Nikon 80-400 VR First Model

[Dieter Schaefer]

<p>Averaging over several lens reviews and with the caveat that accounting for sample variation can easily lead to somewhat different conclusions, it appears that on FX at 300 and 400mm, the old 80-400 will provide somewhat better center sharpness than both the 28-300 and 70-300 VR (both set to 300mm), off-center the differences are rather small (and may well favor one or the other depending on the sample used and the focus distance involved), and in the extreme corners the 80-400 will be beat by the other two lenses at 300mm, and most pronounced at its 400mm setting (on FX). To put this in perspective, at 300mm, all three lenses aren't much to write home about when it comes to corner sharpness and there is also a clear difference between the center and off-center. Only at 400mm is the 80-400 really bad in the corners.</p>

<p>On a (lower-MP) DX camera, the 80-400 works fine (at least it did for me) if one can get past the sluggish AF performance (and the fact that it is far from silent), the rather long 2.3m MFD, and is willing to haul a 3 lbs lens around. On higher-MP DX bodies as well as on any of the current FX bodies, one needs to be aware of the compromised corner and border performance above about 350mm, even when stopped down.</p>

[keith_burdett]

<p>To reach 400mm (plus some) on fx with excellent overall quality even at minimum focus distance at a reasonable price I suggest the 300mm f4 (non vr) with 1.4x tc. I know you have several 300 mm lenses but none of that quality especially at close range imo. Of course, you can't zoom it but you do have other lenses...</p>

<p> </p>

[Sandy Vongries]

<p>Dieter, Thanks! Useful information.</p>

[Sandy Vongries]

<p>Thanks, Keith. Ex. the 28-300, my others are virtual antiques, though the 300 f4.5 AI (conversion) is very sharp. No money spent, nor milk spilt. Time to consider and make a decision. Thanks for sharing your thinking on the issue.</p>

[Dieter Schaefer]

<blockquote>

<p>at a reasonable price I suggest the 300mm f4 (non vr) with 1.4x tc</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I have used that combo for some time - and it does beat the AF 80-400 VR in terms of optical quality. AF speed with the TC is marginally - if at all - faster than the 80-400 despite the lens being AF-S. I doubt the AF-S 300/4 and the TC-14E/EII can be had for the same price as a AF 80-400 though.</p>

[alan_wilder1]

<p>I tried the 1st version of the 80-400 f/4.5-5.6 VR when it came out in my film shooting days and found it did a decent job up to 300 for most of the frame. Beyond that, IQ really dropped and it was only sharp on axis at best. Stopped down to f/11 helped a little but off axis was still poor. I finally gave up and switched to the 80-200/2.8 AFS with a TC-20E that beat the other lens at the long end. Given your budget, this isn't an option. The key point is that when shooting at 400, as long as it's for dead center subjects like a bird or small animal, you'll be fine.</p>

[warren_wilson]

I bought the 80-400 when it was first released: the VR seemed magical at the time. I used it on a film body, then a D70,

D200 and D300 before mounting it on my D800.

 

It hunts a great deal for focus on the D800 and it is much too large for me as a "walking around" lens (for that I use the 28

- 300 on the D800 and the 18-200 on the D300).

 

I am leaving next week for a month in the Andes and two weeks on the Galapagos: mostly walking with a backpack. So I

have been very busy evaluating my lens selection. I am most likely going to take my 70-200 f/2.8 with the 2x tele rather

than the 80-400, even though it will mean more weight. The snappy AF and sharper IQ mean enough to me to pack the

weight.

 

(I can't bear to be without the 14-14 f/2.8, or the 105 f/2.8 macro either: I am sure I get as much pleasure from using nice

tools as I do from actually making images. I will be able to carry my photo gear and one change of socks).

[warren_wilson]

Here is a pic taken with the hoary old 80-400 on a D300.<div></div>

[Sandy Vongries]

<p>Alan, Warren, thanks! I think everyone has talked me out of the old model, though Warren's Fox is a great image!</p>

[Sandy Vongries]

<p>Gents, despite all your good advice, I found a minty one at an irresistible price and bought it. I have been playing with it for a day and a half and find it a great addition to my kit. To me, it is a very likable lens. Having a 24-120 as well, I may sell / trade off my 28-300.<br>

I will post some sample photos later in the week.<br>

Again, to all who commented, thanks! </p>

[pete_resetz]

<p> I didn't notice anyone comment on the issue that this lens is the new "E" series lens. It has a electronically actuated aperture that will not work with most older series Nikon camera bodies. I was considering this lens, but it will not stop down the lens aperture with my two D1X's and one D2Xs. So much for Nikon's now out of date matto "AN ABSENCES OF OBSOLESCENCE". Oh pooh.</p>

[pete_resetz]

<p> Sorry I was referring to the 200-500mm lens.</p>