Which 80-400mm for Nikon?

PaulBoy

PaulBoy

Suspended / Banned
Messages
1,544
Name
Paul
Edit My Images
Yes
After saving up enough beans (& tracking one down!) I bought a Nikon 18-200mm VRII lens to replace my kit lens & 70-300mm - however despite the quality of the VRII lens I really miss the extra reach to 300mm & have decided to change it (again!)
I am thinking of a Nikon AF Nikkor 80-400mm f/4.5-5.6D VR ED but also looking at the equivalent Sigma 80-400mm f/4.5-5.6 DG EX OS
Both have image stabilisation & reviews I have read have been very positive but the Nikon is substantially smaller which is an issue as I had a Sigma 100-300mm f4 for a while & it was virtually impossible to use without a mono/tripod
I might consider something up to 300mm which I could use a teleconvertor on but again the good ones (f2.8 et al) appear to be huge!
Does anyone here have either of the 80-400mm? Or any other advice?
Regards ... Paul :thumbs:
 
My old man has the nikon and he loves it, never off his camera
 
I don't know a lot about either, but I do know that the Nikkor is very slow to focus - which may or may not be an issue for you.
 
Hoodi said:
I don't know a lot about either, but I do know that the Nikkor is very slow to focus - which may or may not be an issue for you.
Click to expand...

It all depends on the body being used with it.
Usually pro bodies have different focusing components, which are faster than
non pro equipment. Its the same with canon.

Have a look at Ken Rockwells review on the lens, it may help you make a choice.
 
Yes, but even on a D2H this lens aint gonna have nippy AF..
Besides, there's not that wild a difference in AF speed (assuming good light) between Nikon bodies - my slowest (macro) lens isn't hugely different between an F501 (ancient, decrepid AF) & a D200 (Slightly cut back top line Nikon AF).
 
Matt said:
It all depends on the body being used with it.
Usually pro bodies have different focusing components, which are faster than
non pro equipment. Its the same with canon.

Have a look at Ken Rockwells review on the lens, it may help you make a choice.
Click to expand...

Thanks Matt & the others who have replied :thumbs: - KR sure likes the lens but does warn about the slow autofocus issues - Thom Hogan also rates the lens but he too has reservations including the autofocus speed
Its a shame the new 70-300mm VR hasn't come out yet as this would be a possibilty - Sure the extra reach to 400mm would be great but there appear to be some compromises (& the new lens would be nearly half the price!) - Maybe I should wait a month & see what sort of job they have made of the 70-300mm VR?
I presume btw there isn't a "compact" lens up to 200mm that I could add a teleconverter to?
Paul ;)
 
Joe T said:
Sigma 70-200 2.8 might be a possibility.
Click to expand...
Thanks Joe - That looks a bit more "manageable" than the 100-300mm I tried - f2.8 too and only f4 with a 1.4 t/c ... hmmm decisions ... Paul ;)
 
The 80-400mm VR Nikkor is a grossly underrated lens. It gets a bad press because most users don't give enough time for the VR to 'settle'. I had mine for 3 1/2 years and it never let me down. I only recently sold it (last week, don't that make you sick) because I needed to fund the purchase of a 2nd D200. I think I will miss it but I nneded the body more than the lens. We the 70-200mm f/2.8 G VR Nikkor which is about the nest Nikkor lens I've ever used. It just about matches (with a matched teleconverter) the 80-400mm at 400mm in performance but it's a bit heavy.

I would have no reservations about recommending this lens to anybody who was considering buying one. What I can't do is offer a comparison with the Sigma, never used or seen one so would be unfair to comment on it.
 
chuckles said:
The 80-400mm VR Nikkor is a grossly underrated lens. It gets a bad press because most users don't give enough time for the VR to 'settle'. I had mine for 3 1/2 years and it never let me down. I only recently sold it (last week, don't that make you sick) because I needed to fund the purchase of a 2nd D200. I think I will miss it but I nneded the body more than the lens. We the 70-200mm f/2.8 G VR Nikkor which is about the nest Nikkor lens I've ever used. It just about matches (with a matched teleconverter) the 80-400mm at 400mm in performance but it's a bit heavy.

I would have no reservations about recommending this lens to anybody who was considering buying one. What I can't do is offer a comparison with the Sigma, never used or seen one so would be unfair to comment on it.
Click to expand...

chuckles - much obliged for that! - the Nikon has the bonus of being a bit more compact than the Sigma which might sound a bit picky but it is an issue for me - when funds permit (i.e. after selling my 18-200mm) I think this is the one I'll go for - I looked at the 70-200mm f2.8 but both the Nikon (& Sigma equivalent) were as huge as King Kong's first dump of the day! - they are not for me despite their quality & usefullness with a t/c - btw without making me too sick did you get a decent price for your 80-400mm? (in case I buy & don't get on with it?)
Paul :thumbs:
 
Interesting - Nikon have discontinued this lens now because there were so many complaints. Even the Nikon tech reps I spoke to at a recent Defence procurement meeting laughed when I told him how bad we'd found it to be. Very soft at the long end and in medium to low light conditions the AF 'hunted' so badly that we found it easier to switch to manual focus.
Maybe if you've got lots of time to take the image and you're not too bothered about maximum sharpness...
I wouldn't even use it as a door-stop...
 
Thanks Arkady - First time I'd heard the lens slated in such a way but very helpful I must say - I may hold out now to see what sort of job Nikon make of the VRII version of the 70-300mm which would fit the bill for me on most, if not all, areas ... Paul :thumbs:
 
It's better (according to Nikon, they've sorted the gluitches with the VR that we were having).
I specced a 70-200 f/2.8 VR and 2x converter for my own kit - you may find that's an easier option of you don't need the longest focal length all that often.
 
Arkady said:
It's better (according to Nikon, they've sorted the gluitches with the VR that we were having).
I specced a 70-200 f/2.8 VR and 2x converter for my own kit - you may find that's an easier option of you don't need the longest focal length all that often.
Click to expand...
Thanks again Arkady - the 70-200 VR is double my current available budget and looks like most f2.8 lenses to be a bit of a "beast" size-wise - it is the 200-300mm end I find I miss so something up to 300 makes more sense (?)
I will just have to wait it out for the 70-300mm VRII to hit the stores (don't suppose you have any "contacts" who might know when this may happen?)
Hopefully sooner rather than later as I sold my 18-200mm VRII (before they become too readily available)
Paul :thumbs:
 
I'll ask Phil Goldsmith at Calumet on Monday when I see him.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top