Nikon 80-400mm f/4.5-5.6D ED VR ...worth it?

<p>Hi,<br>

I have the opportunity to get a Nikon 80-400mm f/4.5-5.6D ED VR.<br>

I'm new to DSLR, I just got a D7k with a 18-105 kit and I sure find myself missing a lot of shots because the lack of reach. I'm not really a nature man but I do trips with my family and I'm starting a collection of my daughters favorite animals, views, etc. (...and eventually would like sell them when a worthy one comes).<br>

Thing is, I've read this is not a very updated lens, and not fast enough for some situations (I don't do sports). Do you think it is worth the investment or should I go for a 70-300 instead? (I mean, there is almost a 1k of difference in price). I've read posts saying that maybe nikon would update the 80-400.<br>

I'm talking about new lenses. I wouldn't like to venture on used ones while I can't recognize good from bad. Any advice?<br>

Thanks.<br>

klv.</p>

<p>Caleb - I have this lens, and have used it on a safari in Africa and for other wildlife photos. It is not the fastest focusing lens, as I am sure you have read on the 'net, and mine occasionally hunts to focus. But I find it a reasonably sharp lens, when I do my part. It has VR, and that does work, but it can also lull you into trying shots at slower shutter speeds and I have found sharpness can suffer if you go below about 1/200 a second. That will vary, of course, from person-to person depending on technique. I have read rumors this lens is due for an update. If you want the reach out to 400mm, this is the most cost effective option. For animal "portraits" I find the lens acceptable, and most of the Africa wildlife photos I have posted on photo.net were taken with this lens. If you are looking to photograph action, I would consider other alternatives. Here is a decent review of the lens - <a href="http://www.bythom.com/80400VRlens.htm">http://www.bythom.com/80400VRlens.htm</a>.</p>

<p>400mm is very long on a DX-format body. Unless you shoot a lot of wildlife, consider whether 300mm is sufficient for you.</p>

<p>I never like Nikon's 80-400mm VR lens, and since the OP is using a D7000, it will only reveal more of its optical faults. IMO Nikon should have updated it to an AF-S with newer VR several years ago. Exactly why they haven't done so I don't know. I would imagine that Nikon will eventually update it, but speculating about when that will happen is a pointless exercise.</p>

<p>It's a good lens from an image quality standpoint but pretty slow focusing. I've had both the 80-400 and the 70-300 (still do) and found the image quality comparable. If you can get by with the 300 vs 400 then I'd go with the 70-300. IMHO a much better value.</p>

<p>I own the 80-400 and a friend just got a used one that I checked out for him; I enjoy the lens very much (though I do wish for AF-S). The rumors about an upgrade are making the rounds for several years now - when or even if an update becomes reality is mere speculation and indeed a "pointless exercise". The lens is slow focusing - but a lot depends on what you are shooting and on how practiced you are. Only you can decide if you need the additional reach - which comes at both a hefty price and a marked increase in weight over the 70-300 VR. Also consider that the minimum focus distance is <strong></strong>7.5ft.(2.3m) (vs 4.9ft/1.5m for the 70-300 VR); this can be quite limiting under certain conditions.</p>

<p>I would recommend the 70-300 VR. I used to own the 80-400, and once I got the 70-300 VR I never wanted to haul the 80-400 around anymore. The difference between 300mm and 400mm is minimal, especially since you have 16MP to work with for cropping.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"<em>I have read rumors this lens is due for an update."</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Not a rumor, but a fact. In fact, it's probably <strong>over</strong>due (no AF-S, 1st generation VR) for an update. ;-)</p>

<p>But whether or not it will get said update, well that is the stuff of rumors. Bearing in mind it took Nikon 24 years to "update" the 35mm f/1.4 from manual focus to autofocus. :-)</p>

<p>thank you all for your responses.<br>

i'm thinking i will go for the 70-300 since i'm still starting and could use those almost 1000 bucks on other accs i don't have (flash, light, etc).<br>

cons considered for decision:</p>

<ul>

<li>its fairly expensive to be a lens that needs an upgrade in tech (main reason)</li>

</ul>

<ul>

<li>its main use would be (correct me if i'm wrong) wild and action (not so good), which is maybe 35% of the shots I take, and the 300-400 range would be even a smaller %tage.</li>

</ul>

<ul>

<li>70-300 is newer tech and therefore easier to resell (besides having a wider market).</li>

</ul>

<p>now, i know this is pretty known thread. i've read that the tamron option is a bit cheaper, that the lens is the same and that the build of the nikkor is a bit better. is there any other factor to consider to choose between those two 70-300?</p>

<p> </p>

<p>If you are getting the 70-300mm/f4.5-5.6 AF-S VR, please keep in mind that I have bad experience with two refurbished copies: <a href="00Y8dY">http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00Y8dY</a><br />The OP of that thread eventually sold his lens also because he found it to be not sharp enough on the 300mm end.</p>

<p>More recently, I was on a two-week wildlife photography trip to the Galapagos Islands earlier this month, and our group leader was wildlife photographer Tui De Roy. She also uses the 70-300 AF-S VR on her D300S bodies. While she is happy with the lens, she is on her 3rd copy. Tui De Roy finds that after perhaps a year or two of extensive use, the lens would eventually get out of alignment. Not sure she attempted to get it caliberated, but she simply went onto another copy of that lens and again, she is now on her 3rd copy.</p>

<p>That is something to keep in mind if you are not very careful with your equipment. Tui De Roy, of course, is a full-time wildlife photographer and regularly travels to a lot of tough locations.</p>

<p>If you need the reach, NOTHING beats the image quality 80-400mm for the price at 400mm. You can purchase the lens for under $1000 used which makes it a real bargain if you need the 400mm reach</p>

<p><em>"Not a rumor, but a fact"</em> The facts also point to a much higher selling price than the current lens which may put it out of reach of many.</p>

<p>@elliot<br>

i did find that 80-400 for 1000dlls. used, but since i don't know much about lenses, how do i know it is in good condition? might work there, but what about a few weeks/months later? i can take it to a service center to check it, but they will surely charge me and won't take any responsibility for it later.</p>

 

<p>If you are concerned, buy from a dealer. KEH is a reputable seller of used gear. They currently have several:</p>

<p><a href="http://www.keh.com/search?store=camera&brand=Brand&category=Class&k=80-400mm-vr&s=1&bcode=Brand&ccode=Class&grade=Grade&sprice=0&eprice=0&r=SE&e">http://www.keh.com/search?store=camera&brand=Brand&category=Class&k=80-400mm-vr&s=1&bcode=Brand&ccode=Class&grade=Grade&sprice=0&eprice=0&r=SE&e</a></p>

<p>Their lenses come with a 60 day full warranty and 2 week return period where you can return the lens for a full refund for any reason (minus shipping). I have had many favorable transactions with them as have many others here on p.net. Most recently I bought a lens from them where the aperture failed about 40 days after my purchase. They repaired it at no charge. Their regular repair prices are also very competitive.</p>

<p>KEH's ratings are quite conservative. I have bought several bargain lenses at KEH that looked like almost new. Every lens I have purchased has worked perfectly except the last one as mentioned above.</p>

<p>If you purchase a used lens from eBay, you can get a 1 year warranty from SquareTrade for about 10% of the purchase price if you are concerned.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>the tamron option is a bit cheaper, that the lens is the same and that the build of the nikkor is a bit better. is there any other factor to consider to choose between those two 70-300?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>the tamron is sharper, if anything.</p>

 

<p>Caleb said:</p>

<blockquote>

<ul>

<li>its fairly expensive to be a lens that needs an upgrade in tech (main reason) </li>

</ul>

</blockquote>

<p>Try to find a refurb. I got mine, also a refurb, in mint-condition, for only $1,050. Although every Nikon owner has been pining for years for the 80-400mm to be upgraded, I think it's an excellent lens for the money. Optically, it's a superb lens. My copy is one of the sharpest lenses I own, with surprisingly little CA. Plus, a VRII "upgrade" may push the MSRP over $2,000.</p>

<blockquote>

<ul>

<li>its main use would be (correct me if i'm wrong) wild and action (not so good), which is maybe 35% of the shots I take, and the 300-400 range would be even a smaller %tage.</li>

</ul>

</blockquote>

<p>I pretty much <em>only</em> shoot this lens at 400mm. It's the most-affordable, "super-telephoto" on a DX body. Great for shooting bikinis, surfers, etc. Yes, the AF is on the slow side, but once you're in-range, it's very servicable.</p>

<blockquote>

<ul>

<li>70-300 is newer tech and therefore easier to resell (besides having a wider market).</li>

</ul>

</blockquote>

<p>The only lens I've ever considered selling is my 18-105mm kit lens that "came with" my D7000 (I didn't want to wait for the body-only inventory to start shipping). Although I'm happy that Nikon glass tends to hold its value, I never really plan on selling any of it.</p>

<p>I own both the Nikon 70-300mm and 80-400mm and like both. For general knocking around, you'll probably be happier with the 70-300mm since it's much lighter and more compact. You add a lot of weight with the 80-400mm, but if you need additional reach then it's really the way to go (unless you head for the 300mm f/4 and 1.4x TC which is an awesome bird photography combo).</p>

<p>I disagree with those who say that an extra 100mm doesn't make a big difference, especially on a DX camera. Racked all the way out, you're going from roughly 6X to 9X, or about a 33% increase in magnification. Ask an experienced birder if there's a difference between a 7x and a 10x binocular. There is, and it's big.</p>

 

<p>I don't own the 80-400 VR myself, but a friend does and I have been able to play with his quite a bit. It's sharp (a little more than the 70-300, much less than the 70-200), it has less CA than the 70-300 on most settings, and more reach. It's an excellent lens considering:</p>

<p>1) Only Sigma makes a similar lens. And "similar" is in quotes.<br>

2) The AF and glass are a bit better than the Tamron 200-500, which also lacks VR and has worse construction. Older 200-500s (and the older 80-400) have much worse glass and CA.<br>

3) Other than the Sigma version, what other lens could you buy that offers the same features and takes the same or better photos for the price?</p>

<p>Sure the lens has its flaws. But when you consider what you get, there aren't really any better options. The Sigma version would be worth a look if you were buying new (although I've personally had a few QC issues with Sigma), but if you can get a good deal on the Nikon, that's the way to go. I know of a lot of lenses that take sharper photos, but I don't know of any that do what the 80-400 VR does and takes sharper photos.</p>

<p>You may want to consider the Sigma 120-400 f/4.5-5.6 HSM OS for $900 US. I bought one recently and the few test shots I took so far look pretty good.</p><div></div>

<p>And another at 400mm.</p>

<p>Oops, here it is...</p><div></div>

<p>I said:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Plus, a VRII "upgrade" [to the Nikkor 80-400mm VR] may push the MSRP over $2,000.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I meant to say, that the <em>street price</em> of an improved Nikkor 80-400mm zoom would likely soar well past $2,000 USD. If it were to gain a faster maximum aperture, in addition to added VRII, then its price would skyrocket toward the realm of the "fancy" (read: "unaffordable") Nikon telephotos.</p>

<p>I also said:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>The only lens I've ever considered selling is my 18-105mm kit lens that "came with" my D7000 (I didn't want to wait for the body-only inventory to start shipping). Although I'm happy that Nikon glass tends to hold its value, I never really plan on selling any of it.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>My point being, that I personally never allow a lens' potential "resale value" influence my purchase decision; while others, do consider resale value an important factor in the decision-making process. I'm not saying that's wrong--that's just what I do. Everything I buy, I generally keep.</p>

<p>Worth it?? Absolutely!! Great lens. Fantastic IQ. It is a miracle for the size and weight. Slow?? Naaah......just fine outdoors. Every lens has a purpose. This is not made for indoors, concerts, press conferences, etc etc. Even hand held, on VR is just lovely. It is a screwdrive, not a AF-S, is a bit slow to focus in certain conditions. I would happily buy another one of these instead of spending 5 grand on the worlds best 400mm lens (200-400), which is a ton iof weight.<br /> :-)</p>

<p>wow everyone!, i REALLY appreciate your input on this.<br>

you are really making me reconsider the option of the 80-400. i think you are making a lot of sense but i'm considering the option of a used 80-400. i'm still missing accesories and those 700 would help. or the sigma 120-400 but don't know much about it. gotta do a little research.<br>

i will receive the 80-400 tomorrow so i will be able to feel it. i just hope i wont get in love with it and keep it!<br>

i'm assuming that on 300mm, the 80-400 will beat the 70-300(?)<br>

i'll keep you posted.<br>

many thanks to all of you.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>instead of spending 5 grand on the worlds best 400mm lens (200-400), which is a ton iof weight.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Please don't make that sounds like something undesirable. I am one of those who have the 200-400mm/f4 AF-S VR; mine is the older version 1. I just spend two weeks hiking 4, 5 hours a day in the Galapagos Islands, carrying that plus the 70-200mm/f2.8 AF-S VR II and a few other lenses. And of course I pretty much used that lens on a tripod all the time.</p>

<p>The results are images such as these:</p>

<ul>

<li>The owl image I posted last week: <a href="http://static.photo.net/attachments/bboard/00Y/00YuUX-370673584.jpg">http://static.photo.net/attachments/bboard/00Y/00YuUX-370673584.jpg</a></li>

<li>The flamingo in the current Wednesday thread: <a href="http://static.photo.net/attachments/bboard/00Y/00YvdX-371923584.jpg">http://static.photo.net/attachments/bboard/00Y/00YvdX-371923584.jpg</a></li>

</ul>

<p>But of course not everybody wants to buy an expensive lens, carry so much weight, and demand such quality.</p>

<p>As a bonus, I lost 12 pounds after hiking for 2 weeks.</p>

<p>The 70-300 VR is a good lens, and if you shoot fast with a bit of discipline you can get good results out of it (the same is probably true with the Tamron version, although I've not personally used it). If you shoot small birds like robins, swifts and the like, it will probably be a bit short, and getting closer might not be possible. However, given its portable size, it is a very ideal "light" telezoom which works well with a kit lens.</p>

<p>Out of interest, how much slower-focusing is the 80-400? I've measured my 70-300 to take roughly one second to go from zero to infinity and back again (including the short pause at infinity), and my sigmonster takes twice as long. Upshot of this is that the sigmonster has difficulty tracking subjects that deviate from a constant radius, whereas the 70-300 copes much better. What's it like with the 80-400?</p>

<p>Maybe you could consider the 300mm f/4 fixed f/l adding a TC which does give excellent results, even great for closeups.</p>