AF VR-Nikkor 80-400mm f4.5-5.6 Zoom lens...continued

After some extensive research and discussion on this site...

 

http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00QJwM

 

I purchased this lens and have been using it for about a month to photograph wildlife. My major concerns were

autofocus ability, since this is not an AF-S lens and image quality(sharpness). And, since this lens has a low end

aperture of f 4.5, I knew it wasn't going to be the fastest of my possible choices. However, in the Nikkor line of

zooms and fixed telephotos, if you want to get to 400mm for less than $2000 with quality glass, this is your only

choice. I offer this for discussion with some recent examples. I also must mention that my personal preference is to

shoot hand held as this is the most flexible option for me. It just isn't possible to get most shots from a tripod. I

hope this will help others who are looking for a quality long zoom and that it will stimulate some lively discussion

which is one of the best parts of this forum. Here is the first example...<div></div>

Next example...<div></div>

Third example....<div></div>

And...these were shot with a D300 and the AF works great and is faster with the focus limit switch on.

Richard:

Kudos to you for some excellent shots.

I just sold an 80-400VR as I found your original concerns to be valid in my case.

I have a D200 body which may have accounted for my lack of satisfaction with the lens overall.

What I did was buy a Nikon 1.4 AF-S teleconverter and a Nikon 300mm F4 prime. Reason being, I only used the 80-400 at 400 or close to it. Now I have a choice of a 300 that's fast and focuses quicker and gives me the equivalent of a 420mm with the teleconverter in place. The added bonus is the teleconverter also works with my 105mm Nikon Macro lens with VR and AFS...

All in all, a beter setup for my purposes.

Tom, That is a very interesting point, especially about using the 1.4 teleconverter with your 105 as I am interested in purchasing the 105. However, so far the 80-400 has worked fine for me. Actually I would consider the 500mm f4 as my next long lens. Thank you for the comment.

Yo Rich!

These are the kind of hand-held results you'll expect from the 105...

It's a remarkable piece of technology.<div></div>

One more, for the record...<div></div>

Tom, great shots! I have been very impressed with the results from the 105 and have been following Mary Dineen's work with it. It will be my next lens purchase.

Glad you like your 80-400 VR zoom - I just read through all the previous threads - quite interesting - in particular Mark Bartosik's on hand holding. Like you, I shoot almost exclusively hand held - either with the 80-400 or with the 300/4 AF-S with TC-17EII attached (also have the TC-14E but it hasn't been behind the 300 for at least a year now). Shun has pointed out the shortcomings of the 80-400 and the 300/TC combos many times, no need to repeat those here. I am currently contemplating the purchase of the 200-400/4 - and I will rent one soon to find out whether or not I can hand hold it or not. The 500/4 would be nice - but the price is just too steep (can get the Canon 500/4 IS, add a 40D and still have almost enough money left to add the 400/5.6 to the mix).

 

Shooting terns recently on an overcast day, neither the 80-400 nor the 300/TC-17EII combo cut it - AF was too slow in either case. Not sure how I would have fared with the 200-400 in the same situation. In good lighting conditions, I have done equally well for in-flight shots of larger birds with either lens setup (used on a D200).

 

Both the 300/4 AF-S and the 80-400 VR are overdue for updates, the former with VR and the latter with AF-S. While VR doesn't help with subject motion, it sure does when shooting static objects hand held.

 

Even with only the TC-14E attached to the 300/4 AF-S, AF speed isn't great and many shots are missed when the light is low. I wonder whether the Canon 400/5.6 on a 40D would do better - have seen quite a few photographers that use that lens for in-flight shots even of small birds and all state that it is a very fast focusing lens - too bad nothing similar is in Nikon's lineup.

 

Canon has another lens - pricey one though - that appears hand holdable - the 400/4 DO - costs about the same as the 200-400/4 but weighs around 4 lbs (vs 7.5).

Dieter, thank you for the thoughtful comments. This is the kind of information that I think is very helpful for anyone, including me, who is learning about using this equipment and trying to make educated choices. Monte Stinnett hand holds a 200-400 f4 VR on a D3 for about 50% of his bird shots and says that it is manageable at about 10 pounds for the body plus lens. He feels that there would be too many missed shots if he didn't hand hold it. I chose the 80-400 as a starting point knowing it's limitations because I just wasn't ready to spend $5000 or more for a lens. I also considered the new long tele-zooms from Sigma but decided against them after comparing examples from the 80-400 to the Sigma.

So far, the 80-400 has been performing well. I do agree that lower light situations and small fast birds are a challenge that I may not be able to meet with this lens.

 

Regards,

 

Dick

Mr.Tom

 

The TC1.4 EII has not been recommended by anybody to use with AFS-VR 105 mm F/2.8 MACRO. The results are stunning. Ithought of buying the same 1.4 EII to use witrh my AFS-300/f4 and withAFS-VR 70-200 f2.8 . When the results are so good why , I wonder, Nikon has not recommended to use with it's MACRO 105 VR? Can any body explain this please. Thanks.

Than...

Nikon for some reason says the autofocus with the 105 + 1.4TC will not be compatible.

I found that not only does the auto focus work, so does the VR.

I got a response that Nikon is probably not recommending the combo because the autofocus does search a bit occasionally.

Since most macro shots are done with manual focus. IMHO there is no issue.

I bought the teleconverter for my 300 F4 and consider it's compatibility with the 105 a nice bonus.<div></div>

I hesitated in purchasing the 80-400mm lens for over a year because of the numerous negative comments made in this forum about it. I have had no regrets. It is a wonderful and capable lens in the hands of a talented photographer like Richard

 

Anyone considering NOT investing in this wonderful lens should read the two linked threads and then look through Richard's Squaw Lake portfolio.

Thank you, Elliot, for the very kind words. This lens is very capable and sharp. As with all technology it has limitations, but they are manageable. The price is reasonable for such a fine piece of equipment and you can rather easily learn to hand hold this lens which was critical for me. Nature and wildlife photography just doesn't lend itself to tripods or even monopods. There is too much happening too quickly to have the camera fixed to anything but your two hands. Hand holding a camera is a learned skill. It requires relaxation, concentration and controlled breathing similar to accurately shooting a rifle. The challenge can be frustrating and exhilarating at the same time. Bottom line...the 80-400 works, but you must practice to use it well.

Hi Elliot:

Is your post to be taken that I am lacking in technique, or could my D200 have limited the performance with the 80-400. I have noticed instant improvements since acquiring the 300 F4 and 1.4 TC.

Most shots I took with the 80-400 had poorer resolution. I do agree that Richard's photos are beautiful.

Tom, my comments were not directed at you. My intent was solely to compliment Richard. I bought my lens at

least 2 years ago.

 

There are only a few affordable ways to get to 300mm, 400mm and beyond. I consider the 70-300mm unacceptable

above 200mm. That pretty much leaves two choices The 80-400mm is one of them. The 300mm with or without a

teleconverter is another. The 80-400mm is not a perfect lens, but it is a capable lens. And it offers a lot of

conveniences because of its versatile zoom range and VR. I had a 300mm AF f4 lens and used it on occasion with

a 1.4x. The results were really good but seldom used used it so I sold it. Both are good choices.

Nikon will need to offer a 300mm f/4 AF-S VR before I upgrade. I tried and tried to convince myself to go for a 80-400 (either Sigma or Nikon) but couldn't, especially after field testing the Sigma OS and finding it to be surpringly lacking in sharpness. Focus was fine, but the IQ wasn't. Just did some photography of Orcas from a boat and hand held the 300mm... ended up fine. -g-