Nikon Lens question

G

GoLotus

Suspended / Banned
Messages
938
Name
G
Edit My Images
Yes
Hi guys, was wondering if anyone has any experience of the Nikon AF VR 80-400 f/4.5-5.6 ?

what did you think of it? Is the AF really as slow as the reports say? how good were the resulting pics?
 
Can't help with specific advise about that lens, but I always take complaints about slow AF with a pinch of salt alot of the time it's just that a lens is a little slower and noisier than one costing thousands of pounds so it gets this label of being completely useless.

It also makes a big difference what your wanting to shoot as obviously the fast AF will really come into it's own when shooting fast moving subjects but no really offer you anything if your talking pictures of static features.

Sure someone will be along shortly to help you out with that specific lens.
 
Focus speed does depend on your body - on a D1X it'll focus very fast, on a body with weaker motor torque you are looking at 3 seconds from infinity to close focus.

The focus limit switch helps.

The lens is quite good optically, but I have a feeling this is going to be replaced with a VRII version with AF-S about March next year ;)
 
Big, heavy, especially well made, torque driven focus motor is slower than AF-S but not so slow you'd be frustrated- unless you're permanently shooting fast moving wildlife. As a zoo lens, or general wildlife lens, it's very good indeed. I looked at one - but in the end went with the 300/f4 instead.
 
thanks guys :D

uses would include, but wouldn't be limited to fast moving wildlife (dolphins and birds) and also motorsport.

Am begining to look into a possible replacement/addition for my Tamron 200-500 5-6.3. In itself its an OK lens I spose, but I'm wanting something thats a whole lot shaper at the long end.

Looks like it might be worth hanging on and waiting for the AF-S version of that Nikon lens, but what alternatives would be worth considering? If it makes any difference, I have a D300 ATM and wouldn't rule out upgrading that at some point in the long term future
 
As mentioned the 300mm F4 is a cracker of a lens for the money and works well with a 1.4 TC
 
The fact that it's AF and not AF-S, coupled with the slow glass don't make it a great choice for motorsport. I found even the 80-200 AF-D on the D300 was just slightly too slow for motorsport, although to be fair I am basing this on having only microseconds to get focus as the cars come over the brow of the hill at my favourite vantage point at Knockhill, the 70-200 AF-S, by comparison nails focus much quicker and more often and as the glass is more or less the same (and the VR has no effect) then I can only assume this is solely down to the AF-S.
 
PsiFox said:
As mentioned the 300mm F4 is a cracker of a lens for the money and works well with a 1.4 TC
Click to expand...

sorry, I should have said - I'd be wanting to stay with a zoom to make it as practical as possible
 
Oh and the tripod mount (same as the 300mm f/4 AF-S) is reported to be crap, but nothing that can't be sorted by jamming an asthma inhaler between it and the lens...
 
Flash In The Pan said:
Oh and the tripod mount (same as the 300mm f/4 AF-S) is reported to be crap, but nothing that can't be sorted by jamming an asthma inhaler between it and the lens...
Click to expand...

such technical solutions are always the best :lol:
 
AF is slow, not ridiculously slow but not exactly the Ferrari of the lens world.

It is a very versatile lens which can give pretty good results, I own and use one, I tend to prefocus or manual focus it if I use it. Never had it on a tripod, but it is ok on a monopod.

Flash, is this your most loathed lens ever?...........:D
 
I don't know about Flash, but this is almost certainly my most loathed lens ever.

In comparison to the Canon 100-400L IS, this lens is a positive embarrassment. The Canon is better built, has much better ergonomics, focusses much more quickly and quietly, has full-time manual focussing, etc etc ...

I haven't heard any reliable information about a replacement. (Sorry puddleduck - care to reveal your sources?) On the face of it you'd think it would be a very high priority for modernisation. However, it was only introduced in 2000 - two years after the Canon 100-400L !!! - so competing with Canon's offerings in this area doesn't seem to be a particularly high priority for Nikon. What's even stranger is that Nikon starting making AF-S lenses around 1996, so when they designed this one they deliberately chose to make it AF rather than AF-S. So, given those facts, it's hard to see what motivation they might have now for improving it.

GoLotus, do you have much money invested in your Nikon kit? If not, and you're interested in wildlife photography, I'd seriously suggest considering switching horses. At the very expensive end of the range Nikon's super-telephotos are every bit as good as Canon's (though a bit pricier), and their 200-400mm f/4 VR is great. But in the more affordable range (~£1000 rather than >£3000) Nikon just don't have anything to compete with Canon's three telephotos (300mm f/4 L IS, 100-400mm L IS, 400mm f/5.6 L).
 
Sigma do though Stewart.......:thumbs:
 
some very interesting comments there - thanks :D certainly sounds as though its worth giving this one a miss and waiting to see what its replacement is going to be

I guess in the great big grand scheme of things, I don't have a massive amount spent, but feel I've spent enough that I really couldn't afford to go changing brands now. Might have to have some kind of rethink on that though if I really can't find what I'm looking for :(
 
I think fracster was probably referring to the Sigma 120-400mm f/4.5-5.6 OS. I don't have any experience of this lens so I can't comment on it. On paper it looks like it ought to be comparable to the Canon 100-400mm L IS, but at half the price I doubt it has the quality. (And, of course, on paper the Nikon 80-400 ought to be comparable to the Canon too.)

Hopefully someone who has experience of the Sigma - and the Nikon or the Canon for comparson - will be along soon to enlighten us.
 
thanks for that :D

heres hoping........
 
As a comparison to highlight the slow AF on the 80-400, My sigma 300-800 focuses faster.

This was taken with the 80-400, ok I got the DOF all wrong, but if it will AF on one of these it is not *that* slow.

Dragonfly3copy.jpg


Again 80-400.

Buzzards6.jpg


And again

Daytona.jpg


They are not the best photos, but I am not the best photographer. Just posted them so that you can see what sort of image it can produce.You have to know its limitations and prepare accordingly.

I have never used a Canon 100-400 so cannot compare, nor any similar length Sigmas, but I can say that the Nikon is not the fastest at focusing.........:thumbs:

Hope that helps a tad.

PS..........Nikon must surely be bringing out a newer,better,faster version of this lens...........:shrug:
 
thanks for that :D

I rekon I'll have to go try one and see just how slow the AF is, but if an update with AF-S isn't far away then it'll be well worth waiting for - wonder how much more expensive it'll be :LOL:

still interested in recomendations of alternatives from 3rd parties though
 
fracster said:
PS..........Nikon must surely be bringing out a newer,better,faster version of this lens...........:shrug:
Click to expand...
Why? Nikon had AF-S technology when this lens was introduced, and chose not to use it. The Canon 100-400L was already on the market, and Nikon chose not to try to emulate it. What's changed since then?
 
Why? Because it is the only zoom that they produce in this range, so surely it must be due an update/rethink.....:shrug:

Or maybe it is just wishful thinking on my behalf.....:D
 
along similar lines, does anyone have any experience/comments on this?

clicky
 
StewartR said:
Nikon just don't have anything to compete with Canon's three telephotos (300mm f/4 L IS, 100-400mm L IS, 400mm f/5.6 L).
Click to expand...

Nikon do a 300mm f/4 af-s, no VR but so what, its hardly the no competition you suggest.
The others......good, who wants f/5.6 max app ?

StewartR said:
Why? Nikon had AF-S technology when this lens was introduced, and chose not to use it. The Canon 100-400L was already on the market, and Nikon chose not to try to emulate it. What's changed since then?
Click to expand...

Nothings changed, they chose not to compete cos nobody else cares, the 100-400 might be popular in Canon circles, but its still a slow lens, fast af is no good to nobody if the light is poop.
If they really thought it was worth competing with, they'd have af-s'd and f/4'd the 80-400 a long time ago, they didn't because they have the 200-400 f/4 af-s.
Serious bird glass is expensive/end
I don't consider either the 100-400 or the 80-400 to be serious bird glass, f5.6 is not where you want to be in the British climate.

I'm sure you'd like to recommend a Nikon version for rental, but not everyone rents lenses for a living, and there isn't one, so what, the world will be a better place with one less slow tele as far as I'm concerned.
 
joxby said:
who wants f/5.6 max app ?

..... the 100-400 might be popular in Canon circles, but its still a slow lens, fast af is no good to nobody if the light is poop

..... Serious bird glass is expensive/end

..... I don't consider either the 100-400 or the 80-400 to be serious bird glass, f5.6 is not where you want to be in the British climate.
Click to expand...
I don't think that's very helpful. We can't all afford £3000+ for a 200-400mm f/4 VR, or a 500mm f/4 VR, or whatever you consider to be serious bird glass. Does that mean we should all just give up and leave bird photography to the people who can?
joxby said:
I'm sure you'd like to recommend a Nikon version for rental, but not everyone rents lenses for a living.
Click to expand...
I'm not trying to rent a lens. I'm trying to help the OP who asked about the 80-400 VR. I'm not sure what you're trying to achieve with your negative and unhelpful post, but I resent your implication.
 
The Sigma 80-400 OS is also a useful alternative, its focusing is a bit faster than the 80-400 VR. It also does have an internal motor (its not HSM)

The Sigma 120-400 OS is probably worth a thought, it seems pretty cheap. Not really convinced by it optically from what I've seen so far though.
 
StewartR said:
I don't think that's very helpful. We can't all afford £3000+ for a 200-400mm f/4 VR, or a 500mm f/4 VR, or whatever you consider to be serious bird glass. Does that mean we should all just give up and leave bird photography to the people who can?
I'm not trying to rent a lens. I'm trying to help the OP who asked about the 80-400 VR. I'm not sure what you're trying to achieve with your negative and unhelpful post, but I resent your implication.
Click to expand...

So what do you suggest, another round of Nikon bashing and then a manufacturer change to Canon....very helpful and positive.

There's nothing wrong with the 80-400, ok the focus is slow, but that doesn't make it completely useless, especially when the op doesn't specify what the lens is to be used for particularly.
How is it completely useless for wildlife ?, we'd all like instant af, but it ain't the beginning and the end of taking wildlife shots.
He asked for opinions on the lens, I guess hoping they would be balanced pro's and con's, not a throw you're Nikon away and buy Canon.
I'm all for telling it like it is, and for that I give you credit, some less scrupulous businesses wouldn't bother, it just seems gratuitously negative at times.
I sincerely don't mean to imply anything, other than that I feel you're frustration, at not being able to offer what you want to offer.
 
joxby said:
So what do you suggest, another round of Nikon bashing and then a manufacturer change to Canon....very helpful and positive.
Click to expand...

I never thought for a moment the comments made here amounted to Nikon bashing! :lol:


....especially when the op doesn't specify what the lens is to be used for particularly.
Click to expand...

tis true I forgot to mention that in the op - but I did in the next post ;)


I sincerely don't mean to imply anything, other than that I feel you're frustration, at not being able to offer what you want to offer.
Click to expand...

the only frustration here is from me, not being able to get what I want at a price I want :lol:
 
Some dude has a nice old 600 and 1.4 TC for sale on here.............:naughty:
 
Hi, GoLotus...I've been very happy with my 80-400 VR. I like it better on my D300 tha on my D80; seem to get faster, more positive focus. I've never regretted spending the money on this lens. Very sharp when I do my part. Here's an example...

WesternKingbirdinFlight2.jpg


CardiganontheMove.jpg
 
oooo lurverly pics, thanks for posting them here :D

have kinda made my mind up that I need to go and try this lens for myself and find out just how slow this slow focusing is.

Anyone know how I'd find out one way or the other if an AFS version is on its way?
 
There is an AF-S version on the way.

I do know for sure (well 95%). I can't say how I know. It may not be quite 80-400...

You can bookmark this post and come back end Q1 next year and point and laugh if I'm wrong :)
 
:lol:

you say "not quite 80-400" Do you know if its the 80 or the 400 that'll change and in what direction?
 
It'll still be about 5x... let just say that without the DX crop factor on FX bodies, a bit more length is useful so you can infer what you like from that :)
 
I'll ask the same question that I did a couple of weeks ago on a similar thread -

What did we do before VR?IS?OS?VC????

How were all the thousands of spectacularly good motorsport/bird/aviation photographs captured with those heavy old non IS/VR lenses??

This whole discussion is meaningless in this context. lens stabilisation is an aid, nothing more. Perfectly sharp photographs can be taken with a long lens, either hand held and tripod mounted. All it takes is a little skill and patience - are we abrogating these qualities at the altar of technology?? Probably, and that's a sad thing. A good photographer doesn't need stabilisation to take a good pic with a long lens.

As far as the Nikon/Canon debate is concerned, I've shot with both, and am now firmly in the Nikon camp, but this in no way implies that Nikon is best, it's just that I prefer what they have to offer, and any suggestion that Nikon can't match Canon in the telephoto stakes is patently nonsense.

Horses for courses!!
 
dougdarter said:
This whole discussion is meaningless in this context. lens stabilisation is an aid, nothing more.
Click to expand...

well I can only talk for me here - IS/VR is something I've never had before on any of my lenses so anything I buy from now I'd simply see it as an added benefit rather than it being the reason to buy a particular lens. I'd have to add though, that I may well have a different view of things once I've got used to a lens with VR :lol: TBH, its the long end of the zoom togethere with the focusing speed that I'm more bothered about at the moment as its main use will be for wildlife and motorsport
 
puddleduck said:
It'll still be about 5x... let just say that without the DX crop factor on FX bodies, a bit more length is useful so you can infer what you like from that :)
Click to expand...

am I understanding you correctly here? - are you saying the replacement is going to be for the DX format? I'm very happy with my D300, but I'm not ruling out upgrading again later, so I'm thinking I'd be better off only getting lenses that would be OK with full frame cameras....
 
GoLotus said:
am I understanding you correctly here? - are you saying the replacement is going to be for the DX format? I'm very happy with my D300, but I'm not ruling out upgrading again later, so I'm thinking I'd be better off only getting lenses that would be OK with full frame cameras....
Click to expand...

No, its not a DX lens.
 
Hi have this lens, last week I went on a track day and my brother couldn’t come a long to take the photos. So I gave the camera to the wife all set up and just let here snap away. She only complained of it been heavy. But the point is she as never used a dslr before and out of the 400 shots she took 200 are keepers and there only discarded because she was just pressing the button and not focusing before she took the picture.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top