80-400 D vs. 80-400 G

Out hunting Elk with cameras again this afternoon. One camera with 600 / 5.6, (more on that in another thread) the other with 80-400 4.5-5.6 D. We spotted a good sized herd at too great a distance and were looping around on the road to get closer when we encountered a small herd crossing the river. The cows crossed in front of our car, the Bull behind. I got rid of the D 750 / 600 5.6 that was across my lap and bailed out of the car with the DF with 80-400 D. I got a few shots, but not much of value. Here is the best of three -- then he was gone.

Granted, I was shooting off hand, but I was disappointed. I have had mixed results with the lens, some quite good, and some awful -- in this set there is one where the lens decided the dry grass, not the Elk was the subject.

I went against expert advice when I bought this, and have gotten very good shots with it -- it has earned its price.

Simple questions:

1. Users, please rate the new 80-400 G against the D giving a 1 - 10 rating for each.

2. Sticking to Nikon brand, what else (within enthusiast price range) might I consider.

Just to validate the "old version" this after the Elk.

I've owned both lenses. Shot the first version (AFD) on Nikons F100, D80, D300, D7100, D800E. Shot the second version (AFS) on D7100, D800E, D5300. No question the second lens has faster & more accurate AF. Also no question second lens has better VR. And, no question the AFS version is sharper across the range with better contrast. I personally would rate the AFD as a "4" and the AFS as an "8." I still own the AFS, however my plan is to sell it and replace with Nikon 300mm f4 VR-P plus TC-14e III. That combo is sharper yet, one stop faster, and less bulky/lighter. I've been on a quest for the past year to pare down weight & bulk as I have spent more time hiking in mountains over the past two years. Since having a near fatal STEMI in early February I've tried to limit myself to a <30 pound backpack when hiking over 10,000 ft. altitude, and really even 8,000 ft. in steep terrain. Keep in mind I am a "general" outdoor photographer. Obviously photo wildlife since there is a lot of it very near where I live, but also shoot a lot of railroad trains, distant landscapes, and so on. If I mostly shot wildlife I would no doubt buy a Nikon 200-500mm VR as it's a little longer and even sharper than the 80-400mm AFS at the long end. In the 90s I used a Nikon 500mm f4 for wildlife on an N90s, F100, a briefly on F5 and liked it. It's a pile of money though. So, as I said, as an owner of both the AFD is a 4, AFS is an 8, and having briefly tried a 200-500mm VR I'd give it a 9. It's almost certainly your best choice for wildlife.

Kent in SD

I went against expert advice when I bought this.

Right, back in January 2016, Sandy had already asked about version 1 on the 80-400mm AF-D VR: Nikon 80-400 VR First Model

I provided the first response on that old thread, and I said I would avoid version 1. I own version 2, the 80-400mm AF-S VR and I am very happy with that lens.

I've used or still use the following:

AF-D 300/4 IF-ED on D70, D200. AF is slower than the AF-S version, optically just a tad behind. Doesn't work with Nikon AF-S TCs, so not really a candidate to consider.

AF-S 300/4 with TC-14E and TC-17EII on D200 and D300: the lens without TC is excellent and looses a little when the TC-14E is attached (turns an A-grade into a B-grade). With the TC-17EII it's another step down. AF speed is average for the lens itself and gets slower when the TCs are attached.

AF-D 80-400 with D70, D200, D300. And very briefly with D700. Slow AF (about at par with above mentioned 300/TC-17EII combo), OK VR. Optically about halfway between the 300/TC-14E and the 300/TC-17EII.

AF-S 80-400 with D300, D7100, D7200, D500 and a little on D810. Second what Kent said above: faster AF, better VR, better IQ than the AF-D version throughout; about at par with the 300/TC-14E, maybe a little better. AF-fine tuning required with all bodies except the D300. AF tends to jitter.

AF-S 300/4E PF VR used mostly with D7200, D500, D810: hard to compare to the older AF-S version since I used them on cameras with different MP but optically the two are very very close. Much faster AF though. Used with TC-14E on D7200 with excellent results; in all cases AF-fine tuning was required.

AF-S 200-500E with D7100, D7200, D500. Better IQ than AF-S 80-400 but slower AF.

Personally, I will no longer routinely use TCs - and when I do, I will limit myself to the 1.4x ones (currently have TC-14E and may eventually get the TC-14EIII).

For me, 1st choice: 200-500. 2nd choice: AF-S 80-400. Both on a D500. I use the 300/4E PF VR mostly on the D810 for candid portraits or landscape, rarely for wildlife.

Since you asked for rating on a scale of 1-10. I set 10 for the best lens in the list above and always consider just the performance at the longest focal length. Most of my experience is with DX but except for the D810/300 PF VR I do not much care about corner performance anyway.

10: AF-S 300/4, AF-S 300/4E PF VR

9: 200-500

7-8: AF-S 80-400, either 300 with TC-14E

4: AF-D 80-400

2-3: AF-S 300/4 with TC-17EII

Given the substantial difference in price between the AF-S 80-400 and the 200-500 and the clear optical differences among them, the 200-500 has to be considered a bargain and/or the 80-400 heavily overpriced.