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

[elliot1]

<p>Caleb, the 80-400mm has a focus limit switch. Make sure you turn it on when you do not need to shoot anything close to you. The is the secret to successful use of the lens (focus speed wise).</p>

<p>Most of the photos here were taken with the 80-400mm lens:</p>

<p><a href="../photodb/folder?folder_id=840110">http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=840110</a></p>

<p> </p>

[ilkka_nissila]

<blockquote>

<p>instead of spending 5 grand on the worlds best 400mm lens (200-400), which is a ton iof weight.<br /> <br /> <em>Please don't make that sounds like something undesirable.</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>I would be happy to have one if it were less expensive. ;-) But if long-distance results are like this:</p>

<p>http://www.naturalart.ca/images/test_shots/4Ways400_LongDistance_f8.jpg</p>

<p>then it would be hard to conclude the 200-400/4 is the world's best 400mm lens. The author also posts shorter range results which are excellent and show much smaller differences between the zoom and the 400/2.8. But still ... for 6200 EUR I would hope for a more consistent performance across distances.</p>

<p> </p>

[ShunCheung]

<blockquote>

<p>Most of the photos here were taken with the 80-400mm lens:<br>

<a rel="nofollow" href="../photodb/folder?folder_id=840110">http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=840110</a></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Elliot, I wonder why you keep on referencing Richard Armstrong's portfolio each time you want to demonstrate the quality of the 80-400?</p>

<p>That portfolio is full off small JPEG images, which reflect his capability as a photographer but cannot demonstrate the quality of his equipment at all. The main problem with Nikon's 70-300 VR and 80-400 VR lenses is on their long end; moreover, when I tried the 80-400 back in year 2000 when it first came out, I immediately rejected it due to its slow AF. And if you take a look at Richard Armstrong's portfolio, his wildlife images are mainly birds sitting on a tree type that does not at all demand AF speed.</p>

<p>Since the OP currently has a 18-105, I wonder whether he has any real need to jump all the way to 400mm. That is something only he can decide. Moreover, when you use a fairly slow f5.6 lens @ 400mm, a sturdy tripod is a must to achieve great stability and image quality. The longer the focal length, the harder it is to use. Of course if one is not too demanding on image quality, hand holding may be acceptable.</p>

<p>The 70-300mm AF-S VR has its own limitations also and I mentioned some of them earlier in this thread, but at least you can get a new one for $500 or so. I also tested Tamron's 70-300 for photo.net. As Eric points out, the Tamron is wonderful optically for a $400 70-300 lens, but its construction is even worse than Nikon's: <a href="../equipment/tamron/70-300di-vc/">http://www.photo.net/equipment/tamron/70-300di-vc/</a></p>

<p>Finally to Ilkka, the 200-400mm/f4 is my wildlife and sports lens when most of my subjects are in close to mid distance. Since I am not an astro photographer, I typically don't care about focusing to near infinity for long teles. Moreover, for a long tele, focusing to infinity means you are shooting through a lot of air where pollution and heat simmer will trump the quality of your optics anyway.</p>

[zack_zoll]

<p>Ilkka, I suspect there are some 'unknown variables' to that test; possibly lost due to image compression, downsampling, etc. Maybe I'm just trained to doubt teleconverters, but my experience with my own 70-200 VR (and thanks to Shun for helping me decide to buy it ;) ) tells me that there's no way that lens with a 2x TC makes a better image than a 'genuine' 400mm lens of professional quality. Or at the very least, my copy certainly doesn't ... maybe those new N coatings really are that good.</p>

<p>Also, Elliot hit the nail on the head with the focus limiter switch. If your subjects are a semi-consistent distance away (say, 50 feet+), using the limiter switch should take away all the AF issues you've heard about. It did for me, but keep in mind I'm not a birder when I'm not on vacation; I'm not requiring the lens to do as much as others might.</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>The focus limiter switch is not some kind of magic bullet. It was necessary 20 years ago when AF was extremely slow and tend to hunt a lot. Without AF-S, the 80-400 reminds me AF at its infancy 2 decades ago.</p>

<p>The problem with using the limiter switch is that after a while, you'll eventually run into a situation where your subject is outside of that range and all of a sudden you realize that you cannot focus on it, and typically it is another second or two later you realize that you need to adjust the switch. If you use long teles for sports and wildlife as most people do, you will miss shots if you use that feature.</p>

<p>Currently pretty much all of my lenses are AF-S and I don't use the focus limiter switch. It is a old way to solve a problem when technology wasn't up to it a couple of decades ago. That is precisely why the 80-400 is so overdue for an update.</p>

[vahe_sahakian]

<p>Strictly at 400mm and considering the image quality alone, and lets not discuss the slow focus and AF, just the optical quality in long distance nature shots, how do these zooms compare to the older manual focus 400/5.6 ED or EDIF lenses?</p>

[dan_brown4]

<p>The 300/4AF-S is far superior. Probably even with a 1.4 or 1.7 extender. I would go that route. </p>

[paul_g9]

<p>I have to disagree with Shun on two points. First, I've found the 80-400mm to be quite sharp. And although the focus is certainly slower than my 300mm f/4, I've managed to shoot some very nice birds in flight. Would it be nicer to have a $5K+ lens? Maybe, but of course then hand-holding may be out and you may be forced to use a tripod due to the weight. Depending upon the type of photography you do, that can be an enormous drawback. I do a lot of pelagic birding and tripods are worse than useless on a pelagic trip, they are a nuisance and a danger to other people.</p>

<p>Second, as far as I'm concerned a limiter switch should be included on every lens of 300mm or more. I don't really know Shun's photography style or needs, but in bird photography the case he's mentioning where an opportunity might suddenly pop up inside the limited range is a huge minority case as compared to missing shots because the lens focuses all the way back before going back out. The frequency between the two isn't even within an order of magnitude.</p>

<p>When one is shooting songbirds in nearby vegetation or at some type of setup, the switch goes off. When shooting ducks, herons, hawks, seabirds, larger songbirds, songbirds in trees, feeders where you know your distance, and most other birding situations, the limiter is on. It's a setting and like any other setting you have to know how to use it. BTW, the limiter sets minimum range to 16.4', hardly a range that birds get inside of very often unless you're at a setup in which case, as I mentioned, you turn the switch off.</p>

<p>If you're doing wildlife photography, particularly birds, don't ignore your limiter switch. It's a great tool.</p>

 

[vahe_sahakian]

<p>I have the older 300/4.5 ED, not the EDIF, spectacularly sharp for nature long distance shots, now I am wondering about its 400mm equivalent.</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>Paul G., if what you have are the 80-400mm VR and 300mm/f4 AF-S, you are experiencing two Nikon lenses with very slow AF. (If your 300mm/f4 is the older, screwdriver AF version, it is even slower.) When I shoot birds in flight, I don't use my 300mm/f4 AF-S precisely for that reason. Instead, I favor my 300mm/f2.8 AF-S which has much faster AF, although it is much heavier.</p>

<p>Those of you who read our Wednesday image threads have seen me post some hummingbird in flight images. Frequently I am no more than 10, 15 feet from the hummingbrids and they move around very rapidly. Focusing range limiting is the last thing I want because those birds will certainly go in and out of any zone over and over. E.g., I captured this image with the 300mm/f2.8 + TC-14e and this is almost the entire frame with little cropping; that gives you an idea about my distance from the subject: <a href="../photo/10930999">http://www.photo.net/photo/10930999</a></p>

<p>In my experience, if you use modern AF-S lenses on bodies with fast AF such as the D3, D700, D300, and D7000, focus limiting provides little improvement but causes more problems. Sometimes if you shoot under dim light such as night sports, even top-of-the-line AF may still hunt and in that case, you may have no choice but to use focus limiting. Otherwise, it is mainly an old solution to old technology.</p>

<p>It happens that the 200-400mm/f4 AF-S VR works great for me, and I have shot quite a bit of birds in flight recently hand holding that lens. But that is just me. Clearly that is not a lens for most people due to its cost and weight. Since that lens is not what the OP is considering, I won't go on and on about that. Paul G. seems to be primarily a birder instead of photographer. If you take pictures mainly for bird ID purposes, the requirements are definitely very different.</p>

<p>The bottomline is that even the OP is clearly aware that the 80-400 VR is old technology which Nikon should be updating, as he himself pointed that out in his opening post. If you must have 400mm and your budget is within $1600 or so, you may have no choice but to compromise on the 80-400. However, just because a few people try to paint a better picture of it, its various drawbacks are not just going to disappear all of a sudden. If 400mm is not a must for the OP, I would consider other options; $500 or so can get you a new 70-300 zoom with an AF motor inside the lens. If nothing else, you'll definitely save a lot of money.</p>

[paul_g9]

<p><em>"Frequently I am no more than 10, 15 feet from the hummingbrids and they move around very rapidly. Focusing range limiting is the last thing I want because those birds will certainly go in and out of any zone over and over."</em></p>

<p>Note that in my post I explicitly said "when one is shooting songbirds in nearby vegetation or at some type of setup, the switch goes off." Hummingbird photography is done at flowers or feeders, i.e. a setup. So you pretty much just made one of my points for me. As I said before, it's a setting just like every other setting.</p>

<p><em>"If you take pictures mainly for bird ID purposes, the requirements are definitely very different."</em></p>

<p>Not just for ID purposes (though I have had the need for extremely long distance ID shots), but rather using the consumer end of the Nikon lineup. You say you shoot the 300mm f/2.8 and 200-400mm f/4 and then say the limiter switch is archaic, but the fact is that the AF response time is expected to be better in lenses in that price class. At least I would hope so for that kind of coin.</p>

<p>I think you're saying that if the AF speed of the consumer grade lenses was just as good as the pro level, then you wouldn't need a limiter. Do you think the 70-300mm is as fast as your 300mm f/2.8? If so, I'll continue to disagree with you. I've wanted a limiter on my 70-300mm so many times I've lost count. When the 70-300mm comes flying back to its minimum 5' or so focus, the target is completely lost. On BIF, that's unacceptable. I have to find it again as the AF moves back out. On the 80-400mm the AF is slower, but I don't lose my subject as easily since I can usually at least see the shape. Ditto for the 300mm. Busy backgrounds and other birds can easily cause loss of focus. The less searching the AF has to do to get back on track, the better.</p>

<p>Perhaps if I was shooting with a pro body and lens I might feel differently, but since I and the OP are not in that situation it doesn't really matter for this conversation. For the two lenses I use the most, the limiter works perfectly if you know how and when to use it. For my 70-300mm on either my D90 or D7000, it's a lack and sometimes a glaring one. If the other lenses are updated with similar AF speed to the 70-300mm, I'll take a limiter in a heartbeat.</p>

 

[ShunCheung]

<blockquote>

<p>Do you think the 70-300mm is as fast as your 300mm f/2.8?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Of course not. The 70-300mm is a f5.6 at 300mm. You have a lot less light entering the AF module. As I said, I don't even like the AF speed on the 300mm/f4 AF-S for the purpose of birds in flight.</p>

<p>Paul, I wonder you have experience with the big AF-S teles such as the 500mm/f4 AF-S, 300mm/f2.8 AF-S, 200-400mm/f4 AF-S, etc. I don't find the AF range limiter all that helpful on such lenses. Unlike aperture and shutter speed, it is not a setting I can quickly check in the viewfinder. Occasionally I have the limiter set (sometimes unintentially), usually I end up in a different shooting condition and miss some shots because I cannot focus.</p>

<p>If all you are using are bodies and lenses with slow AF, such as the D90, 70-300 VR, 80-400 VR, and 300mm/f4 AF-S, I am sure that your perspective is very different.</p>

<p>But in my case I bought my 500mm/f4 AF-S and 300mm/f2.8 AF-S back in 1998, in an era when AF-S was the symbol of big and expensive lenses. Two years later when the 80-400 VR came on the scene, I already had two years of experience with AF-S lenses and of course the 80-400 compares very unfavorably. And I don't think setting the limiter is the big savior to compensate for the slow AF on the 80-400 VR due to the limitations discussed above.</p>

<p>The OP has a D7000, which is actually my current choice of body for wildlife photography. (When Nikon updates the D300 and merges the advantages from the D300 and D7000, I am sure that my choice will change again.) It is a body that is very demanding on lenses, and I would like to put things into perspective for the OP's sake.</p>

[paul_g9]

<p><em>"Paul, I wonder you have experience with the big AF-S teles such as the 500mm/f4 AF-S, 300mm/f2.8 AF-S, 200-400mm/f4 AF-S, etc."</em></p>

<p>Nope. As I said, I'm located firmly in the consumer price range of lenses. It appears that the OP is in the same boat. For those of us buying lenses in the sub-$2,000 range, limiters can be great. Discussion about lenses at the $6,000 or above range isn't really meaningful to this post. Maybe one day I'll get a chance to own one. The 300mm f/2.8 in particular seems like a very sweet piece of glass that would fit my needs well.</p>

<p><em>"Two years later when the 80-400 VR came on the scene, I already had two years of experience with AF-S lenses and of course the 80-400 compares very unfavorably."</em></p>

<p>I can believe that, but again it's not really germane to the original post or the usefulness of a limiter switch on a consumer priced lens.</p>

<p><em>"When Nikon updates the D300 and merges the advantages from the D300 and D7000, I am sure that my choice will change again."</em></p>

<p>From what I've heard from multiple bird photographers who shoot Nikon, you are hardly alone. It seems like a "D400" can't get here soon enough. I may have to consider it myself as I've read opinions that the AF on the older D300s is still better than the D7000. Not sure if it's true or not, but the expectation certainly seems to be that the "D400" AF will definitely exceed the D7000. The other upgrade I'd like is that bigger buffer. At 6fps, I hit it sometimes especially when photographing seabirds.</p>

 

[ShunCheung]

<p>Paul, as long as we all understand that lenses such as the 70-300mm AF-S VR and 80-400mm VR have much slower AF than the more expensive AF-S lenses, it is all fine.</p>

<p>Again, in the OP's case, if 400mm is not a requirement, I don't think spending $1000 to buy a used 80-400 is a good idea. As I pointed out earlier, for half as much, he can get a brand new 70-300mm lens with an AF motor inside the lens. In particular, the Tamron version is around $400 with great optics.</p>

[paul_g9]

<p><em>"Paul, as long as we all understand that lenses such as the 70-300mm AF-S VR and 80-400mm VR have much slower AF than the more expensive AF-S lenses, it is all fine."</em></p>

<p>Thanks for validating my initial point that a limiter switch isn't necessarily "a old way to solve a problem when technology wasn't up to it a couple of decades ago" but rather a useful tool for consumer priced lenses like "the 70-300mm" which "is a f5.6 at 300mm" since "you have a lot less light entering the AF module." Man, I do with that 70-300mm had a limiter switch.</p>

<p>As to much faster AF on more expensive lenses, I take your word for it.</p>

 

[david_ralph1]

<p>Shun, aside from slower autofocus, what is your feeling about the image quality of the 300 F4 vs the two zooms on the table?</p>

<p> </p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>Optically, the 300mm/f4 AF-S is excellent, and its lens barrel construction is good. Its weaknesses are relatively slow AF for an AF-S lens and a poorly designed tripod collar. The latter is a well known issue that has been discussed many times. There are 3rd-party replacements, but that adds another $150 to $200 to the overall cost.</p>

<p>I never seriously used the 80-400 VR. I have tried a couple of samples at camera stores when it first came out 11 years ago. As soon as I noticed its AF speed, I knew that I didn't need to look any further.</p>

<p>My primary experience with the 70-300mm AF-S VR was a refurbished one I bought a few months ago, and it turns out to be defective: <a href="00Y8dY">http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00Y8dY</a> Therefore, it is not representative.</p>

<p>Most of the reviews that are reliable such as Thom Hogan, etc. indicate that the 80-400 VR and 70-300 VR are weakest on their long end, but what is "sharp" is subjective and depends on your expectations. But I think there should be little doubt that the 300mm/f4 AF-S is the best among them optically. However, similar to the 80-400, we have been wondering why Nikon has not added VR to the 300mm/f4 AF-S. That is yet another lens that is overdue for an update.</p>

[studio460]

<p>Well, it's sharper than both my AF Nikkor 180mm f/2.8 IF-ED, and my AF Nikkor 80-200mm f/2.8D ED, and possibly nearly as sharp as my AF-S Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8G ED VR I. And, sure, it's "only" VR I, but it's still pretty decent VR:</p>

<p><img src="http://studio460.com/images/400pepsi.jpg" alt="" /><br>

AF Nikkor 80-400mm f/4.5-5.6D ED VR<br>

F = 220mm; f/5.3 @ 1/13th (on a monopod)</p>

<p><img src="http://studio460.com/images/400ski.jpg" alt="" /><br>

AF Nikkor 80-400mm f/4.5-5.6D ED VR<br>

F = 400mm; f/5.6 @ 1/640th</p>

<p>And lastly, a real-world shot:<br>

<img src="http://studio460.com/images/400cops.jpg" alt="" /><br>

AF Nikkor 80-400mm f/4.5-5.6D ED VR<br>

F = 330mm; f/5.3 @ 1/640th</p>

 

[ShunCheung]

<p>Ralph, are those the entire frames of the respective images? Did you see my comments to Elliot Bernstein earlier in this thread? How can you evaluate sharpness with such small JPEG images?</p>

[alan_wilder1]

<p>I purchased the 80-400 VR Nikkor for my F100 when it originally came out several years ago and eventually returned it after trying two different samples due to poor edge performance at 400mm. The test review of the lens in Popular Photography at 400mm also confirmed mediocre performance in the outer zone although they define it as acceptable. However, I found that performance on film up to 300mm was excellent out to the edge. Given that it will be used by you on a DX format camera, the crop factor will eliminate much of the offending outer zone at 400mm that was soft for film or digital FX. I suspect Nikon had this in mind anyway when they introduced this lens several years ago as they were starting to produce some serious DX digital SLRs. </p>

[mark_fischer1]

<p>I use 80-400mm for Auto Cross racing shoots. It works great for my purposes. It works best with my D200 and is okay with the D80 (differences is D200 has faster & more accurate AF).</p>

[studio460]

<p>Yes, Shun, those are all uncropped images. Here's a 100% crop of the ruler image:</p>

<p><img src="http://studio460.com/images/400-1.jpg" alt="" /><br /> 100% crop of AF Nikkor 80-400mm; f/5.6 @ 400mm.</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>Thanks Ralph. I can see a bit of chromatic aberration and lack of sharpness; not sure how much of that is due to the fact that ruler seems really worn out.</p>

[studio460]

<p>Like I said, it's a great bikini lens! With its 600mm-equivalent reach, it's super-fun to use on a DX body. While f/5.6 isn't a huge maximum aperture, with distant backgrounds, at or near full-telephoto, you can still attain an effective amount of subject-isolation. At first, I too, was put off by the numerous online reports of its slow auto-focus. But as I said, once you're in-range, it's completely serviceable. I also considered the 300mm f/4, but the extra 100mm of reach, plus the added VR capability convinced me to get the 80-400mm instead. Here's a shot I took last summer with it for a bikini designer (Breathe Volleyball):</p>

<p><img src="http://studio460.com/images/breathe1.jpg" alt="" /><br /> AF Nikkor 80-400mm f/4.5-5.6D ED-VR @ 360mm<br /> f/5.3 @ 1/2,000th</p>

[ilkka_nissila]

<p>IMO the crop of the rulers doesn't look bad for a lens on a DX cameraat 400mm wide open. Could you repeat which camera body was used and how it looks at f/8.</p>