80-400 VR and 200-400mm/f4 VR Reviews

[paulgodard]

Hi

 

Does anyone can give me good advice regarding the 80-400 f/4.5-5.6 VR and 200-400 f/4

VR lenses? Or point to some good review?

 

Thanks.

[Rick Waller]

http://www.naturfotograf.com/index2.html

[eric friedemann]

Scroll down to the bottom for a colletcion of links to reviews on both lenses:

 

 

http://www.nikonlinks.com/equipment_lenses_zoom-telephoto.htm

[2yellowdogs]

http://bythom.com/80400VRlens.htm

[dale_keith]

Paul,

 

I have used both and own the 200-400. I did not care for the 80-400 because it was slow

and was not an AFS model. The 200-400 is very expensive but light years ahead of the

80-400. It comes in an impressive fitted soft case. It

took me 18 months to set aside the cash. I only own one long lens like this. The tele-

extenders also add a further dimension. I have read the 1.7X extender is the best one to

buy. I did not purchase the 1.7X extender as I already owned a 1.4X and was given a 2.0X

as a gift.

I am amazed at how well the 200-400 works. The AFS is fast and the VR works on a

tripod. The VR has a slight lag. I only use it if my tripod set up is a bit tenuous. I always

use it with the monopod. The lens worked great at low light as I used it to shoot a lunar

eclipse. I did

have to buy an RRS ball head and lens/camera mount. You will need a sturdy (carbon)

tripod if you plan to go into the

field. For sports you will need a sturdy monopod and a head. I try to keep my shots at a

minimum of 1/500th. I shot some jet skiers at 1/1250 and stopped the spray off the jets

for twenty feet. You will have to practice panning as you can loose your subject real fast.

 

The 200-400 is a real attention getter. You better know all about the lens. When I had it

out I was asked several questions I could not answer. I have used the lens with a 1.4X

extender and the AFS works. I used the 2.0X extender in manual focus. The shots were

impressive. I shot surfers at about 500 yards. The prints came out great. I also bought the

cir. polarizer at the same time as the lens. If I was buying today, I would skip the polarizer

as I have only used it once.

 

I believe Ken Rockwell and or Ron Galbraith had reviews. When I was buying I emailed real

users I found on the web - mostly nature shooters. Pricing is very competitive at

ephotocraft.com, see Mr. Eldar. I purchased a new USA model from a real Nikon dealer.

Remember, the lens and a camera weigh over ten lbs. It is not a light weight.

Good luck,

Dale

[leicaglow]

I really appreciate experiences with Nikkor lenses. Thanks Dale. Would you have any images you can post or do you use the lens for film only?

[lex_jenkins]

I haven't had the nerve to ask for a demo of the 200-400/4 VR because I know it's outta my budget. But I have compared the 80-400 VR and 70-200 VR at a local shop and found the autofocusing response remarkably similar on my D2H. Despite the lack of SWM in the 80-400 VR it still autofocuses quickly without hunting on a camera like the D2H. Might not do so well on something like a D70, I dunno, didn't try.

 

The 80-400 VR is really a pretty good zoom for the money. It's sharper than my 24-120/3.5-5.6 VR, especially wide open, and I still like my 24-120. The VR really helps. Obviously the slow, variable aperture of the 80-400 is a disadvantage, but this is no ordinary superzoom of the 28-200 or 28-300 variety. It's a really good lens and is probably a more sensible choice than buying the 70-200/2.8 VR if one plans to use the latter almost exclusively with a teleconverter.

 

Shun has mentioned before that he knows someone whose 80-400 VR broke (the barrel actually broke) during what seemed to be a moderate impact. While it's not made to quite the same standard as the 70-200/2.8 VR or 80-200/2.8 Nikkors, it's not an inferior lens. But the incident Shun has mentioned is worth considering if one plans to use a zoom in situations where it might get banged around.

 

I recall reading about at least one similar problem with the popular 100-300/5.6 Canon FD. Great lens for the money, optically, but kinda plasticky. Mine never gave me any trouble but I was careful with it.

 

This is definitely a case of getting what you pay for. And they're really very different lenses. Even with VR I wouldn't want to handhold the 200-400/4. The 80-400 is manageable.

[ShunCheung]

That case was when a friend of mine traveling in Africa. He was inside a Land Rover with his 80-400 sitting on top of a metal camera case on the metal floor of the vehicle. The Land Rover made a sudden stop; his lens fell on the floor and broke in two halfs. I wasn't there but that must have been like a one-foot drop.

 

That person liked the lens so much that after he got home, he bought another 80-400 VR.

[umd]

Despite they are both vr and have some overlapping range they are very different lenses. 200-400 is heavy, expensive and probably better optically. You should consider buying it if you definitely need the extra stop and willing to haul it around. If you are not sure what you are doing don't buy it.

 

I have the 80-400 and I am very pleased. It is optically very good, stopped down a stop or two it gives equally sharp images as my AF 300/4 non-AFS (it is not bad wide open but 300 is better), has a great range and is quite compact considering the range (smaller than 70-200/2.8 VR), it also has very low distortion and is very resistant to flare. This lens is claimed to be slow focusing by mostly the non-users of it, for me it is adequate even on bodies like D70 and F80. In low light AF may hunt, that is not becasuse of the lens mechanics but the smaller aperture and the camera body in use. That said it has a pathetic tripod collar, on tripod it is shaky, esp when there is wind. Note that there are much better 3rd party tripod collars available.

[ShunCheung]

<I>stopped down a stop or two it gives equally sharp images as my AF 300/4 non-AFS</I>

<P>

Stopping down is the key word here. The 80-400 VR is f5.6 at 400mm. That is already on the slow side wide open. If you need to stop down further, especially by 2 stops, there is not very useful.

<P>

A lot of inexpensive lenses could be great at f8 and f11. The problem is their performance wide open.

[greg s]

Sigma has an equivalent 80-400 stabilized lens. Not necessarily recommending it, but if I was in the market I would investigate it.

 

http://www.photographyreview.com/cat/lenses/35mm-zoom/sigma/PRD_145261_3128crx.aspx

[Mike D]

I use both the 200-400 and 80-400 VR lenses. When I purchased the 200-400, I was pretty sure the 80-400 wouldn't get much future use. I was wrong. When you need the best technical quality, have a tripod, and willing to deal with the extra weight, the 200-400 is unparalled. However, when you need to travel light, don't have a solid tripod, or shooting sports where you need the extra zoom range, the 80-400 is hard to beat. It's better to get a slighly less perfect image than no image at all. Besides, you'll only be using the sweet spot on your lenses designed for 35 mm.

[toan_nguyen]

Paul -

 

I recently switched from Canon camp onto Nikon for one reason, and that's the 200-400 VR. Yes, it's that good for my purspose, nature and wildlife. I didn't even think twice about the 80-400 for 2 reasons, the lack of AFS (since I am spoiled by Canon USM) and the lost of an f/stop at the long end. Furthermore, like some people have mentioned above, the image won't be top notch until f/8 or f/11 for the 80-400 VR. If that's the case, then what's the point for a lens like that? When it comes to sport and wildlife, every f/stop, ISO... count.

 

I have used the 200-400 for about 3 weeks now and it's SUPERB. Here are some shots taken with this gem.

 

http://www.pbase.com/tnt_imaging/image/53218253/original.jpg

http://www.pbase.com/tnt_imaging/image/53258134/original.jpg

http://www.pbase.com/tnt_imaging/image/53152051/original.jpg

http://www.pbase.com/tnt_imaging/image/53447676/original.jpg

 

AF is as fast as USM. The AF slows down a tad with the 17E TC. AF tracking is fast but not as fast at the 300 2.8 AFS I when used with the D2X. This is a given.

 

The lens is sharp wide open and tack sharp at f/4.5 throughout the zoom range. With 17E TC, the effective aperture is f/6.7. I used it mostly at f/7.1 or f/8 when combined with TC to get the level of sharpness I prefer. For me, I always stopped the lens down by 1/3 to 2/3 when a TC is used.

 

It's not as heavy as people have suggested. I used it handheld most of the time. Other time, I would rest it on a monopod. With D2X and TC, the combined wt is about 10lbs, not a big deal for handheld, especially when there's VR.

 

I plan to pickup the 1.4E TC next to mate it with this lens and use the 17E TC on the 300 2.8 AFS. That's b/c I don't want to use ISO 640 or higher on the D2x. The ISO noise on this body is not as good as the 1DII. But other than that, I love this combo, much more than the 1DII + 300 2.8L + 2x TC.

 

Thang.

[ivan_verschoote1]

Toan, those pics are truly stunning. I now believe how good this lens really is.

[ShunCheung]

One thing I can assure you is that those images reflect more of the photographer's ability and opportunity to shoot those images rather than the quality of the lens, which I am sure is also excellent.

[ilkka_nissila]

Web sized images do not tell much about the quality of the lens. I am sure the 200-400 is great, as should be expected for the price. It is a lens for those who have the money and don't hesitate about it. The 80-400 is not a lens for those who can afford the 200-400.

[paul.thomsen]

Heres some nature pics with the 80-400VR handheld and wide open - I know little pics on the web don't tell you that much but you can get really nice shots with this lense. I'd love to try the 200-400VR but it would be beyond me for some time. <BR><BR>

 

<A HREF="http://i31.photobucket.com/albums/c361/djambalawa/Goanna.jpg">Goanna</A><BR> <A HREF="http://i31.photobucket.com/albums/c361/djambalawa/jabiru.jpg">Jabiru</A><BR> <A HREF="http://i31.photobucket.com/albums/c361/djambalawa/Bee-Eater.jpg">Bee Eater</A><BR>

[g_c4]

Toan,

 

Stunning photos, congrats!