and got excellent results. Tried the Sigma 50-500 because I liked the idea of shorter and longer (however the focus was too slow on the Sigma). For me, an ideal range would be about 40 to 500, would even settle for 50-450. Just sent my D3X in for refurb (over 318K clicks), and the same with my 80-400. My only hopes for this lens is that the focus is faster (AF-S versus AF), and the sharpness is at least par.

    A majority of my shots are between 300 and 400mm. However there are times when they are right in front of me, so 80mm is too much (hence the wish for shorter). Have tried shooting with two cameras, however is too much of a hassle.

    Sealed lens will be a great improvement over the current version. I would expect price to be between $2,500 and $3,000.00. Any other estimates on price?

    • D800_is_finally_here

      If “1 ED element” is true, it really cannot be more than $2000, and likely not going to be a great 400mm lens on the D800. Seems more like a budget lens to me.

      If Nikon release a version with 3-5 ED elements, likely to be priced the same as 70-200 VR2.

      • Maji

        The 80-400 is supposed to be a budget lens. If you want a pro level zoom at this length, Nikon offers the 200-400/4.

        • Jim

          Don’t know about you, but to me 2,000 or 6,500 bucks are a huge difference.
          However, I’d rather spent 2,000 to 2,500 for a good IQ than spending anything on a budget lens with a bad IQ. In this case the replacement of the current 80-400 wouldn’t be needed anyway.

  • Arie

    I would seriously consider selling my 80-200 f/2.8 for this if it’s in the same price range. I miss my old 70-300mm VR lens even if it wasn’t as fast.

  • steventx

    Nikon just announced DX 18-300mm f/3.5-5.6G, maybe a cheaper FX 28-400mm is on the horizon?

  • Dweeb

    A while? = 10 years.

  • dave

    So, Nikon has a bunch of guys trying to design and patent every way possible to make a 80-400mm lens? There is the one already available and the four patents in the past couple of years. How soon before they stop making patents and start making a new lens? I think the message is clear… Nikon has a lot of ideas on how to make a new 80-400mm lens, but they don’t feel they can do so profitably, so the only other option is to patent as many ways as possible to make a 80-400mm lens in an effort to prevent the competition from coming out with a product to compete directly with their current oft-maligned-yet-still-profitable 80-400mm lens.

    Some of you will think I’m serious, some will think I’m joking… now, where’s my popcorn?

  • hunt

    They just keep coming!

  • D800_is_finally_here

    The tsunami might have pushed back the plan to introduce the new 80-400 as well as 70-200/4 (or 100-300/4) Mind you There was not a single made-in-japan pro grade lens announced since March 2011.

    It could also be that the result of the proposed 80-400 was so disappointing (esp on the long end) when mounted on the 36mp D800 that Nikon had to re-design it somewhat. But the “1 ED element” description doesn’t instill a lot of confidence….

    70-200VR2 have 7 ED elements in comparison…

  • James

    Nikon needs to update this lens as well as the 300mm f/4

    Nikon needs more cheap longer lenses.

  • James

    Nikon’s 300mm f/4 afs appears to be a better lens, but it also needs updating.

    • We are waiting

      Yes I’m waiting for that (updated 300 f/4).

    • plug

      +1

  • Maji

    I think one of the better 80-400 design is the US Patent Application 20100214667. It has 4 ED and 21 elements. However, it will be much more expensive and that is why Nikon maybe looking to cut down on the ED glass and make the lens cheaper overall.

    • http://cdsharper.zenfolio.com CSharp

      I shoot with a D800 and I like that potential andwould sell my 70200 vr I and my current 80-400 to buy it. However, I don’t think Nikow wild sell it because it would reduce the sales of the 200-400. Regardless, we need an upgrade to the 300mm F4 and the 80-400. I’d welcome a 80-400 with nano coating, improved focus and VRII.

    • D800_is_finally_here

      Even with 4 ED, It really cannot cost more than US$2399 MSRP right?

      Look at it this way, the better made the lens is, the more likely it is to survive 2 more sensor generations (D5/D6) before the next iteration of the lens arrives. The 7 ED design of the 70-200VR2 made sure it is the only one in the trinity series that survive the 36MP D800 sensor slaughter intact. 24-70 is not as stellar and 14-24 even more affected.

      With only 1 ED it is NOT likely to survive the D800 36MP sensor at 400mm , perhaps even after stopped down, and D800 is a current generation sensor tech.

      If Nikon really did re-design the lens, it is either for
      1) adding the 100-300 f/4 VR for the high end, or,
      2) reduce the price to cater to the “budget” D600 crowd.

      Personally I don’t want to add a 1.4X TC to the equation. I much prefer a single barrel solution.

  • longzoom

    Come on, gentlemen. Internal focusing meens 400mm at infinity only, for such the lens. In everyday use it’ll be 300-350mm, depends on how remote your object is.

  • Todd

    Another patent?!!

    Leaving for Alaska in a week and really wished I had the 80-400mm replacement in hand. Obviously do not. Regardless, when the first patent announcement came out a year ago I figured we may see it by now. Soooo by seeing this new patent announcement I must figure we are even more delayed now? Huh…

  • MB

    The patent describes cheap (single ED) and most likely crappy consumer telephoto zoom lens.
    This maybe 70-300 replacement but actual lens construction would probably be better than this described in the patent application.

  • Melollevo

    This lens will be priced $1000. It will be a great combo with the D600 + 24-85 VR. Add the 28 1.8, 50 1.8 and 85 1.8 primes, and you have a fantastic team not too costly!

    • Melollevo

      Also will be good with the D7000/D7100/D400 with the 16-85, and 35 and 85 1.8 primes.

    • Jim

      Do you want just to document a scene or do you want a great and sharp photograph? in the first case a bridge camera will do! …unless you’re out for looking like a pro.

  • C. Norris

    Not many people want this lens Nikon. Instead, why don’t you update the DX 18-105 and put a metal mount and distance scale on it? The 18-135 and 18-55 also need updates.. please do those first. Thank you!

    • Sebastian

      Yes! We need more boring mid-range consumer zooms. There are only, like, 10 plus what third-party manufacturers offer. Let’s have an 18-150 and a 20-135 as well.
      I think the guys that are developing the DX wide primes have some time on their hands so let’s take them off that useless task and have’m do more 18-xxx 3.5-5.6 zooms.
      Also, who needs tele lenses anyway? You can just go a few steps closer.

  • RRRoger

    The 80-400 was my most used lens till I got my 28-300
    A new AF-S design might put it back at first place.

  • Ralph

    I hope the replacement is a lot better than the pile of crap it’s rumored to replace. I hated this lens the moment I first used it, I was glad to recently sell it on. I hate the old lens with a passion.

  • JD

    Don’t care much about this lens. I have the Sigma 150-500 OS and it is sharp enough, at least at f/8. The problem with the Nikon 80-400 is that it’s still too short for bird photography, which is what I use the 500mm for. Not a big difference, but I’ve compared the two, and the Sigma is just more useful all around for this purpose. Nikon should have just gone to a longer range lens, rather than updating this one. If they produced a similar focal range lens as the Sigma, say 200-500mm, around $2000, it would be a big seller with those who can’t afford the primes.

  • Pablo Ricasso

    How big does the element need be for a 500 5.6?

    • Sebastian

      to first order,
      500 mm / 5.6 = 89 mm.

  • Pablo Ricasso

    So that’s why nobody makes one. I suppose they could rig up something to grind one element that is more than 86 mm and give it a filter drawer and still be light and inexpensive. How many people wouldn’t buy one if it was 1500 with vr?

    • Sebastian

      I don’t get it. An 89 mm element will only be slightly more expensive than an 86 mm one. What’s so magic about 86?

  • Pablo Ricasso

    The last filter size before 95, 105, 112…

    Sigma and Tamron used the 86 size on some xx – 500 lenses that you can afford, but I can’t think of one affordable lens that needs a 95 filter.

  • Back to top