I just impulsively picked up a used 80-400Vr for a great price -- $600. No joke! In great shape with hood and caps, but no box or paperwork. I thought I might keep it as opposed to my 70-300VR. I've taken a FEW shots with it and images are pretty damn sharp. For this amazing price, I figured I could resell later and make a few bones. Or keep and enjoy. Has anyone used this lens extensively with D3s/D3x/D600/D800 ? I find the focus to be not near as slow as others have suggested. Maybe the D800 makes the difference. Anyway, give me your thoughts on it please. Money is always an issue and need to sell one of my "cheap" zooms....
Any experience with 80-400VR on newer FF?
(16 posts) (7 voices)-
Posted 7 months ago #
-
was using it on d3s and liked it a lot, the only drawback which made me sell it was the lack of manual override. apart from that excellent sharpness for it's price. if You wanna use it on tripod get kirk replacement collar.
Posted 7 months ago # -
Keep your 70-300VR! I sure wouldn't dump that for the 80-400! Your problem though could be that the 70-300 is better on the D7000 or D300....Nikon NEEDS to update this lens!
Posted 7 months ago # -
Large size: http://www.flickr.com/photos/fantinesfotos/7415833014/sizes/o/in/set-72157629918001642/
D4, 80-400mm f/4.5-5.6 VR Nikkor 1/1000 sec, f/11, ISO 800. Vehicle speed about 75 mph. My opinion...works very well in these situations. At 2000px size..cannot tell the difference between it and the 400mm f/2.8 VRII Nikkor...which is demonstrated in many of the other photos on Flickr.
Posted 6 months ago # -
DaveyJ said:
Keep your 70-300VR! I sure wouldn't dump that for the 80-400! Your problem though could be that the 70-300 is better on the D7000 or D300....Nikon NEEDS to update this lens!I don't quite understand the statement. you mean, the 70-300 is a better crop sensor lens than it is a FF lens? And you think it has better sharpness, contrast, and flare control against the 80-400? Hard for me to believe but you may be right. Need to test when I get time
Posted 6 months ago # -
I have had both lens. The 80-400 will blow away the 70-300; no comaparison with image quality.
The only draw back to the 80-400 is it is a little slower on the auto focus. That is a small price to pay for better images and a longer focal lenght.
Posted 6 months ago # -
I am baffled by the folks who suggest the 80-400mm VR is not a good lens. Was the first version a bad apple or am I missing something.
Here is a quote and link about this lens.
"The Nikkor AF 80-400mm f/4.5-5.6D ED VR is a decent performer but it also comes with a few glitches. Optically the lens shows a very good but not exceptional resolution characteristic except at 400mm at wide-open aperture where the borders could be a little better. Vignetting is basically non-existing on an APS-C DSLR and the level of distortions is quite low. CAs are an issue at 80mm and 400mm, less so in between Generally the build quality is pretty good but regarding the price class of the lens Nikon should have used a little less plastic and a better tripod collar. The AF performance is acceptable on the D200 but don't expect it to be a speed daemon in this respect."http://www.photozone.de/Reviews/253-nikkor-af-80-400mm-f45-56-ed-vr-d-review--lab-test-report
As I rarely shoot long lenses wide open because I want a little DOF, the issues which are the weakness of the lens are irrelevant for me. Maybe I just lucked out when I purchased this a few years ago used for about $1100.
Posted 6 months ago # -
I took that lens and shot it on a D90 in South America for two weeks. Was very pleased with the results. Yes, it does focus slowly and yes it does hunt a little (and the AF is pretty loud), but I got a lot of great images throughout the focal range. For $600 that's a no-brainer.
Posted 6 months ago # -
Yur talking about a comsumer lens vs a pro lens.
Posted 6 months ago # -
Nikon considers the 80-400 a Pro lens... but old. Requires the body motor to drive the AF. Will not AF on a D5100 or a body requiring AF-S or AF-I lenses.
Posted 6 months ago # -
I also spent 3 weeks in South Africa this summer. I was in a game park performing an inventory of animals as a volunteer. We were on foot in often rough terrain so while we were allowed to bring camera gear, weight, size and durability were issues. I own a 70-200 f/2.8 with 1.4 and 1.7 TC but bought an 80-400 to compare before I left. After extensive tripod and handheld comparison of the two set ups, I decided that at F/8 to F/11 there was little difference between the two when handheld in terms of overall image quality at 300mm - 340mm (70-200 with 1.4 or 1.7 TC), and not much more difference on a tripod, plus my 80-400 goes to, well, 400mm. At wider apertures the 70-200 (with either TC) out performed the 80-400 at comparable FL, but I would be shooting mostly in mid day sun, so I was hopeful that f/8 would be fine. The 80-400 on my D800 slung on a CarrySpeed strap was also way smaller than the 70-200 with either TC, and a fair bit cheaper if I lost or damaged the gear. We had to cross numerous steps walled gulleys and I was "treed" by rhinos' twice - weight and size were issues (gear and animals!). Several 10-14K hikes with both set ups confirmed the 80-400 was the better choice for me on the expedition. The only downside was image quality wide open on the 80-400 (which falls off fast at apertures wider than f/8) and IQ at 200, without the TC on the 70-200. If I needed only 200 mm, I would have bought the 70-200, but I don't own a 2.0 TC and wanted the greater reach of the 80-400. Overall I was very happy that I brought the 80-400 because even a monopod proved impractical in the bush and the 80-400 performed well handheld at f/8 and 400mm. But if I had been in a vehicle where weight was less of an issue or I could have used a tripod, I would have preferred my 70-220 + TC.
Overall IQ from the 80400 is really very good and it focuses fast enough for me on my D800. Now that I am back home and don't foresee being chased by rhinos again any time soon, I plan on selling the 80-400 and keeping only the 70-200 (VR I, BTW), because it is a fantastic portrait lens and I have plenty of tripods and monopods to choose from for "regular hikes", and will be bringing the 70-200 with 1.4 TC and my Gitzo traveler to climb Mt Whitney and visit Yellowstone next year.
Posted 6 months ago # -
@Birdman: I make NO reference to crop sensors! The 70-300VR has a much better reputation for faster focusing than the 80-400VR. I have more experience with both lens than many do. This has been mentioned so many times on Nikon Rumors that it isn't worth the time getting into all of this. I have never seen a SINGLE request to rebuild the present 70-300VR which is more recent anyhow. However the 80-400VR has had more requests to rebuild than almost any other lens on THIS website. I have had quite a few pros send me their letter they sent to NIKON USA.
Posted 6 months ago # -
My use of Nikon F5 with both the 70-300VR and 80-400VR was the single test that made me decide not to buy a 80-400VR and wait for the rebuilt lens. The 400mm range is greatly need on field weight glass and my limited use of 200-400 Nikkor also led to my conclusion not to go that way. Sigma sure has sold a lot of Bigmas but having tested that briefly I also decided against that for my use.
Posted 6 months ago # -
DaveyJ said:
@Birdman: I make NO reference to crop sensors! The 70-300VR has a much better reputation for faster focusing than the 80-400VR. I have more experience with both lens than many do. This has been mentioned so many times on Nikon Rumors that it isn't worth the time getting into all of this. I have never seen a SINGLE request to rebuild the present 70-300VR which is more recent anyhow. However the 80-400VR has had more requests to rebuild than almost any other lens on THIS website. I have had quite a few pros send me their letter they sent to NIKON USA.Okay just trying to clear up your statement. I paid very little for it and considered a great bargain on the *rare* occasions I need 300-400mm. I'm certain the 80-400 will outperform the 70-300VR above 200mm. At least, I hope my copy does. : ) thanks for input, and BTW -- my father's name is Davey. Needless to say, I value your opinion for that reason alone.
Posted 6 months ago # -
hawkdl2 said:
I also spent 3 weeks in South Africa this summer. I was in a game park performing an inventory of animals as a volunteer. We were on foot in often rough terrain so while we were allowed to bring camera gear, weight, size and durability were issues. I own a 70-200 f/2.8 with 1.4 and 1.7 TC but bought an 80-400 to compare before I left. After extensive tripod and handheld comparison of the two set ups, I decided that at F/8 to F/11 there was little difference between the two when handheld in terms of overall image quality at 300mm - 340mm (70-200 with 1.4 or 1.7 TC), and not much more difference on a tripod, plus my 80-400 goes to, well, 400mm. At wider apertures the 70-200 (with either TC) out performed the 80-400 at comparable FL, but I would be shooting mostly in mid day sun, so I was hopeful that f/8 would be fine. The 80-400 on my D800 slung on a CarrySpeed strap was also way smaller than the 70-200 with either TC, and a fair bit cheaper if I lost or damaged the gear. We had to cross numerous steps walled gulleys and I was "treed" by rhinos' twice - weight and size were issues (gear and animals!). Several 10-14K hikes with both set ups confirmed the 80-400 was the better choice for me on the expedition. The only downside was image quality wide open on the 80-400 (which falls off fast at apertures wider than f/8) and IQ at 200, without the TC on the 70-200. If I needed only 200 mm, I would have bought the 70-200, but I don't own a 2.0 TC and wanted the greater reach of the 80-400. Overall I was very happy that I brought the 80-400 because even a monopod proved impractical in the bush and the 80-400 performed well handheld at f/8 and 400mm. But if I had been in a vehicle where weight was less of an issue or I could have used a tripod, I would have preferred my 70-220 + TC.Overall IQ from the 80400 is really very good and it focuses fast enough for me on my D800. Now that I am back home and don't foresee being chased by rhinos again any time soon, I plan on selling the 80-400 and keeping only the 70-200 (VR I, BTW), because it is a fantastic portrait lens and I have plenty of tripods and monopods to choose from for "regular hikes", and will be bringing the 70-200 with 1.4 TC and my Gitzo traveler to climb Mt Whitney and visit Yellowstone next year.
Okay, so you're telling me obviously the 70-200 is better performer even with the TC, right? But...and this is a big one....did the 80-400 copy YOU USED have pretty good IQ at larger apertures than F/8.0? I will certainly NOT EVER use this as a portrait lens, but I would like to use in the F/5.6 range...
Posted 6 months ago # -
Yes, the 70-200, even with the TC, has better IQ than the 80-400, but at F/8-f/11 the difference, with TC on the 70-200, is not that significant. However, the 80-400's IQ drops off, IMO noticeably, at wider apertures than f/8, but it is still very useable, there is just a significant difference at these apertures between the two lens. I did not test apertures smaller than f/11.
If I needed a lens faster than f/8 at 300-400mm FL, I would use the 70-200 and TC. Unfortunately, that rig was too large and cumbersome to hand carry for hours in the African bush, so I made due with the 80-400 and tried to shoot at f/8.
Posted 6 months ago #
Reply
You must log in to post.
