< ! --Digital window verification 001 -->

Nikkor AF 80-400mm f/4.5-5.6D vs. AF-S 80-400mm f/4.5-5.6G specifications comparison

Here is a quick comparison between the old and new Nikkor AF 80-400mm f/4.5-5.6 lenses based on the specifications listed on Nikon's website:

Nikon-AF-VR-Zoom-NIKKOR-80-400mm-f4.5-5.6D-ED-lens Nikkor-AF-S-80-400mm-f4.5-5.6G-ED-VR
Nikkor-80-400mm-f4.5-5.6D-ED Nikkor 80-400mm f4.5-5.6G ED VR lens design
 Nikkor lens  AF 80-400mm
f/4.5-5.6D ED VR
 AF-S 80-400mm
f/4.5-5.6G ED VR
Focal Length Range 80-400mm 80-400mm
Zoom Ratio 5x 5x
Max Aperture f/4.5-5.6 f/4.5-5.6
Min Aperture f/32 f/32-40
Max Angle of View (DX) 20° 20°
Min Angle of View (DX
Max Angle of View (FX) 30°10' 30°10'
Min Angle of View (FX) 6°10' 6°10'
Max Reproduction Ratio 0.42x 0.2x
Lens Elements 17 20
Lens Groups 11 12
Compatible Format(s) FX
DX
FX in DX Crop Mode
35mm Film
FX
DX
FX in DX Crop Mode
35mm Film
Vibration Reduction Yes Yes
Diaphragm Blades 9 9
Nano Crystal Coat -- Yes
ED Glass Elements 3 4
Aspherical Elements -- --
Super Integrated Coating Yes Yes
AF-S (Silent Wave Motor) -- Yes
Internal Focusing -- Yes
Minimum Focus Distance 7.5ft.(2.3m) 5.74ft.(1.75m)
Close Range Correction -- --
Focus Mode Auto
Manual
Auto
Manual
Auto/Manual
Rear Focusing -- --
Filter Size 77mm 77mm
Accepts Filter Type Screw-on Screw-on
Teleconverter Use no (source) yes
Dimensions 3.6x6.7in. (Diameter x Length)
91x171mm (Diameter x Length)
3.8x8.0in. (Diameter x Length)
95.5x203mm (Diameter x Length)
Weight 47oz.(1360g) 56oz.(1570g) incl. tripod collar
 Price $1,348 after rebate $2,696.95

The interesting part comes when we compare the MTF chart with other Nikon lenses with a similar focal length range - the new Nikkor AF-S 80-400mm f/4.5-5.6G has a very good (if not the best) MTF diagram:

Nikkor-80-400mm-f4.5-5.6G-ED-VR-lens-MTF-chart

Nikkor AF-S 80-400mm f/4.5-5.6G (new version)

Nikon-AF-S-NIKKOR-70-200mm-f2.8G-ED-VR-II-MTF-chart

Nikkor AF-S 70-200mm f/2.8G ED VR II

Nikon-AF-S-NIKKOR-70-200mm-f4G-ED-VR-MTF-chart

Nikkor AF-S 70-200mm f/4G ED VR

Nikon-AF-S-VR-Zoom-Nikkor-70-300mm-f4.5-5.6G-IF-ED-MTF-chart

Nikkor AF-S 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6G IF-ED VR

AF VR Zoom-Nikkor 80-400mm f4.5-5.6D ED MTF charts

Nikkor AF 80-400mm f/4.5-5.6D ED VR (old version)

Update - How to read the MTF chart from Nikon's website:

MTF (Modulation Transfer Function) is one of the measurements that evaluate a lens' performance; it shows contrast reproducibility of the lens using characteristic spatial frequencies. Spatial frequencies indicate the number of lines per mm.

In the MTF chart of this website, the horizontal axis is in millimeters and shows the distance from the center of the image toward the edges, and contrast value (highest value is 1) is shown in the vertical axis, with fixed spatial frequencies of 10 lines/mm and 30 lines/mm.

The MTF chart for each lens is based on the value at the maximum aperture of the lens; the red line shows the spatial frequency of 10 lines/mm and the blue line, 30 lines/mm.

In the off-axis field, contrast reproducibility of the lens for sagittal direction and meridional direction varies with astigmatic affection. The path of 10 lines/mm indicates the contrast reproducibility of the lens (the higher and straighter is better). The higher and straighter the 30 lines/mm-path is, the higher the resolution of the lens.

Note that the lens performance can not be measured only with MTF chart. Softening or blurring of color also governs measurement.

This entry was posted in Nikon Lenses and tagged . Bookmark the permalink. Trackbacks are closed, but you can post a comment.
  • affinityseattle

    Question is (probably not even close), is the 70-200 2.8 with 2x slapped on close to the sharpness of this 80-400?

    • http://www.facebook.com/de.mentia.75 De Mentia

      I have the 70-200 f/2.8 and the TC20EIII. I love the sharpness of the 70-200 but it degrades noticeably with the TC, at least if you pixel peep. This looks like like a very good, but a bit slow tele.

      • Brian

        Isn’t your 70-200 with 2.0 tele just as slow?

        • Global

          The 70-200VRII with 2xTCIII is still extremely sharp — you could use it as a 400mm if you want .. the reason I bought a 2xTCIII! Fast enough for slow moving subjects with a D700…. probably feels a lot slower on lesser cameras.

          But why not just get a 50-500/OS Sigma, if you want range at the expense of brightness and speed… for half the cost of the 80-400VRII.

          • JeesusChrystler

            Build quality, AF speed, sharpness, durability, *and* future compatibility, my friend.

            • JeesusChrystler

              Also, this is probably significantly lighter, and less unwieldy.

          • neversink

            Don’t get the Sigma because:

            1 – the Sigma is soft between 400 and 500 and elsewhere
            2 – the Sigmas have a terrible QC issue when it comes to failure of their AF mechanisms. Not great when you are in the middle of a Safari, as happened to me, and the lens stopped auto focusing.
            3. – Bokeh is hard and ugly
            4. – Build is not as good as Nikon.

            • catinhat

              This is a generalized statement that can’t be applied without qualifications. It is about the same as saying that ALL D800s have lousy AF and are worthless with fast primes.
              have used a lot of SIgmas and many have been as good as Nikons if not better. The bokeh is also not bad across the board, in fact some Sigmas have wonderful bokeh. None ever failed on me.

            • neversink

              NO!!!! It is not a generalized statement. Just do a google search on complaints about the failure of the AF on the 150-500. Be my guest. You will find repeated complaints by people who have had their autofocus fixed not once, but many times, due repeated failures. People on this site are always mentioning the failure of AF on Sigma.
              And I am sorry. You must be blind, but every Sigma I have used or tested seems to have harsh and ugly bokeh.
              But enjoy your inferior optics if you choose. If you want third party, go with Zeiss otherwise stick with Nikon.

        • neversink

          Nope!!!! I said it above. “On my D4, auto focusing was just as fast with the TC as without the TC.”

          • Brian

            Well then so should the 80-400

            • neversink

              Maybe, maybe not. I haven’t tried one out yet, in order to compare. Have you? I still won’t buy this lens but am curious.

      • Jim Southey

        No it doesn’t degrade noticeably even on pixel-peep level, I have the same 70-200 + TC20E III combo and it certainly doesn’t in my case. But don’t take my word for it, plenty of proof on the Web from others.

        http://photographylife.com/reviews/nikon-tc-20e-iii

        • bossa

          I bought a TC20-EII for use with my 70-200 VRII and couldn’t get it back to the dealer fast enough. On *low-res* cameras of 12 to 16MP that combo may be fine but definitely not on a D800E.

          • Picko Rossini

            Bossa, we’re not talking about TC20 EII but the TC20E III.

            The difference between the two is huge. If you own D800E and 70-200 VRII the only 2x TC to go for is the Nikon TC20E III. This combo on the 800/800E is a marriage made in heaven.

            • Ronald Patterson

              @Pico….+1
              Couldn’t agree with you more.

      • neversink

        No degradation for me and I use that combo all the time.

    • JeesusChrystler

      Question is, can the 80-400 shoot at 70-200 near f/2.8?

      • affinityseattle

        It’s a 4.5-5.6 lens… so no it can’t shoot at 2.8

        • neversink

          He was being cynical, tongue and cheek, humorous — but he was not being serious….

          • affinityseattle

            I didn’t see no smily face. busted.

            • neversink

              ;–}

      • preston

        Actually, that’s only a question if you’re a douchebag.

    • neversink

      I haven’t touched this new 80-400 yet so have no idea. However, my 70-200 f/ 2.8 with the TC20EIII is tack sharp. I have used it in shoots in low light. On my D4, auto focusing was just as fast with the TC as without the TC. And my editor was very pleased with my hockey shots taken at MSG.

  • dond

    1st

  • dond

    Based on the MTF, I will probable have it.

    • Chris Z.

      You’re buying a lens “based on MTF” ??
      Bravo.

      • tengris

        Me too. Based on the MTFs for the old one, I wouldn’t have bought it. Based on my results, it would have been a good idea to go for the AF-S 300mm f/4 directly without that sidestep. Although the old AF 80-400 wasn’t a bad lens. The Sigma was much bulkier and heavier for an even performance. Based on the estimated retail price I will stay with the AF-S 300 and be happy.

  • vFunct

    Yes but you have to compare the MTF for the other lenses at F4.5-F5.6.

    The F2.8 lenses are going to be MUCH sharper when stopped down.

    • asdf

      200/5.6 is not NEARLY the same as 400/5.6.

      If you really want to compare the 70-200/2.8 to this lens, then put a 2x TC on the 70-200 and shoot it wide open. I think you’ll find that the new 80-400 wipes the floor with the 70-200 + 2x TC combo, seeing as how close the MTF charts are for the bare lenses, both wide open.

      • garbo pilich

        “I think you’ll find that the new 80-400 wipes the floor with the 70-200 + 2x TC combo…”

        Is this your educated guess or just a brain fart after a rough night out?

        You’ve mistaken this site for dpreview.com…plenty of know-it-alls over there waiting for people like you to join them.

      • desmo

        not true
        if you use Nikon’s Tc

    • Andrew

      Probably, but that’s still to be seen and confirmed following the lens review.

      Let’s wait fro few more weeks…

  • mauro_morando

    Does it have (more) focus btrathing? It focus nearer (5.74 vs. 7.5ft) with a smaller reproduction ratio (0.2x vs. 0.52x).

    • qwer

      most likely yes, since it looks like it doesn’t change length while zooming – this constrained length would result in increased focus breathing, but IMO would be well worth it for a more compact, better physical design

      • Global

        Yay! That means that Nikon finally created a 70(80)-200(400)mm that actually reaches 200mm at close focus!! =P

        • desmo

          thats not really the point of any of these lenses,
          there not advertised as Macro,
          nor are they intended to be,
          they’re 200 or 400 as appropriate when used as telephoto’s

          so enuf with your constant heavy breathing
          lol

          • peterw

            there is nothing wrong wanting a lens to be even slightly more versatile.
            1:2 would be very nice for larger dragonflies and butterflies.
            the lens may be a bit heavy to take a Kenko ring.
            (yuk, Kenko. Anybody a spare TC20 EII from which I can kick out the glass?).
            this would be the lens to buy, for Tanzania, Kenia, Botswana, …

      • Andre

        The lens incorporates internal focusing, not internal zoomig, so it actually does extend considerably while zooming. That’s why it features a zoom-lock button at 80mm position.

        • http://twitter.com/_thelonius_ christopher smith

          where are you getting this information? i have seen nothing about this detail and it is important in making my decision about this lens. i don’t see a zoom lock in the photos. am i missing it or is there something written in the specs?

        • Josh Hamilton

          Andre, you’re nothing but a cheap speculator trying to confuse others.
          The lens zooms internally, and there is no “zoom-lock” button.
          Now go away and play in your corner of the room.

          • Zaphod

            It looks very much that it is a non internal zoom. But there is no specs of different length. But there is not for the older one either.

            • http://twitter.com/_thelonius_ christopher smith

              based on looks alone id say it is internal zoom. it looks like a fatter 70-200 but looks can be deceiving.

            • Zaphod

              From cyberphoto.se “Lås för objektivindrag (när
              objektivhuset är komprimerat vid 80 mm-läge) förhindrar att
              objektivhuset ‘kryper’, d.v.s. fälls ut genom sin vikt när objektivet
              inte används.” There is a lock that stops the gravity to drag out the front of the lens. :-(

            • Ginga Ross

              @Zaphod…pure speculation on that Web site, nothing less nothing more.

          • JakeB

            +1

          • JakeB

            +1

        • Pablo Ricasso

          @Andre…no it doesn’t. The lens zooms internally and it certainly doesn’t have 80mm lock button.

          • desmo

            Pablo
            last time I checked the new 80-400 is an external zoom lens

    • AlexV

      For this reason I’ve some doubt that the 400mm will be narrow than the value 400mm like the newest 70-200mm f/2.8 VRII has 200mm shorter focal than the previous version at some distance.

    • tell the truth

      The Can Not 100 400 ,, creates GAIL WARNINGS with its push pull design !! Nikon may make a slight puff !!

  • Arkasai

    Might want to include the Canon 100-400mm MTF as well for reference.

    http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/consumer/products/cameras/ef_lens_lineup/ef_100_400mm_f_4_5_5_6l_is_usm

    • Pablo Ricasso

      Really, Sherlock?
      Go away…you troll.

      • desmo

        his point would be valid except,

        you have to understand

        Nikon and Canon calibrate their tests differently,
        so you can’t compare one to the other,
        it’s kinda apples to oranges.
        those charts only work within the brand,

        unfortunately there aren’t any good third party results to compare across Brand lines

        • Davide Archetti

          There are:

          http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=113&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=625&CameraComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

          Consider that the Nikon lenses are tested on a camera with significantly higher pixel density

          Davide

          • Davide Archetti

            PS: that is the previous 80-400, new one not available yet

          • desmo

            That’s not really an MTF measurement
            it is someone shooting a test target,
            you identified one of several variables(inconsistencies)
            that are involved
            not only different camera,
            but operator inputs,
            focus accuracy, lighting,
            is the camera really square to the target, etc
            the value of the Nikon MTF is a measured test done by engineers,
            it’s not the whole picture,
            it’s only a predicter,
            but its consistent and not subject to as many operator errors or personal interpretation

        • Spy Black

          In spite of the differences, the Nikon still looks better.

    • Global

      Can you compare MTF across systems and sensor sizes? I thought that wasn’t 1:1.

    • Aldo

      not a very accurate comparison across brands fyi.

    • Guest

      Nice to see a less expensive lens with a worse MTF chart (by a long shot). Canon and Sony fill the chart with data for the lens wide open and for the lens at f8. Nikon and Sigma populate their charts for the lens wide open. For Canon, ignore the blue lines, for f8, when comparing to Nikon or Sigma. According to the charts, I see the lenses now stack up like this, The new Nikon on top, followed by the Sony, then further below, Canon, Sigma, and the current older Nikon in that order but packed closer together. The new Sony release will probably be slightly better than the current Sony but that chart’s not up yet.

      Except for the Sigma whose price is a bit low, there’s a pretty good relationship between the price and the MTF chart.

      • tell the truth

        Rolling !!! Sigma makes 2 great lenses ,, and Alot of great Door Stops !!

    • An anonimous Photographer

      Arkasai, you’re absolutely right that it would be a good idea if the Canon would fit on a Nikon camera. But, and that might be a surprise to you, it doesn’t.

      • tell the truth

        The fact Can Not lenses do not fit Nikon ,,,,, is a GREAT thing !!!!

    • tell the truth

      I looked at the Can Not MTF charts,, well all I can say is it CAN NOT , but it lives up to its name ! Like normal .

    • jake

      it is an old lens and noone really cares about it any more.

      even though I might get the 5D3 in addition to my D800/D800E and D600 , I am not and most of Canon guys also not even remotely interested in the 15year old Canon lens.

      I think you should compare this new 2600USD Nikon lens to the similar Sony SAL70-400G2 lens.

      I think the Sony 70-400G is the current king of light weight 400mm zoom but the new Nikon might be able to overthrone it, and I’m personally very interested in the Sony 70400G vs Nikon 80-400VR2.

      • http://davidhdennis.com/ David H Dennis

        Would you buy a new camera body just to be able to use the Sony lens, or is there some way to use them with Nikon bodies?

        D

  • Global

    Can you please provide a summary of what do the MTF chart lines mean? Its not enough to provide these charts to consumers — no one ever explains each line. You will lose 95% of the crowd if you dont! ;-)

    • ISOvr

      On that note,.. just a request, but whenever mentioning VR, it might be useful to say the version of VR. In the past, it wasn’t so complicated — but these days, there is a HUGE difference between VR1 & VR3. D3S and D4 owners know that 2 stops of brightness is to die for. Likewise, 2 stops difference in VR is note-worthy. You wouldn’t ignore it in ISO comparisons for a Camera comparison, so it should be equally valid in a Lens comparison. Just a thought.

    • desmo

      go to Nikon Imaging site
      they explain it

      red is contrast
      blue is resolution
      higher the better.

      what they don’t explain is the gap or difference between red and red dotted
      or blue and blue dotted indicates diffraction,
      so high blue lines are hi res, but if they differ between solid and dotted,
      the hi res is tempered by diffraction.
      so best is high and tight

      • bossa

        It’s my understanding that the solid and dotted lines represent the Sagittal and Meridional measurements and this measures astigmatism, not diffraction. If the lines are far apart lenses tend to produce sharp lines in one direction and soft in the other. You get a kind of uneasy feeling when looking at shots taken with such lenses because you tend to be trying to focus the OOF bits of the image. For instance, a twig going in one direction can be pin sharp but another, overlapping twig going in another direction can be very soft. The closer the lines the better.

        It’s unfortunate that all the MTF scores are for different apertures too as I would imagine the 70-200 F2.8 VRII giving better results at f/4.

      • http://nikonrumors.com/ Nikon Rumors

        How to read the MTF chart

        MTF (Modulation Transfer Function) is one of the measurements that evaluate a lens’ performance; it shows contrast reproducibility of the lens using characteristic spatial frequencies. Spatial frequencies indicate the number of lines per mm. In the MTF chart of this website, the horizontal axis is in millimeters and shows the distance from the center of the image toward the edges, and contrast value (highest value is 1) is shown in the vertical axis, with fixed spatial frequencies of 10 lines/mm and 30 lines/mm. The MTF chart for each lens is based on the value at the maximum aperture of the lens; the red line shows the spatial frequency of 10 lines/mm and the blue line, 30 lines/mm.
        In the off-axis field, contrast reproducibility of the lens for sagittal direction and meridional direction varies with astigmatic affection. The path of 10 lines/mm indicates the contrast reproducibility of the lens (the higher and straighter is better). The higher and straighter the 30 lines/mm-path is, the higher the resolution of the lens.
        Note that the lens performance can not be measured only with MTF chart. Softening or blurring of color also governs measurement.

        from Nikon’s website

    • grant torres

      The Mansurovs have a good interpretation of that 80-400 MTF.

    • Maji

      One of the best explanation of MTF Charts that I have read. http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2009/06/have-you-seen-my-acutance

      Very well written, humorous and explains the subject matter in layman’s terms.

  • Steven Georges

    AF-S AND IF focus is a huge and well overdue upgrade for this lens!

  • fred

    Is the new hood for this 80-400 just as huge as the old 80-400 hood?
    I haven’t seen it anywhere yet..
    Is the tripod foot included in price? K.Rockwell rekons it’s extra (like the 70-200 f4)….

    • Guest

      he is an idiot

      • Roscoe Kimberley

        So are you, but who really cares.

    • Andre

      The new lens uses a new petal-shaped HB-65 lens hood, which IS INCLUDED. It is somewhat smaller, but not drastically.

      • Andre

        And yes, the tripod foot is also included.

    • papundek

      You can see the HB-65 lens hood on nikon.com website, under the new 80-400mm lens accessories section.

      It’s petal shaped but only just, it could have as well been round like the one that came with the original 80-400mm lens. Strange looking but I’m sure it’s functional and will do a great job.

  • Franz

    400mm 5.6G ED VR now only a dream. However, a 300mm 4G ED VR with dedicated 1.5x converter would be nice.

    • http://twitter.com/_thelonius_ christopher smith

      why would they make a dedicated 1.5 for a low end lens when they have a 1.4 already?

  • Nawab

    Why, the new 80-400mm G lens is exactly double than the D lens? I thought G lenses cut costs

    • neversink

      Nikon needs to make up for their recent lousy quarterly report. Their financials were terrible.

    • Neopulse

      Well Kinda makes sense if the 70-200mm VRII costs about $2400. I think the price is quite reasonable myself.

  • Neogene

    In terms of aesthetics i prefer the old one.

    • Swade

      Because that is what you buy a lens for, of course.

    • tell the truth

      Neogene you made me LAUGH!! You are a for real BOZO !!!! So do just take Beautiful Pictures of the Lens,, OR DO YOU TAKE PICTURES WITH A LENS !!!!! HAHA This new Nikon Lens looks SWEEEEET !!

      • http://twitter.com/MariusWerner Marius Werner

        please stop screaming.. you make a fool out of your self..

  • neversink

    It also has one element made of “Super ED” glass. Whatever that is, it does sound good. Actually it sounds super duper!!!

    • Neopulse

      I think the Super ED Glass is their new Flourite lens technology, like the one that is in their 800mm prime (Sorry for the typos if there are any). And I seriously dislike that this is so expensive. Although it has amazing stats in comparison to the 70-200 VRII and previous model. If it was at $1999 I think this would be sold out in a heartbeat.

      • HotDuckZ

        super ED isn’t Fluorite glass.

  • tundra

    200-400mm on sale, i am buying this one, yeah!

  • ffong

    Tried the old 80-400 before on a DX camera. It was fun, effectively using an 600mm lens! I was photographing chess activities, and the focusing speed was very adequate for that job. The new one looks to be some significant improvement, but at 1.6 times the price new, it’s not for me. A used old 80-400 in good condition can be found for $800.

  • Neopulse

    Hoping for the FT-2 to come out. This coupled with it would be an inexpensive zoom combo.

  • anon

    does anyone know for sure if 2699 includes the tripod collar? I looked in the official write up, albeit very briefly, and in the list of supplied accessories and didn’t see one listed anywhere. Is this going to be a case like the 70-200 f4?

    Adding another 250 for that makes this lens a 3000 dollar rip-off. I’ll go get a sigma 120-300mm f2.8 os II when it’s released for 600 more and get 2.8 aperture if i want it. Yes i know sigma hasn’t always been so good, but if the new 120-300mm is on par with the new 35mm 1.4, Sigma could have a real winner that Nikon (and Canon) should watch out for.

    • http://loewald.com/ Tonio Loewald

      On adorama they make no mention of the tripod collar being included, nor is it listed as an accessory. I’d like to think that a $2700 lens would include a collar but maybe they’re taking a page for Olympus’s playbook ($800 lenses without hoods).

      • http://twitter.com/_thelonius_ christopher smith

        b&h clearly states it comes with a tripod collar

        • http://loewald.com/ Tonio Loewald

          Thanks for clearing that up. Makes sense — the collar looks kind of dinky to me.

          • http://twitter.com/_thelonius_ christopher smith

            yea i was concerned too so i checked…if i get this ill probably end up buying an aftermarket one anyway.

    • jake

      yes , it does have the same or similar type of tripod collar as on the 70-200f2.8VR2.
      and the 2699 price is Nikon’s official price and the real sells price will be a bit cheaper , I pre-order it and will pay 208000yen , I think roughly 2100USD.

  • Helvio

    The slight better specs do not justify this 2x price. Just for use TC and focusing a bit closer?? I prefer the old one.

  • http://twitter.com/hoodlum99 Stephen Hood

    This site did a nice comparison between the old and new lens.

    http://photographylife.com/nikon-80-400mm-f4-5-5-6g-vs-80-400mm-f4-5-5-6d

  • DGD

    I see an MTF chart for the 70-200 @ f2.8, the new lens @ f4.5 to 5.6, shouldn’t the 70-200 chart also be 70 @ 4.5 and 200 @ 5.6 for a fair comparison? Just asking. PS I shoot all Nikon glass.

    • iamlucky13

      For a true comparison, yes.

      However, Nikon only publishes the MTF charts for wide open, so we deal with the info we have.

      • jake

        how do you know that the 70-200VR2 is better at f5.6 than this new lens?

        have you already tried one?

        I may be able to try it on Monday but I am sure I am only allowed to shoot it inside of Nikon showroom here.

        • iamlucky13

          I don’t know which is better. All I said is the published MTF charts don’t give that info.

    • EverPhoto

      Yeah. I bet if you did that the 70-200 at 4.5-5.6 MTF would look better than the 80-400’s.

  • DaveyJ

    Pretty expensive. Unless a rebate comes into play I think these are not going to sell as well as Nikon would hope.

  • loki989

    I want more info on the “DR” lens elements. Dirt Resistant elements, an attempt to mitigate sensor dirt and oil? Neat.

  • rhlpetrus

    It looks like a killer lens! I may get one eventually (after a 14-28, a 24-70 and a few primes … ;-) )

  • mwaltari

    It really seems that with the new high-res cameras, Nikon is really improving it’s optical resolution as well. If these mid-class zooms are this good, I just can’t wait to see the f/2,8-lineup improvements in the future!

    • Bob

      Yes but everyday/main use lenses such as 17-50 2.8, 24-70 2.8 are still behind i.e no VR, older elements etc. Nikon are skirting the edges with their redesigns and not taking the plunge into the main market

      • Tim

        Yes totally agree. An example of DX: The 17-50 2.8 is outdated and overpriced. Sigma just released a 17-70 2.8 Macro OS from their ‘Contemporary’ Series. It has macro, OS (vr) 2.8 aperture, fluorite like elements and is cheap. What does Nikon have to compete with this new lens? Nothing. I am not a sigma fan, all my lenses are Nikon. But its like they are really dropping the ball recently. Companies like sigma are moving forward with quality and new designs and nikon are firing out incremental changes to fringe lenses

  • WalkaboutSean

    Has anyone compared this lens to the Sigma “Bigma” 50-500mm? The Bigma is half the price. I would also be interested to see the old 80-400 positioned against the Bigma.

    • RRo

      The Sigma 50-500mm Optically Stabilised (VR) is around 60% cheaper to buy. As for the nikon any improvement in quality etc you will have to justify the at least $1800 extra in price. I personally do not find it worth the extra money for a small difference in quality and one stop more. If it was like a $500 difference then yes, but the Nikon just too expensive.

  • tell the truth

    This Lens LOOOOOKS GREAT !!!!!!!!!!!! SWEEEET !!! THANK YOU NIKON !!!

  • Camaman

    The old one was big and this… 15% longer 10% heavier.
    An I am 10years older, 10% weaker…

    100% more expensive. I am not that big on self punishment as I was before.

    • http://loewald.com/ Tonio Loewald

      There’s a huge tension between all the positive attributes of FX DSLRs and size/convenience/price. It’s not clear which is going to come out on top in the long run — you could say Nikon has placed big bets on both ends of the spectrum (Nikon 1 and FX) and is letting the middle (DX) wither. I think Nikon 1 may turn out to have been a very smart move in hindsight, although goodness knows they could have picked more compelling lens options and designed better bodies from the start. If Nikon or Canon had released something like the OM-D EM-5 it would probably have been a gigantic hit and the death knell of DX, but Olympus is a lesser brand with financial credibility issues, so a lot of us went “wow, but…”.

      • jake

        well, Sony and Samsung already have something similar to the OM-D with a bit better sensor and if one of these gets the Sony 24.3m FX sensor , I think it would be a serious threat to Nikon Canon FX FF cameras , and we may see Nikon and maybe also Canon get serious on FF Mirrorless cameras.
        but until that happens Nikon won’t take mirrorless seriously, it is lame.

        • http://loewald.com/ Tonio Loewald

          Samsung has no credibility yet as a camera vendor (and its sensor is not superior to the OM-D’s as far as I know). Sony is hardly better than Olympus — it’s losing money like crazy and its product lines are body-heavy and lens-light, suggesting most of their customers buy one body with a kit lens and that’s about it. Sony is shipping an FX 24MP sensor in a $2800 fixed lens compact and a DSLT. they could clearly release an FX NEX still camera (they’ve released a video camera) but it would have ZERO lenses. Sony does however pretty much own the sensor market right now — if that’s making them money, maybe they should cut their losses in actual cameras.

          • Markus Arike

            You make zero sense. How could an OMD with a lousy EVF from Nikon mean the death knell for DX when an OMD isn’t even competitive with Nikon DX cameras?

            Nobody cares about your mirrorless toys unless they happen to be made by Fujifilm. And yes, the Sony NEX cameras have far better IQ than the any m43 camera.

            But once the D7100 (and Coolpix A) start shipping nobody is going to remember anything at all about the OMD except m43 fans.

            • http://loewald.com/ Tonio Loewald

              OM-D’s EVF isn’t “lousy”. The point is that if Nikon released a mirrorless system as good at the OM-D it would seriously dent DX whereas Olympus merely makes most people think “pretty nice, but … olympus”. (And this is because of Olympus’s long slide, not any one specific event.)

              @David: yeah a full frame NEX would be compelling with good lens support, but right now there are zero full frame NEX lenses and Sony already has three different lens mounts languishing with weak selections of lenses. I just don’t see it happening.

            • desmo

              Isn’t this a lens thread?

            • http://loewald.com/ Tonio Loewald

              This is Nikon rumors, I don’t think we are subject to thread police. It’s not like I am complaining about the D400.

          • http://davidhdennis.com/ David H Dennis

            From what I understand, the Sony RX1 (the FX sensor compact) is selling like hotcakes, relative to its price and availability. My friends at Electric Avenue, a high-volume Miami camera retailer, say they can’t keep it in stock.

            I tried it out at the Sony kiosk at Aventura Mall and was pretty impressed. I think it would be a fun thing to own, since my neck and arms are often sagging under the weight of my D4 and pro lenses.

            Unfortunately, even brisk sales of a super-low volume camera like RX1 can’t fund a massive conglomorate like Sony :(. They have to make something more mass market successful ….

            Seems to me the NEX would be more successful with high-end shooters (who would buy more lenses) if it had a more RX1 (or Fiji)-like control system. Reliance on menus seems to be a turn-off for a lot of people, including myself.

            D

  • Prune

    How does it compare to the 200-400 f4 (which I have) ?

  • shivaswrath

    omg, that MTF chart rivals my 7-200 VR2!!!

  • shivaswrath

    Kudos that they upped the lens ante given how many high megapixel dSLRS they are releasing now….

  • oliver garcia

    this is a must buy lens

  • Frank N. Blunt

    From Nikon Support on the 80-400

    Does the barrel expand on the new 80-400?

    Answer:
    The 80-400mm f/4.5-5.6G ED VR Lens has internal focusing. However, it does not have internal zoom. The lens barrel will expand.

    If
    you would like to dial us directly, we are open 8am – 12am EST, 7 days a
    week and it is a toll-free call at 1-800-Nikon US (1-800-645-6687).
    Reference #130308-000319

    Hope this information finds you well,
    Stephanie
    Nikon Customer Support

  • RealityCheck

    Kind of a silly comparison and/or realization..

    Nikon would not have built the new lens as an N series if it did not perform beyond the capabilities of the older non-N model.

    The only real ‘comparative’ assessment one could lodge is their preference for a manual aperture ring.. though one would have to give up AF and VR to use on a body that could not electronically control the aperture anyway.

  • Fritzimages

    If you preordered from B&H the lens is shipping now. Fritzimages.com

  • Goofy

    Shooting wildlife with my D800 and a 80-400mm 4.5-5.6D VR ED lens is remarkable.
    Using my D610 with a 70-200mm 2.8 or a 70-200 f/4 lens is just about the same. I rented the 2.8 and bought the F/4. Half price for the f/4 with the same results.

  • Back to top