Nikon 80-400 VR comments please

G

GRECIAN

Suspended / Banned
Messages
644
Name
Liam.
Edit My Images
Yes
I want a 70-200 VR MKII but the money just is not there.

I am considering a used Nikon 80-400 VR however i have been met with mixed reviews so looking for advice.

I want a tele to live on my D700 it will be used for Birds not so much BIF, general wildlife, Kite surfers and just to zoom in on static subjects further away
I have a 180mm f2.8 prime which i love but just want something longer.

Can anyone tell me would the Nikon 80-400 fit the bill if not what else should i be looking at for around £850 max?
 
80-400 is optically very good, the autofocus is slow, to say the least.
 
Very slow focusing and a bit soft wide open, I'm not sure how fast a kite surfer is, but it's not really suitable for moving objects. It's long overdue an overhaul.
 
Wouldn't the siggy 150 to 500 os, or the 50-500 non os be worth considering as well???, or a 70-200 vr with a 1.7 tc???
 
wilko said:
Wouldn't the siggy 150 to 500 os, or the 50-500 non os be worth considering as well???, or a 70-200 vr with a 1.7 tc???
Click to expand...

Hi
i was looking at the Sigma 150-500 but not sure how fast the AF is on that.
My budget will not stretch to a nikon 70-200 plus x1.7 extender, plus i hear this is not a good combo.
 
d3Karen said:
Very slow focusing and a bit soft wide open, I'm not sure how fast a kite surfer is, but it's not really suitable for moving objects. It's long overdue an overhaul.
Click to expand...

Thank you that was my fear, kite surfers move quiet quickly and they can be quiet close so panning and quick AF is a must.
 
80-400mm is okay but it's old and overdue for replacement. What about a 80-200mm plus a converter?
 
specialman said:
80-400mm is okay but it's old and overdue for replacement. What about a 80-200mm plus a converter?
Click to expand...

Which converter would fit the 80-200? that might be the way to go if i can get a converter to fit and one that produces sharp images.
 
If it's the same type I used back in 2003, then it struggles to focus in low light, is optically 'OK' but just OK, the AF is slow (as mentioned above) - this lens is nothing special.
I also found it heavy and cumbersome.

I'd really recommend saving the extra and getting an older AF-S 80-200 f/2.8. Doesn't have to be a VR lens unless you really need to shoot low-light images - I managed perfectly well with an old AF-S 80-200mm f/2.8 for six months after my new 70-200 VR-I broke last year.

Use a TC-17E with it and you get all the range of the 80-400 and none of the drawbacks...

http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/80200afs.htm

This is a seriously brilliant lens and only the lack of a VR-capability means it's obsolete by today's standards. In all other espects this is a 'good lens'...though as KR mentions there are bad ones out there, so do a full inspection before you buy
 
Last edited:
Thank you Rob food for thought there.
I will do some more reading of reviews and will see how things pan out.

I have a 50mm f1.4 that i love but if i keep my 24-70 in favour of a 24-120 f4 VR i could sell this to get a converter and i already have the cash for the lens, If i can find a good one?
 
GRECIAN said:
Which converter would fit the 80-200? that might be the way to go if i can get a converter to fit and one that produces sharp images.
Click to expand...

Think the Kenko ones retain AF - don't know if the Nikon ones do. Just what I've read.... :)
 
Hmm 80-400, though not as fast as the new 70-200 lens is optically good and certainly deals with many wildlife/sport situations. The comments of some make it appear that it is a poor lens - it isn't.
 
Howzabout a secondhand Sigma 120-300mm f/2.8? I'll think you'd be pleased. Or the Nikon 300mm f/4 suggested earlier....the latter not used by me, but a friend is very happy.
 
gramps said:
Hmm 80-400, though not as fast as the new 70-200 lens is optically good and certainly deals with many wildlife/sport situations. The comments of some make it appear that it is a poor lens - it isn't.
Click to expand...

yeah i have to agree with that, people make out its really that bad, funny cos when its good light i have actually used the 80-400 for shooting football! lol and its work pretty good, i`ve done various sharpness tests and cant fault it. each to their own i guess?

400mm football lol
http://www.flickr.com/photos/philx/5139426084/
 
Last edited:
gramps said:
Hmm 80-400, though not as fast as the new 70-200 lens is optically good and certainly deals with many wildlife/sport situations. The comments of some make it appear that it is a poor lens - it isn't.
Click to expand...

totally agree, I had one and really liked it. Only reason I got rid of it was I wanted F2.8.

Most of the shots in these galleries were taken with it. Indoors, dodgy light.

http://jimcrichton.com/gallery/main.php?g2_itemId=113580
 
Philx1979 said:
yeah i have to agree with that, people make out its really that bad, funny cos when its good light i have actually used the 80-400 for shooting football! lol and its work pretty good, i`ve done various sharpness tests and cant fault it. each to their own i guess?
Click to expand...

In good light it's OK - but just OK...we trialled five lenses at my location in 2002-2003 and none of them were much cop.
Our sister unit nearby had twenty and got rid of all of them after three months as the people operating them kept bringing them back in pieces (they're a branch of the services not known for their patience with sub-spec equipment).

If you're happy with it, then fine. But I wouldn't use one if you paid me.
 
squishy said:
Different class of lens surely!
Click to expand...

Maybe, but they didn't make any more 80-400mm after the 200-400mm. To my mind that's a replacement which put it on a par with the, then, current 70-200mm

It's quite usable and will return good results if you're patient. I've used it at Airshows and funnily enough kite-surfing. It just has not got the light blistering focussing performance of Nikon's current crop of IF lenses.



mustang_1.jpg



Larger Image I was talking about
5058381982_f951842a1a_b.jpg
 
I love this lens. It is almost always in my bag for film and digital shooting. All you need are this lens and a wide zoom.

This is not a lens for sports or moving subjects, although if you have a top camera like the D1, D2H or F5 it does OK. The slow autofocus is potentially limiting unless you have an F5 or D1 or D2 to track fast moving objects, and the slow f/stop means that you'll have to use slower shutter speeds or faster film to capture things that are in motion. As you know, VR does nothing to stop your subject; it only eliminates the need for a tripod.

This lens is intended for handheld architecture, landscapes, animals chilling and still lifes. It is not for the action you see deceptively portrayed in Nikon's promotional pieces, although for slow pans it is cool.
Click to expand...

Ken Rockwell
 
I had the 80-400 for a while. As has been said autofocus was slow, and it was soft at 400mm. Luckily i dropped the camera and lens, virtually snapped it!, camera was ok. Thanks to advice from MARTYN (from the forum), i purchased the AFS 300mm F4 (used with either 1.4 or 1.7 converter) and have not looked back since:)
 
fernface said:
I had the 80-400 for a while. As has been said autofocus was slow, and it was soft at 400mm. Luckily i dropped the camera and lens, virtually snapped it!, camera was ok. Thanks to advice from MARTYN (from the forum), i purchased the AFS 300mm F4 (used with either 1.4 or 1.7 converter) and have not looked back since:)
Click to expand...

True

I had the 80-400, then purchased the 300f4 with a 1.4TC, I sold the 80-400.

The 300f4 is far better than the 80-400 optically and focusing speed, plus is cheaper to buy new. It is sharper and quicker to focus with the 1.4TC fitted, than the 80-400.

The 300 f4 has a 5' minimum focus distance which is great for Butterfly and Dragonfly shots.

I would opt for the 300f4 plus TC's, over the 80-400 every time.
 
As has been said, it depends what you want to use the lens for, 80-400 is a very useful range lens to have in your bag or as a single lens choice.
300 f4 + 1.4 or more is fine if you want it mainly for distance shots (and every time you attach a TC you are going to be degrading what you start with) but then you are missing out on a whole lot of wider shot opportunities.
 
gramps said:
300 f4 + 1.4 or more is fine if you want it mainly for distance shots (and every time you attach a TC you are going to be degrading what you start with) but then you are missing out on a whole lot of wider shot opportunities.
Click to expand...

You will not see any image degradation with the 1.4TC on the 300 f4, and only a little by pixel peeping with the 1.7TC.

However as you say the flexibility of the range of the 80-400, may outweigh the advantage of better optics and faster focus speed.

I never looked at any of my 80-400 shots and thought "that's pants", however in no way would it match up to the wide open sharpness of my 300f4 even with the 1.4TC fitted.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top