Nikon 80-400 VR First Model

<p>I am considering buying a first model 80-400 VR on Ebay. Photographically, I am a generalist who takes pictures of just about anything interesting. I have a considerable variety of vintage lenses up to a 500 f8, and a 300 f4.5 with a 2x Nikon teleconverter. Both my digital bodies are FX, my longest "modern" lens a Nikon 28-300. I had been considering the new Nikon 200-500, but that seems more of a specialist tool, both large and inflexible in respect to my style. My thinking is that the 80-400 could be used as a "walk around" lens, give me a bit longer reach than 300, plus a low end at 80. I understand the slow autofocus, and don't believe that will be an issue. I live in the country and do have some excellent wildlife opportunities, more reach would be nice, but that is not a major factor. I use tripods sparingly.<br>

Any comments by users of the lens in regard to performance, or my planned usage will be much appreciated. I know the new version is highly regarded, but out of my budget range just now. Thanks in advance.</p>

 

<p>While I am sure there are various opinions, version 1 of the 80-400mm AF-D VR, without AF-S, is a lens I would avoid. Clearly version 2 with AF-S is very expensive. If you would like to spend less, why not consider the 70-300mm/f4.5-5.6 AF-S VR? There are also a number of third-party alternatives for 70-300, such as the Tamron: http://www.photo.net/equipment/tamron/70-300di-vc/</p>

<p>I would tend to agree with Shun. The 80-400 VR1 AF-D is a lens that does work, but with multiple limitations. It's AF is slow. It's VR is good for maybe 2 stops. At 400mm it really needs to be stopped down to f8 or beyond to be sharp. I decided I would rather carry a 70-300 VR which is much smaller and lighter with better AF and VR. While the 80-400 VR1 AF-D is smaller and lighter than the new 80-400 VR2 AF-S lens or the 200-500VR, it is not exactly a small lens itself. So while if you get a good price, and think you really will benefit from the zoom range, perhaps it could work out for you, there would only be very specific circumstances where you could not find something better. I suppose that the one plus is that you would have 400mm available, if needed. Note: I used this lens only on D300, I don't know how it compares on higher resolution sensors.</p>

<p>Shun & Nick, thanks for your comments. I have 300 mm covered three different ways, though I can't imagine carrying my old Nikon 50-300 around. What I am looking for is more than the 28-300 at the top end, willing to sacrifice wide at the bottom end. The 200-500 is doable at top end of budget, but not flexible enough for what I need, which is the ability to work closer with a larger field of view. I have bought non Nikon lenses a couple of times over the years, and have always gotten rid of them when I could afford Nikon. <br>

Again thanks!<br>

Anyone else with experience & ideas, I'm still looking for input!</p>

<blockquote>

<p>which is the ability to work closer</p>

</blockquote>

<p>how close is close - the 80-400 only focuses down to about 2.3 meters.</p>

<p>Mine is doing fine on a D300 - but it shows its limit on a higher-MP DX body and certainly on any current FX DSLR.</p>

<p>I owned the first 80-400 VR for a few years. I was pretty happy with it using film - even scanning the film - but once I bought a DX camera it failed to impress me anymore.</p>

<p>There really isn't that much difference between 300mm and 400mm, and with today's pixel count a little cropping takes care of the difference. The 70-300 f/4.5-5.6 VR would serve you well and be much easier to carry around.</p>

<p>Dieter, thanks! 5 meters would work. No one seems to like the lens -- seemed like a problem solver for me. Likely not.</p>

<p>Eric, Just don't see an advantage gained with the 70 - 300 4.5 5.6 over the 28-300 4.5 5.6 I have now. Thanks for your contribution, appreciate it.</p>

<p>Oh, there are certainly people who like this lens. In fact, I am a bit surprised that none of them has posted to this thread yet.</p>

<p>When that lens was first introduced around 2000/2001, I once took my Nikon F100 to a camera store to check it out. AF was crazily slow, reminded me how slow AF was back in the "AF stone age" 1988/1989 or so. You can search this forum. There was plenty of discussion about it is unsharp @ 400mm. Presumably, most people get a 80-400mm zoom mostly for the 400mm end.</p>

<p>Fortunately, the new 80-400mm AF-S VR is an excellent lens, but it is also priced accordingly. When something is cheap, there is usually good reasons why it is cheap.</p>

<p>Shun, thanks! I have been profligate in spending on my lifelong photography passion these last few years. I have been in photography since the mid '50's. I was out today with an F2 with 50 /1.2 AI. I only had to look at the back of the F2 once to remember that would only show me film type. Took me a few times to remember to advance the film. Even manual focus, in terms of time, I did 5X as long as Auto Focus. Comments, yours and others, have given me reasons or think longer before spending. I do love walking around with lens on camera and a filter or two in shirt pockets -- that was my motivation. Thank you!</p>

<p>You seem interested in the minimum focus distance. I had always hoped the 80-400 VR1 would be useful for large butterflies and such, but in my experience this lens is rather weak optically at 400mm and MFD. I would not recommend it for that use.</p>

<p>Nikon's 70-300 VR has amazing IQ and is lightweight and the price is right. IMHO.</p>

<p>Guys, I have 3 lenses with 300mm reach why do I need another? </p>

<blockquote>

<p>Guys, I have 3 lenses with 300mm reach why do I need another?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Good question. You want that 400mm reach. <br /> <br />If you are serious about reaching for 400mm, I would recommend the new 80-400mm AFS version as well. The old version can be a nice - though bulky - "walk around" lens but it will not be a happy wildlife lens when you need that 400mm at a critical moment due to the slow focus speed and lack of sharpness at 400mm.</p>

<p>Have you tried your 28-300mm for wildlife at 300mm? If you are not happy with the result, neither would you be ecstatic with this lens at 400mm.</p>

I own the 80-400mm Vr now for four years I guess, I am a

street photographer,and I used to use in my street shots the

following lenses, Tamron 28-270mm,nikon 18-200VR, and

Sigma 28-300mm. When I've started to use the 80-400mm in

my street shots,everything have changed for a better degree

two to three times folds,I use it with both D3 and D300

bodies,it's a very powerful lens with an awesome sharpness, I

greatly encourage you to have it,its worth every penny you

are going to pay for it,please do not hesitate.

My regards.

<p>Rather than the new lens, buy a good used DX body, or even a Nikon 1 J5 with FT-1 adapter and use your existing 28-300 zoom lens. You will get the reach with a better quality lens and not have to carry as much weight around with you!</p>

<p>Mary and Saad, thanks for your comments. Saad, you seem to be the first so far who has experience with the lens and likes it. The temptation is that the old model, in excellent condition, can be had for about a quarter the price of the new version. I'll have to see if the only local camera shop has one I can try. Again, thanks to both of you!</p>

<blockquote>

<p>The temptation is that the old model, in excellent condition, can be had for about a quarter the price of the new version.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yes, it's a good and handy walk-around lens - casual street photography, etc. I had it for years and loved it. In my experience, this (and the 28-300) were not very good for moving wildlife at the long end, especially birds, when you need that speed and critical sharpness. You mentioned "wildlife" in your question, and I was responding from the point of view of a serious nature and wildlife photographer. Hwvr, I don't know what kind of quality you want in your wildlife shots, maybe it's going to be good enough for you. Why not try your 28-300 for wildlife at 300mm, and see if it's good enough for you. If it is, then this older 80-400 is probably satisfactory for you.<br /> <br /> Like you said, the price is low, so it's probably a good lens to have. Good luck!</p>

<p>Peter, thanks for your comment. I went from DX to FX. If I were to go back, it would only be for something like the Nikon Coolpix P 900, which would certainly solve my zoom issue. Question is if I want to deal with another camera and battery type. Otherwise, the cost, old lens or new P 900 camera, would be about the same. Food for thought.</p>

<p>OK, I admit it! I own an 80-400mm VRI. I bought it used when I had a D90. It served my purposes for what I could afford at the time. I got some great nature photos with it, but alas, they were not at the 400mm range. When I updated from 12mp to 24mp it really showed its flaws at 400mm, even stopped down. Looked cool on the camera though.</p>

<p>Bill, Thanks! Cool looking isn't on my list, but thanks for mentioning the flaws. I have 16 and 24mp cameras and frequently make 13x19 prints. More grist for the mill!</p>

<p>There is minimal difference from 300mm to 400mm. Cropping your images at this time shot with your 24mp body is probably your best bet until you are ready to purchase the new 200mm-500mm lens from Nikon (the difference between 300mm and 500mm is more substantial), it may not be worth getting a 400mm lens. And although the 200-500mm does not have the 'convenience' of a wider focal length, you could always use your second body for that option.</p>

<p>I have both the 28-300mm and 80-400 VRI. I agree with Mary, If you are happy with the 28-300mm then you will likely be happy with the 80-400 VRI with regards to IQ. Focus speed on newer Nikon bodies is reasonable as long as you use the focus limit switch.</p>

<p>I do process my images with DXO software which does a nice job of correcting 'flaws' - IQ from processed RAW files from the 80-400mm VRI are actually surprisingly good in every regard.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Guys, I have 3 lenses with 300mm reach why do I need another?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Well, I have six Nikkor lenses that can give me 300mm, without using any teleconverter. Therefore, you still have some distance to catch up with me. :-)</p>

<p>Admittedly, I am on the extreme side. However, I see you have a 28-300mm AF-S VR, which I also own, and a 300mm/f4.5, which is clearly manual focus. Therefore, I can easily make the case to get another higher-quality 300mm lens with AF.</p>

<p>Of course, if one is happy enough with super zooms such as 18-200mm, 28-300mm, etc., they may also tolerate the 400mm end of the 80-400mm VR version 1. It all depends on how demanding you are. However, IMO it is hard to ignore how slow its AF is. I rejected it immediately 15 years ago, and the standard has been raised drastically since then.</p>

<p>The 300mm end of the 28-300mm AF-S VR is not too bad. It'll look soft on a 24MP or 36MP FX body. The 70-300mm maybe a bit better but is still not ideal.</p>

<p>Nikon only makes three FX bodies that are 16MP, namely the D4, D4S, and Df. None of them is exactly inexpensive. If you own one of those, I sure hope that you can afford some decent lenses to mount in front of them.</p>

<p>Thanks, Elliot. Zoom lenses are always a compromise -- gain convenience, give up some speed and quality. The 28 - 300 is decent.<br>

Don't know if you've used it, but Nikon has a Lens Simulator that I check when considering lenses. There is actually 2 full degrees difference (8.10 vs. 6.10) from 300 - 400.<br>

Most common lenses for me to use, ex old primes, are the 24-120 f4, the 50 f1.8, and the 18 -35. Basically, I am looking for a way to add more reach in a convenient, more portable package, probably carrying the 28-300 or the 80-400 when I go out "loaded" with a bag.<br>

For wildlife I currently have the two options referenced at the start of the thread. Either requires the tripod, and so are pretty much limited to wildlife only expeditions. I'm thinking more capability vs. a range of targets of opportunity whenever I have the kit.<br>

I do very little PP, and mostly use highest quality large JPEG, though I record the raw as well on important (to me) shoots. I have the latest Elements and a couple of other tools, but mostly don't need them. After all, amateur, no customer or boss to please.<br>

Again, thanks!</p>

 

<p>Shun -- I bought the DF because of all my old lenses -- I have 9 programmed in and use them. Of course, then I wanted some current lenses, so quickly acquired several refurb & used, all of which work quite well. <br>

Photography is one of those pursuits with an endless and ever more expensive range of "must haves". Logically, few are really necessary -- unfortunately, logic has little to do with it! As regards being able to afford the new 80-400, yes I can, but my acquisition period for my current digital kit has been pretty short and expensive, so I feel like I should back off for a while.<br>

Again thanks for your input, it is appreciated.</p>