Alaskan Wildlife & Nikon 80-400mm VR?

I have an opportunity to spend some time south of Anchorage in early October. My longest lens is 200mm for my

D80 and I'd like to invest in something longer to use on the trip where I'll spend time on wildlife preserves and other

areas south of Anchorage. I've been looking at the Nikon 80-400mm VR lens. It's at the upper reach of what I can

afford and I've read some mixed things. Couple of questions: (1) With the 1.5x crop factor on the D80, is this lens a

good choice? Are there others I should consider? (2) I am not used to anything beyond 200mm. Will the 300mm

range of this lens serve me well shooting a bear at 100 yards? Or is 400mm where I'm likely to be pushing the lens

often? Advice and tips? ...

Andy, I have an 80-400 but unfortunately I didn't when I was in Alaska. I sure wish I did. Everyone who had only 200mm wished they had something longer. It will work fine and you will use it almost always in the 300-400mm range and mostly at the long end.

The only downsides to the lens.... It is a little heavy for some and it is a bit slow at the long end. I find it works best stopped down to f/8 or so and you do have some ISO latitude. Some people are great hand holding the lens but I am not one of them. For me, at least a monopod is really important.

If you get a chance, try it out first.

"<I>Will the 300mm range of this lens serve me well shooting a bear at 100 yards?</I>"

<P>

No. You'll get a bear-colored spot in your picture, not much more. This photo was made with a 400mm lens on a film camera at about 100 feet (not yards):

<P>

<CENTER>

<IMG SRC="http://www.wildlightphoto.com/mammals/carnivores/grbe00.jpg">

</CENTER>

<P>

I don't recommend getting this close to a griz unless you're in an enclosed vehicle. This photo was made through the open window of a Denali National Park shuttle bus.

The 80-400 is an ok lens - price / performance. Of course, the 200-400 is the optically better option, but more heavy and more expensive... I've used both, but I own only the 80-400.The images with the 80-400 are a little bit soft on the long end, stopping down helps. Overall, the lens is slow in AF-performance and don't overestimate the effectiveness of the VR. But on a tripod, with appropriate technique you can get very sharp images. And in terms of flexibility without tripod, it is very versatile as you can carry and hold it easily for a longer time period.

In any case do some tests before you go to Alaska. Not so much in terms of "optical quality" but in terms of use: what shutter speed could you really hand hold on the long end compared with the tripod images! And keep this speed in mind and increase ISO in case you go below that. As mentioned, AF is really slow, so you do not want to use it for birds in flight or similar challenging situations.

BTW it also works with a Soligor 1,6 Konverter (don't know the corresponding type in the US, something like 150 US-$ here). If you are on a budget and the sun is shining, this would even further increase your reach. I have gotten sharp pictures with this setup, of course on a tripod with proper long lens technique - maybe 1 out of 5 images. So do always more than one exposure, even with steady subjects.

Have fun and always good light

Dirk

"<I>... and the sun is shining</I>"

<P>

Don't count on this in Alaska.

I was on the Kenai Peninsula in late May with a Canon 100-400. I can say with certainty, more is better when it comes to zoom. 400 was barely enough and at times, it wasn't. We took a day cruise out of Seward on Kenai Fjords Tours "Captain's Choice Tour". It is a smaller boat catered towards photograhy. I will do it again. Wonderful day trip. If you want any info, shoot me an email. I have been on the Kenai a few times. You are in for a treat. Below is the link to some of my images from May. When the link opens, click "slideshow".

After spending one and a half years in Alaska (some years back), I have to reiterate what has been stated above, get the longest lense you can afford. The more dramatic shots of course involve filling the frame with the animal. I did happen to get some great shots of a "herd" of Dall Sheep rounding Igloo Mountain (can't share it with you because like an idiot I loaned my 35mm slides to someone who then disappeared with them), but most of the time closer is better. The only time I was near enough a grizzly to get a good close-up was when one charged me on the Denali River bar, but I was too busy thinking about how painful my death was going to be to get into my backpack and get my camera out of the plastic it was in so I could cross the streams without destroying it.

One other thought, whatever your lense length, there a bazillion photos of bears and bald eagles. You have to strive to get that one shot that portrays either drama or a unique point of view.

Have a great time on your trip!

I have been using the 80-400mm VR lens for a number of years now, and on a D80 for about the past two years. I think it will work for you. The AF is slow but the lens is sharp. The VR does work pretty well. For 400mm, it is fairly compact. I do recommend the lens. Your other alternative is a 300mm f4 with Nikon TC-14E. Sharp but no VR, would need a tripod most of the time. I"ve just returned from two weeks or so in Northern Californy, with three days camping in Yosemite. I didn't bring the 80-400mm this time but just my 70-200mm f2.8 VR with TC-17E. I didn't photo much wildlife though, but I was very happy with the combo. Since I mostly photo'd at night at Yosemite, I needed the f2.8.

Kent in SD

Kyle, I just bought this lens after some extensive research and I am happy with it for several reasons that I just outlined in this post on the Nikon forum...

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

The AF works well on my D300 if you use the focus limit switch and think ahead about distance. It can produce some very nice results. One recent example...<div></div>