Considering the new 80-400mm

[pcassity]

<p>I am considering selling my 70-200 f.28 VR and purchasing the new 80-400mm to be used on a D800. I would like the extra reach for occasional bird shots. I have found that I rarely use the 70-200 at anything larger than f5.6. Your thoughts? This is one of the original 70-200mm VR. Not the VRII.</p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>How occassional is the bird shot?<br>

The 80-400VR is pretty large, heavy and currently still very expensive. If you're going to use the long end only occassionally, "downsizing" to the 70-200 f/4VR (for 'regular use') could also make sense - it wouldn't give you the length, but a lot less to carry.</p>

[alastair_anderson]

<p>I agree with Wouter. I have the new 80-400 and it's a great lens but the 70-200 is more practical unless you need the longer reach regularly. 'How occasional is the bird shooting?' is exactly the right question. I personally wouldn't want to part with the faster, fixed aperture zoom.</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>The 70-200mm/f2.8 AF-S VR and 80-400mm AF-S VR are somewhat similar in price and size (when the 80-400 is set to 80mm), but they are very different lenses. The 70-200mm is great for indoors because it is f2.8, while the 80-400 is mainly an outdoor lens.</p>

[Two23]

<p>I have the Nikon 70-200mm f2.8 VR and the older 80-400mm VR. They are indeed two different lenses. The 70-200mm is a great lens for weddings and low light work. The 80-400mm VR is a great travel lens and can work for widlife too. Since I do use the f2.8 on the 70-200mm, I need to keep it. I am waiting for the price to go down on the 80-400mm so I can sell my older copy and buy the new. If I had to choose between the two, hmmm. I would probably have to keep the f2.8 since it's so useful for weddings. If I quit doing those, I'd choose the 80-400mm.</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>

[jonb]

<p>The original AF-S 70-200 is a little weak in the corners on an FX body, which I would think would be particularly noticeable on the D800. (I'm still using a 12-MP D3, and it's even detectable on that.) Of course, you say you seldom open up beyond f/5.6, so you wouldn't be experiencing the worst of that.</p>

<p>You say that you "rarely" shoot wider then f/5.6. Are you OK with <em>never</em> shooting wider than f/5.6 at the longer focal lengths? Because that would be the case if you traded your 70-200 for an 80-400. If you are OK with that, I think the 80-400 makes a lot of sense.</p>

<p>It comes down to whether the wider apertures are more useful for your (presumably non-bird) use than the 200-400 range is for birding. Only you can make that judgement.</p>

[pcassity]

<p>Thanks all. I presume what I am trying to determine it the quality of the new 80-400 when used on the D800 compared to the older 70-200mm VR. I also have the Sigma 150-500 which was quite adequate on my D3s for my occasional bird close-ups but is just terrible on the 800. I will be selling that one for sure. I find that I rarely use my 70-200 indoors these days, when it is used at all. </p>

[alastair_anderson]

<p>I'm going to be using the 80-400 AFS-G in the Kruger National Park next week. Here's a hand-held shot of the moon sharpened in Iphoto on my MacBook Air. (D800, f8, 1/500th, I think VR was on - to hold the subject still!)</p><div></div>

[alastair_anderson]

<p>Sorry; thought I'd cropped that :)</p>

[alastair_anderson]

<p>I'll try again.</p><div></div>

[alastair_anderson]

<p>Last try:</p><div></div>

[ShunCheung]

<p>Both the 70-200mm/f2.8 AF-S VR II and 80-400mm/f4.5-5.6 AF-S VR are optically excellent. Again, one is an indoor lens and the latter is an outdoor lens. If you try to use the 80-400 indoors or at night, its limitations will be incredably obvious.</p>

<p>If you don't shoot much indoors, I would sell the 70-200mm/f2.8.</p>

[pcassity]

Shun, thanks. How would you compare the new 80-400 to the original 70-200mm / f2.8 VR?

[ilkka_nissila]

<p>I would recommend keeping both at least for a while and then deciding if you really want to let go of the 70-200mm f/2.8. I intend to keep both once I get the 80-400 and I'd still expect the 70-200 to get most of the action. For wildlife and landscape use I would imagine the fast maximum aperture of the 70-200 is not necessary but if you do any kind of people photography with it I would think the 70-200/2.8 is superior. For sure, for 400mm use the 80-400 will be much better than using a TC on the 70-200, especially at 400mm, f/5.6. </p>

[Albins images]

<p>I was wondering about a similar question in this thread: <a href="/nikon-camera-forum/00bq7K">http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00bq7K</a>. Good to see some additional answers here!</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>Pat, while I currently have both version of the 70-200mm/f2.8 and the 80-400 AF-S VR in my procession, I have never tested those side by side.</p>

<p>However, I would say version 1 of the 70-200mm/f2.8 AF-S VR is still a fine lens on the latest DSLRs, but version 2 is clearly better optically. The main drawback for version 1 is softness in the four corners on the FX frame at 200mm. If you shoot DX or portrait so that you don't care about the FX corners, that is a non issue.</p>

<p>The 80-400mm AF-S VR, 70-200mm/f2.8 AF-S VR II and 70-200mm/f4 AF-S VR are optically among the best lenses I have used. I wouldn't put version 1 into that same class. However, as long as you use a good lens and camera body, the quality of images mainly depends on the photographer. Whether a lens scores an 89 or 91 on some test is mostly irrelevant. Therefore, I essentially pay absolutely no attention to such tests.</p>