Feedback on latest Nikon 80-400 VR

merv

merv

Suspended / Banned
Messages
1,118
Name
Mervyn
Edit My Images
Yes
Just shot planes yesterday with my new 80-400 and feel far too many are soft at 400mm. Even at 1/1000 sec I'm not too happy with image quality. Lovely bright day for Newcsastle airshow. Shorter focal lengths seem OK but I feel my 200-400 gave better results. You'll probably say of course it would have as you get what you pay for.
I'm sure I would have got better results with a 300/400 prime but then you have no flexibility.
Anybody any experience with this new 80-400 lens for aircraft, in fact for anything?
merv
 
that's interesting, I thought that the new AF-S 80 400mm VR was very very good - according to internet reviews anyway

be interesting to follow this thread
 
BillN_33 said:
that's interesting, I thought that the new AF-S 80 400mm VR was very very good - according to internet reviews anyway

be interesting to follow this thread
Click to expand...
Likewise, couple of guys I know have raved about the new AFS version,be good to read other opinions from people who own this lens.
 
Think Chris Wilson has one and finds it great :)
 
What camera are you using, i have had 'soft image' issues since i got a D7100 (24mp)..however when using the same lenses on my D300 they are pin sharp......it has been mention that lenses are now outperforming the cameras with larger sensors...however, i just changed my monitor and found that i now seem to get the clarity back in images taken with the 7100.
 
gramps said:
Think Chris Wilson has one and finds it great :)
Click to expand...
Hi Merv - Gramps is right I do have one.
I have to say I'm very impressed with it - it's not as good as my 400 2.8 (pre-vr model) but it's lighter, more compact, more versatile and considerably cheaper.
At the risk of sounding like a spoilt brat I keep the 2.8 for occasional use and use the 80-400 considerably more frequently.
To get to your point (eventually!), I find it pretty sharp at all focal lengths including 400, it just needs stopping down a little to be really good.
I guess I could replace both with a 200-400 but my 2.8 gets used for early morning ospreys and BSB and the 80-400 is just so damn good the rest of the time.

I use it with a D3x and D800 and I'm sure it's built to work with high mp cameras.

That probably doesn't help much tho........but good luck with it.

cheers, cw
 
Not had any problems with mine on either the D300 or the D7100, got some cracking peregine in flight pics at a local display last weekend too.
It did take me a couple of times out to get used to it, but been very oleased with the results so far
 
Last edited:
I am using a Nikon D4. Tried it on ducks on the local pond this morning and seems fine at 400mm. Maybe I'm just not good at planes!
 
Chris that's a profound observation.....that ducks are slower than planes:clap:
I think what I am saying is that if the planes stood still they would be sharp too! Sadly that cannot be.
I know I am too quick to condemn and don't give time to get used to a lens. I feel that I got better results with the 200-400 which i suppose makes sense as its twice the price but I felt the 200mm min focal length was a bit restrictive. Also it was a monster to lug around all day. I sold it for £3100 before purchasing the latest 80-400 on the strength of all the good reports about it.
Wonder whats its like with the 1.4TCII?
Quack quack!
Thanks Chris for your interest
merv:ty:
 
Sorry Merv - not being too helpful but I just couldn't resist!
I guess that as with most things in life the 80-400 is a compromise - it might just be that it's not too great for plane shots.
Thinking about it I haven't had bad results using it for birds in flight - but it isn't the fastest to lock focus.
Guess that could be a similar problem to yours.

Quack and indeed quack!

Fingers crossed mate

cheers, cw
 
I'm quite impressed with mine Merv. Ive been shooting more and more Superbikes with it instead of lugging the 300 f2.8 and 70-200 about. Its obviously not as good as either as those 2 lenses.
Mine seems to struggle if the object I'm focusing on is very small in the viewfinder, it gets very jittery far more than the 300 does.
 
Mine is quite sharp at 400mm wide open but stopping down to f6.3 or f7.1 adds a little more detail. I've come from a Sony background where I had the silver 70-400mm G which was a class leader when it came out. I'm not sure which is the better of the two but it's very close - the Nikon is a fine lens. I've shot some pretty good in-flight dragonflies with it. All shots in this set were taken with it mounted on a D7100 - I used a 20mm extension tube for the damselfly close-ups
http://www.ukdragonflies.com/index.php?topic=3402.0
Note: click on each image for sharper original.
 
Last edited:
No Chris thats fine I can take a joke, I know you're trying to be helpful and I appreciate that.
Brilliant shots Mike superbly sharp. As Graham says his struggles if the subject is small in the viewfinder. I think that probably sums it up. It was where I was at full stretch at 400mm and the planes were still small in the viewfinder that I got the poorest results. Also compressed heat haze over a long distance doesn't help. This was made worse by having to crop to make the images larger. To go back to my slow moving ducks they were very sharp at 400mm but of course they filled the frame. Also much closer plane shots, say at 400mm but filling the viewfinder were much better. Must have a go at birds in flight
Thanks guys
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top