Topic: Nikon 80-400mm VR zoom (Read 7012 times)

oceanrhythms · « **on:** February 17, 2008, 04:00:01 pm »

I am a old school film shooter from the 80's and finally ready to make the switch to digital. My wider angle zooms will be the 12-24mm F/2.8 ED & the 24-70 F/2.8 ED. I also need a longer telephoto zoom lens. Has anybody had any experience with the Nikon 80-400mm F/4.5-5.6D ED AF VR lens? How is the sharpness/quality of the images? I am debating between this lens and the 70-200mm F/2.8G ED-IF AF-S VR and get a longer telephoto later on down the road or get a teleconverter. It would be nice to get so much range in one lens, but I don't want to sacrifice too much quality. My subjects usually include Landscapes/cityscapes, portraits, night photography and surfing.

Colorado David · « **Reply #1 on:** February 17, 2008, 05:08:05 pm »

The Nikon 70-200 f/2.8 VR is one of the finest lenses in the line. I have never owned the 80-400, however I own the 200-400 f/4 VR which is perhaps the best lens in the Nikon line. I have a colleague who uses the 80-400 occasionally, but unenthusiastically. Here is a link to a site with reviews of Nikon lenses.

http://www.naturfotograf.com/index2.html

Best regards,
David

Two23 · « **Reply #2 on:** February 18, 2008, 10:24:36 pm »

Quote

Has anybody had any experience with the Nikon 80-400mm F/4.5-5.6D ED AF VR lens? How is the sharpness/quality of the images? I am debating between this lens and the 70-200mm F/2.8G ED-IF AF-S VR and get a longer telephoto later on down the road or get a teleconverter. ... My subjects usually include Landscapes/cityscapes, portraits, night photography and surfing.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=175507\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

You are in luck. I have owned the 80-400mm VR for at least three years now, the 70-200mm f2.8 VR since last June, and......I am mostly a night photographer this time of year. Here's my thoughts.

The 70-200mm f2.8 VR is a much better quality lens. The focus is much faster thanks to AFS, and image quality is slightly better. The lens is also better built. Last summer I went to Hawaii again, and had to choose between the 70-200mm and the 80-400mm. I ended leaving the 70-200mm home. Yes, that's right, I didn't take it. Here's why. The 80-400mm is a much more useful range as a general purpose lens. I got some dynamite windsurfer and board surfer images with it that would not have been possible with the shorter 70-200mm. I saw some cool crabs darting around a volcanic formation at the ocean's edge, and again used the lens racked out to 400mm. The 80-400mm is shorter and fits into my LowePro Offtrail waist pack, the other lens doesn't. The 80-400mm lens is lighter and easier to have all day long. Yes, I tried a Nikon 2x on the 70-200mm VR, and the quality just wasn't there. The image quality on the 80-400mm is very good, better than the 70-200mm with a 2x. I used the 80-400mm VR on my last trip to the Grand Canyon--it's long length pulled in and isolated distant formations.

The 80-400mm is slower to focus, but is a more useful range. I use it most of the time. I use the 70-200mm VR mostly when I have to have a faster lens, such as photo'ing Chicago Loop trains at night etc. I probably use the 80-400mm 75% of the time, the 70-200mm 25% of the time. I'm outdoors taking photos pretty much ever day (and in winter I mostly photo at night.) I think I have enough experience with both lenses to have a fair opinion. For what you say you want to photo, all in all the 80-400mm would slightly edge out the shorter lens. Especially if you travel with it. If you photo surfing at night, then the f2.8 lens would be a better bet if you can get close to the action.

Kent in SD

sydlow · « **Reply #3 on:** February 19, 2008, 04:05:09 am »

Quote

..I have a colleague who uses the 80-400 occasionally, but unenthusiastically....
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Hi David, I'm looking at this lens - I couldn't find the bits where your colleague is unenthusiastic about the lens. I found this
[a href=\"http://www.naturfotograf.com/VR80_400_review.html]http://www.naturfotograf.com/VR80_400_review.html[/url]
and thought he was quite happy with it - all except for using it on a tripod.
Syd

Colorado David · « **Reply #4 on:** February 19, 2008, 08:59:00 am »

I never inferred that the owner of that website was a colleague of mine. I posted the link because of the excellent reviews available there. I agree that the 80-400 VR lens is a great lens, but in my opinion and the opinion of others with whom I work it is not the lens that either the 70-200 f/2.8 VR or the 200-400 f/4 VR are. If it were me, and I have been at this point in my own decision making process, I would buy the 70-200 f/2.8 and then buy a better long lens later. The 80-400 may work fine for a lot of photographers. But, for me, the AF speed (not silent wave) and the slower maximum aperture pushed me to decide on the 200-400 f/4 VR. Granted it is a much larger, heavier lens, but that was less of a concern for me. Best of luck with your choice.

Best regards,
David

Two23 · « **Reply #5 on:** February 19, 2008, 06:29:44 pm »

Quote

But, for me, the AF speed (not silent wave) and the slower maximum aperture pushed me to decide on the 200-400 f/4 VR. Granted it is a much larger, heavier lens, but that was less of a concern for me. [a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=175907\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I will point out you are comparing a $5,000 lens to a $1,400 one. For $1,400 the 80-400mm VR actually does a decent job. It's strength is image quality, compactness, and great zoom range. It's AF speed is clearly its weakest link though. For anyone buying that lens I highly recommed the RRS rotating tripod collar if you have any hope of using it on a tripod. The supplied tripod collar is the worst Nikon ever made. I also replaced the removeable foot on the 70-200mm VR with a RRS Arca Swiss foot.

Kent in SD
Attached shot made to day with 80-400mm.
Flare resistance is quite good!

jdemott · « **Reply #6 on:** February 19, 2008, 08:20:28 pm »

I've been shooting Nikon for a number of years and on several occasions I have looked at all the reviews on the 80-400mm and then gone to the store to get a 80-400 to try with the intention of buying. On two occasions, I rented a sample to use for a few days. I really wanted to like the lens since it seems like a very useful range of focal lengths at a reasonable price. But compared to the 70-200, all the samples I tried were disappointing. I wouldn't say that the image quality was poor, but compared to the 70-200 the images were flat and just a bit soft.

I agree with the other posters that the 2x teleconverter on the 70-200 won't equal the 80-400 at the long end of its range, but a 1.4x does very well indeed. If you need to take a lot of shots in the 300-400mm range, then the 80-400 might be exactly what you need (short of spending the big bucks for the 200-400). On the other hand, if most of your shots are at shorter lengths with only an occasional need for a really long shot, the 70-200 will deliver much better quality in its range with the added benefits of the f/2.8 aperture for better focusing, low light performance, and control of depth of field in portraits and similar.

oceanrhythms · « **Reply #7 on:** February 19, 2008, 11:11:37 pm »

Thank you to all for your replies. Very helpful! The focus on the 80-400mm sounds like it's really slow.... what a drag. Maybe I'll just get the 70-200mm F/2.8. Right now I have access to a Century 650mm with a Nikon mount that I've been using on my Nikon F3. Will the Nikon mount on the dinosaur Century 650mm work with the new D300?

Also, will I be able to see the quality of F/2.8 lenses in the D300? Will those lenses drive that camera? Or am I wasting my money getting F/2.8 lenses and using them on a D300 body?

Thanks again in advance for your input.

John

TMcCulley · « **Reply #8 on:** February 20, 2008, 01:29:18 am »

Quote

Thank you to all for your replies. Very helpful! The focus on the 80-400mm sounds like it's really slow.... what a drag. Maybe I'll just get the 70-200mm F/2.8. Right now I have access to a Century 650mm with a Nikon mount that I've been using on my Nikon F3. Will the Nikon mount on the dinosaur Century 650mm work with the new D300?

Also, will I be able to see the quality of F/2.8 lenses in the D300? Will those lenses drive that camera? Or am I wasting my money getting F/2.8 lenses and using them on a D300 body?

Thanks again in advance for your input.

John
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=176102\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

First some confusion: the 12-24 is F4 (and is very very good) and a DX lens, the 14-24 is F2.8 (and is rated at the level of quality prime lenses) and a FX (Nikonese for full frame sensor) lens. The 80-400 is not that slow but the 70-200 is that fast. I would listen to our advice but then put each on your camera and find out if it works for you.

The D300 is almost a D3 with a DX sensor. Put the best glass your budget will allow on your camera. Your lenses will outlast several bodies.

The Century 650 should work with the D300 maybe only manual mode limited metering. Like the D3 the D300 can be programed to recognize older lenses which may allow some of the features to work like 3d matrix metering. I have not needed to do this but I know it is available. I have a 12 year old Tokina 400 F5.6 that works perfectly on my D300

Tom

Author Topic: Nikon 80-400mm VR zoom (Read 7012 times)