Nikon 300 f4 AFS vs Nikon 80-400 VR

[doug_seigars]

I have searched the archives but, have not found this specific

issue I am about to ask. I am a Nikon user who is considering either

the 300f4 AFS + TC14E or the 80-400 VR lens. I wish to use such

lenses for mammal and bird photography. Autofocus is NOT an issue, I

never use autofocus. So I was wondering if anybody has any

experiance with such lenses. I realize that the 80-400 has an

advantage in terms of it's ability to zoom, but the 300AFS has a

speed advantage. I particular, I was wondering about two specific

things - build quality, and image quality at the 300 and 400 mm

ends. Also, has anybody found the slow speed of the 80-400 to be a

big hindrance? In passing, I would be using the lens on an N90s,

therefore, the VR feature would not function. PS, I am not willing

to spend the $ on a 300 2.8 or 400 2.8, so don't even mention it.

Any responses will be appreciated

Thank you very much

Doug

[erick_lamontagne]

Sorry, but I will mention the 300/2.8. If AF is not an issue, how about a used 300/2.8 AIS. I bought mine for 800$. Another lens that's cheap on the used market is the older AF 300/4 EDIF.

 

If you insist on buying new, just from the specs (haven't used the AFS and VR), I'd get the 300/4 for the extra speed at 300mm and minimum focusing distance. Check foto.no for reviews.

[fabriziogiudici]

Hi Doug.<p>

 

I've been using the 300f4 AFS for a couple of months, and I think it's an excellent lens from the optical point of view. I'm using it also with 1.4x and 2x teleconverters (Kenko Teleplus Pro) and the lens performs very well.<p>

 

The 300f4 AFS is well known to have a weakness in the tripod collar, but the problem can be solved easily - take a look at

<a href="http://foto.no/nikon/AFS300_test_images.html" target=_new>http://foto.no/nikon/AFS300_test_images.html</a>

(you will find other information about the 300afs too).<p>

 

I don't know the 80-400VR, you might take a look at Moose Peterson's review (<a href="http://www.moose395.net/gear/mcb80400vr.html" target=_new>http://www.moose395.net/gear/mcb80400vr.html</a>).<p>

 

Just a final thought: if you're not interested in AF, you might want to buy the 'older' 300f4 EDIF/AF (not AF-S) which is cheaper - and it will accept rear-mounted filters (the AFS doesn't).<p>

 

Good luck!

[ShunCheung]

I happen to think that AF is very important for wildlife photography, but if you indeed feel that AF isn't important to you, why not consider the older 300mm/f4 AF (non-AF-S)? Actually, I would like to sell mine as I am considering moving onto the AF-S version so that I can maintain AF with the TC-14E.

 

Generally speaking, the 300mm/f4 is a good lens to have for wildlife work. It is relatively light and inexpensive. However, for bird photography, neither the 300 nor the 400 (in 80-400) is really long enough. If you aren't going to use the AF nor the VR, I don't understand why you want to get the 80-400 as you aren't using its main strength. You'd be paying a lot of money for features you won't use.

[steve_dunn2]

<p>I don't know the relative optical quality of those two lenses. Assuming they're both decent, and that the usual guideline applies that a decent prime is better than a decent zoom, I'd take the 300+1.4 in your situation (AF and VR not being a consideration). I doubt you'll be using the 80-400 anywhere other than 400 most of the time, so the ability to zoom probably won't be of great use to you. So take the faster and higher-quality 300, with the 1.4x that makes it a same-speed and probably similar-quality 400 (approx.).</p>

[matt_cox1]

Doug -- I use both these lenses extensively, and to answer your specific question, I think the build quality of each is equivalent and very solid, and I think the optical quality of each is outstanding as well, including the 80-400 at 400mm. If you ran MTF curves on each lens, I suspect the 300 would score a little better, but the image quality from each is outstanding at all focal lengths. I you could take advantage of the VR, I would say it's a no-brainer to get the 80-400. With the films available today, the speed difference between an f4 and and f5.6 lens is not a factor in my opinion. Basically, I don't think any of the three areas you ask about provide a real discriminating factor between these two lenses. I would probably recommend the 80-400 if you can justify the higher cost.

[doug_seigars]

Thank you all for all the responses so far. Regarding some of the responses: I would prefer to buy a new lens (matrix metering, new would probably last longer), and although the used 300 2.8 would be great indeed, the size and weight are drawbacks. Thankyou for your responses. I also looked at some of your portfolios - nice job!

[dennis__skip__higgins]

Was composing a response when I noted your size/weight issue so my suggestion may be a moot point.

 

I also do not often use the autofocus of the lenses in my kit and find that my 400/3.5 ED AIS does wonders with and without any of the available TC's. It can be had for a price similar to that of the 80~400 and allows you almost two stops more light.

[chuck]

"I realize that the 80-400 has an advantage in terms of it's ability to zoom, but the 300AFS has a speed advantage. I particular, I was wondering about two specific things - build quality, and image quality at the 300 and 400 mm ends."<p>

 

80-400 VR has excellent sharpness and contrast at 300 f/5.6, although a hair flatter and very slightly softer at corners than 300 AF-S at f/5.6. At 400 80-400 is still pretty good, very competitive with 300 f/4AF-S + TC-14E. The actual built quality of both lenses are very good, and very soild. Both has very sturdy, thick walled plastic barrels. But neither are quite up to the all metal construction standards of the old, non AF-S version of the 300 f/4. If you plan to use a late model Nikon body like the F100, then you should also figure the advantages of Active Vibration Reduction (VR) feature of the 80-400 into the equation. But if you use earlier Nikon bodies, which do not support the lens's VR feature, then that would not be a consideration.<p>

P.S. 80-400 VR and 300 f/4 AF-S share the exact same removable tripod collar. So that should not be a point in favor or against either one. I never found 80-400's tripod collar to be insufficiently stiff. That seem to have been an accusation started on one web site and propagated by word of mouth until it is held as the truth by people who never even saw it.

[ilkka_nissila]

I have the 300/4 AF-S. I first used it as it came in the box. With the F90X I didn't notice any immediate problems, other than the lens being shaky on tripod. I was later shooting a moving target with the lens on tripod attached to an F3 (the mirror of which is not as well damped as on the F90X) and after each exposure, even though I had my left hand on the lens to reduce the vibration, the viewfinder image was shaking wildly after each exposure (when the mirror came down). I did get acceptable slides, but when I did a side-by-side comparison of two shots of rocks with MLU and without MLU, the difference was startling. I then put a piece of wood covered with something soft to put between the lens and the collar, and that made the lens easier to use. However, while that helped to reduce the vertical vibrations, horizontal vibrations due to wind were still troubling. Finally, I resolved the issue by having a piece of PVC made to fit perfectly between the collar and the lens, and now the lens is a joy to use. I cannot say the lens is useless without the fix, but it does give noticeably sharper images with "double support". The piece of PVC was made so that it has a round face to match the diameter of the lens barrel (a ball latheing tool capable of "negative r" was used to do it), giving support in the horizontal dimension also. Thankfully, the collar slopes up as the piece is moved in, so that I can adjust the tension between the support and the collar. If anyone is interested in the fix, I might make a little machine drawing of it so that you can have it made by someone. And by the way, the lens is excellent in all other respects as far as I can tell!

 

As for the 80-400, I don't have any experience with it.

 

I do second the recommendation on considering a 2nd hand 300/2.8 AI-S if you really don't use AF.

 

Ilkka

[safarishots]

I agree with what Matt said a few posts up. I also have both at the moment and use them with a N80 body (waiting for digital SLRs to get cheaper!) I first bought the 300/TC combo and then bought the 80-400. The 300/TC just sits now and I plan to sell it.

 

Let me add a few comments:

 

- The 300 is longer and especially with the TC-14E, more cumbersome than the 80-400. The combo won't fit in my large holster case but the 80-400 fits easily.

- I use the lenses on safari in dusty conditions. Taking my 300 on and off of the camera to add or remove the TC-14E always makes me nervous about getting dust inside the camera and lens.

- The TC-14E takes time to take on and off. I've missed shots because I was fiddling with the teleconvertor.

- The 300 with the TC-14E is essentially a 420 f5.6. The 80-400 gives you 400 f5.6. So in the 400mm range there is no speed advantage either way.

- The 300 does focus faster on AF, but the 80-400 is not bad if you use the focal length limiter switch.

- The VR really can help if you are doing handheld or monopod shots, especially in dim forests or at dusk/dawn.

- The VR doesn't get you anything if your subject is moving within the frame. If you shoot moving targets at 300mm most of the time, then the 300 would be faster in terms of both aperture and AF.<div></div>

[chuck]

The VR 80-400 does have one very annoying problem. With the 80-200 AF-S and F100, if I try to focus on a difficult subject, the AF system often makes a second pass if it fails to focus on anything the first time around. With the 80-400, the AF makes one pass, and if it doesn't find anything, it stops against the limits. Firthermore, if I had the limiter switch set, the F100's focus motor would not stop when the lens reach the limit, instead, the motor would stall and continue to whine after the lens bumps against the focus limiter.

[michael_kerschoff]

Have used both lenses on d300, I currently own the 300f4. The 80-400vr is obviously a lot more versatile than the 300f4, and vr is a very usefull feature for wildlife photography, the autofocus can be a tad slow for some sports but in most cases more than adequate, the optical quality is very good colour saturation and sharpness @ 400mm is good will no real aberations.

I would have no problem recomending either. The 300f4 is not vr and is well, only 300mm or 420 @ 5.6 with 1.4 x tele. And costs the same with 1.4x tele which i would recomend.

The faster autofocus isnt much of an issue for wildlife users, but the image quality is to be fair, uncomparable. All the pro prime lenses300, 400,500,and600 of which the 300f4 is about the cheapest, are about as good optically as you can use on a 35mm or digital Slr.

Take a picture of the sea with both, you will notice far more wave or ripple detail, colour saturation and sharpness, on animals more colour and feather or fur detail.

It's a matter of performance vs convenience.

Both lenses are aimed at particular markets and do their jobs very well ask yourself

Which is more you