Nikon 80-400mm/f4.5-5.6 AF-S VR, Early Impressions

[ShunCheung]

<p>Don, that is a very fine dragonfly image; congratulations. I am sure the better high/mid ISO capability from the D7000 helps.</p>

<p>Incidentally, the 80-400 AF-S can focus down to a very short 1.5 meters, about 5 feet. The 200-400mm/f4 AF-S can go down to about 9 feet, which I find quite convenient already.</p>

<p>To sum up, I don't think there are any major disappointments for this lens. Obviouly it is not an f2.8 super tele (e.g. the 400mm/f2.8 or 300mm/f2.8) or even f4, so there is definitely limitations under dimmer light, but it is also much easier to hand hold and carry around. Optically, it is approaching the very best long teles. For those who are familiar with the popular 70-300mm AF-S VR (which I have access to but my one attempt to purchase a referb was not successful), this 80-400mm AF-S belongs to a different class but, naturally, is also priced accordingly.</p>

<p>A few of the drawbacks include:</p>

<ul>

<li>A somewhat poor tripod collar, Nikon simply does not have a tradition to make good tripod collars that are completely removeable. I like the one on the 70-200mm/f2.8 AF-S VR, versions 1 and 2, but only the "foot" part is removeable.</li>

<li>The barrel is kind of wide, harder for me to hold than the 300mm/f4 AF-S or 70-200mm/f2.8 AF-S VR.</li>

<li>Focus breathing: not a big deal to me but the amount is quite serious</li>

<li>Cost: the price is rather high for a slow zoom, although a very good one. Whether it is "worth it" has to be up to each individual to decide. The value of the yen is once again coming down, back to the US$1 for 100 yen level. Whether that will or will not affect future Nikon prices is up to you to determine.</li>

</ul>

<p>To me, the 80-400mm AF-S will mainly be an outdoor, hand held sports lens or wildlife lens, where shutter speed will be at least 1/500 sec and perhaps more like 1/1000 sec or faster. Therefore, while this lens has very good VR, we probably won't need it as much. I think it is ideal for birds in flight. In that sense I probably won't be using it on a tripod that often. However, at least in my case, it won't replace the 200-400mm/f4 AF-S and the longer constant f4 super teles.</p>

<p>BTW, I also checked out the other lesnes with teleconverter:</p>

<ul>

<li>The 300mm/f4 AF-S with TC-14E: That is optically a fine combo, @ 420mm/f5.6, it is comparable to the new lens at 400mm, f5.6. However, I never like the AF speed on the 300mm/f4.</li>

<li>70-200mm/f2.8 AF-S VR II with TC-20e III: I would say forget it. The combined cost for those two is almost $3000 and it is a lot worse than the new lens at 400mm, f5.6. I see no point to ruin the excellent 70-200 VR II that way.</li>

<li>The 80-400mm AF-S VR @ 400mm + TC-14e: I need to use it some more. So far it seems to be better than I expected, but it is still a very slow, 550mm f8 lens with lots of limitations.</li>

</ul>

<p>There are clearly some members who have had this lens for much longer than I have. I highly encourage them to post their experience, probably different from mine, as well as some sample images. In the mean time, I'll continue to use it in the coming few weeks.</p><div></div>

[Dieter Schaefer]

<blockquote>

<p>The 300mm/f4 AF-S with TC-14E: That is optically a fine combo, @ 420mm/f5.6, it is comparable to the new lens at 400mm, f5.6. However, I never like the AF speed on the 300mm/f4.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>So Shun, you are saying that the new zoom focuses faster than the 300 with the TC? I have the 300 but would likely sell it when I get the 80-400.</p>

<p>The focus breathing is kind of obvious - seeing that the specs from the Nikon USA website give a 1:5 magnification ratio for the zoom vs 1:4 for the 300/4 - but it's also at 1.75m vs 1.45m for the prime. Incidentally, the 200-400 is listed as 6.6ft with a max ratio of 1:4 as well - is that because it's the newer version?</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>Dieter, I haven't tried them side by side, but at least under sunlight, I am confident that the 80-400 AF-S AF faster than the 300mm/f4 AF-S. Adding the TC-14E will only slow the 300mm/f4 further down.</p>

<p>However, I haven't used the 300mm/f4 AF-S all that much in the last two years, with the new generation of DSLRs such as the D800 and D7100. AF from those two bodies are clearly better than even the entire D3 series. In that sense, my familiarity with the 300mm/f4 AF-S is out of date. Optically, it is still very fine with the D800, but my experience with its AF performance is mainly based on the D100, D2X, and D300. My older, first generation 300mm/f2.8 AF-S has much faster AF than the f4.</p>

<p>Please keep in mind that I have only used the 80-400 AF-S for a few days. While I have checked out most of the important issues, more details have to come from experience using that lens for an extended period.</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>BTW, both versions 1 and 2 of the 200-400mm/f4 AF-S VR can focus down to 2 meters, about 6.5 feet. Somehow I remembered that it was 9 feet, as that become an issue back in April when I was photographing hummingbirds. They were quite tolerant to a degree that my 500mm/f4 AF-S version 1 could not focus close enough, while the 200-400 had no problems.</p>

[ian s. forsyth]

<blockquote>

<p>Attached is a pixel-level crop from a D7100 image, with the 80-400mm AF-S VR @ 400mm, wide open at f5.6. Perhaps a 400mm/f2.8 AF-S stopped down by 2 stops to f5.6 can produce sligtly better results, but I really can't complain about this optical performance.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Thats for sure</p>

[kgavin]

<p>I just find it hard to believe that the old version of the 70-200 VR was $1999 and the new version is $2399, while the old version of this lens is $1675 and the new version is $2700. That's a 20% increase on the 70-200, but a 61% increase on the 80-400. I've said this before, but there must really be some secret sauce in this lens to get to that kind of price point, unless this is all about marketing (Nikon positioning this as a true "specialty" lens rather than a simple extended range telephoto). Using the 20% increase on the 70-200, this lens price should have come in around $2010 or so (let's just round up to $2100). I know...70-200 to 80-400 is an apples to oranges comparison.</p>

<p>Perhaps Nikon didn't want the 70-200 and the 80-400 so close in price, which is why I say it's all about marketing. But even this is a little silly...if I'm a birder looking to get into digital, I could buy a Canon 70D crop body for $1200 and the 100-400 for $1500 - total cost is equal to this Nikon 80-400 lens (sans body).</p>

<p>But, as others have said, this lens (like other products and services priced high) has its buyers. I have a buddy who shoots weddings and says he has a $20K option package...not because the photo package is worth it, but because there are always one or two people who buy it every year.</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>The Canon 100-400 was introduced back in 1998. The following year, in 1999, I went to Bosque Del Apache in New Mexico with Arthur Morris, who was using that lens and praised it to no end. Of course he was sponsored by Canon and was paid to advertise for them, and we were all using 35mm film back then. In other words, the Canon is a 15-year-old design, even older than Nikon's 80-400 version 1 (introduced in 2000). I seriously doubt that either one of those two old lenses is nearly as good as the new 80-400 AF-S.</p>

<p>I am certainly not desperate for another tele. Hopefully we'll see some price drop and/or rebate after a few more months.</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>Here is one more example at 400mm, f5.6 with the D7100 @ ISO 400, 1/1600. Check out the duck's eye and feather.</p><div></div>

[parabellumfoto]

Very impressive!

 

It can resolve detail alright!

[ShunCheung]

<p>I saw this mallard duck family at the Antonelli Pond in Santa Cruz a few days ago. With multiple animals, I stopped the lens down to f8.</p>

<p>And there is a related discussion on the 300mm/f4 AF-S, compared to the 80-400: <a href="/nikon-camera-forum/00bqfr">http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00bqfr</a></p><div></div>

[ShunCheung]

<p>You can find photo.net's review here: <a href="/reviews/nikon-80-400G/">http://www.photo.net/reviews/nikon-80-400G/</a></p>