The current 80-400mm lens focuses too slowly for me. I've tried it but currently am using 300mm f4 and adding 1.7 tele-converter occasionally. I've been hearing rumors for a year or more of a replacement. Anything new ? Thom Hogan listed it as 9 years old last time I looked.
Replacement 80-400mm ?
(10 posts) (7 voices)-
Posted 3 years ago #
-
In my mind the 80-400mm was the Nikkor that was the most in need of a replacement. Forget the 70-200 VR, the 17-35, the 28-70 or even the 85mm 1.4. 80-400 is a fantastic range and lets make it faster! The beast is nearly a decade old now! I thought it focused far too slow as well like the old 80-200mm ED push pull. Some guys on here love the old 80-400 VR though. I think it was Adamz that mentioned he shot with it for wildlife or airshows and said the speed was fine. A refresh would be fantastic I think. I bought a 1.7 teleconverter for my 70-200 already, but if a new 80-400 came out and it was opitcally sound I'd buy it.
Posted 3 years ago # -
This would be a great update, sales of the current version are probably gutted by the 70-300VR which is really quite good in its range and a little more than 1/3 the price...
Posted 3 years ago # -
kanuck said:
...lets make it faster!When you say faster, do you mean the AF speed or the f/5.6? I am in line, too, to buy the 80-400 successor (currently have a 70-300). However, if you make it optically faster, you will make it heavier. A full stop will double the weight. Is that really what we want? For those needing a zoom that goes to 400mm at f/4, the stellar 200-400 already exists. My vote would be for f/5.6, improve the AF speed (AFS), add Nano-coat where it matters and possibly upgrade to VRII. I'll buy it.
Posted 3 years ago # -
I agree completely with all of the above comments. Faster focusing (AFS) is what I want. The 200-400 is too heavy for me to hand hold, although I understand a lot of people are stronger than I am. If they increase the speed of the glass it would add too much weight. Change to AFS and I'll buy it too. I've been waiting a very long time to buy it. Thom Hogan did a survey on what lenses people wanted and this lens was fairly far down on their lists, but I don't understand that. ( I didn't check his site that week and didn't get to vote )
Posted 3 years ago # -
kanuck said:
In my mind the 80-400mm was the Nikkor that was the most in need of a replacement. Forget the 70-200 VR, the 17-35, the 28-70 or even the 85mm 1.4. 80-400 is a fantastic range and lets make it faster! The beast is nearly a decade old now!Yup, the 80-400mm and the 300mm F4 AF-S are both old designs that could use an update, but the 85mm F1.4 is even older (20+ year old design dating back to the AI-S model IIRC) and it is likely that Nikon sells more of them than telephoto lenses. For example, I saw some sales figures for last year and Nikon sells less than 200 of the 300mm F4 AF-S a month, world wide! The other pro lenses (24-70 F2.8), more than 1000!
Recently a photographer did a poll on their website (with at least a few thousand voters) and less than 10% wanted to see an update for the 80-400mm VR, or 300mm F4 AF-S. That kind of gives you an idea of why Nikon has not updated those kind of lenses, not enough buyers care for them to spend the R&D on it.
Posted 3 years ago # -
to be honest with You guys, the only thing that annoys me in 80-400 is the lack of using the focus ring in AF mode, apart from this it's excellent piece of glass - much, much better than 70-300vr and if You know it's limits the speed is not an issue (however, I wouldn't mind to see VRII, nano coating, AF-S and f4.8 at the long end :D, or a new 5.6 500/600mm lens :))
Posted 3 years ago # -
Excellent posts here and you guys are right the release of the 70-300mm VR I think pushed any new refresh of the 80-400mm VR back a few years if at all. I was referring to the AFS Recent Convert, but the VR on it is fine. Alan Fischer your right you could probably add at least another 1/2 lb if the glass was faster. One extra asperical element, and one or even two more ED glass elements to the current design and boom can you say extra weight and very high price tag? The new 200-400 will also possibly kill any new refresh as well. Too bad, 80-400mm with VR is sooooo useful...
Posted 3 years ago # -
I think there are separate markets for a $2000. 80-400mm lens and an $7500. 200-400mm lens that weighs twice as much and costs almost 3 times as much. Also some people would choose to buy Canon just because they have the very good 100-400mm and 7D body and all their comparable lenses are less expensive.
Posted 3 years ago # -
The 80-400 is a fantastic range and I have loved every time I shot with one... Although I can see some improvements that need to be made...
Posted 3 years ago #
Reply
You must log in to post.
