Thoughts on AF-S NIKKOR 80-400mm f/4.5-5.6G ED VR

[rwa757]

My current kit includes a D780, Nikon 70-300 AF-P, Nikon 200-500, and the Nikon 24-120.  As I've aged a little, I've found the 200 - 500 to be too heavy to use without a tripod.  I'm considering selling it, along with the 70-300 and picking up the AF-S 80-400 G.  I've had this lens in the past when it was first issued but sold it to gain more reach with the 200-500.  I don't do as much long distance wildlife photography as I used to, but I'd still like to have a little more reach than the 70-300 gives me on the rare occasion that I want it.  So here's the question...is the 80-400 a good match with the D780?  I know it's lighter than the 200-500 but I'd like to hear how people feel about using it handheld for extended periods.  Also would like to hear opinions on AF, sharpness.

s 

[ShunCheung]

I would get the 500mm/f5.6 PF. Its value in the used market has dropped in favor of Z mount lenses. That should form a great combo with the 70-300.

[bob_flood1]

Unless the zoom feature is important, I suggest considering the 300 PF plus 1.4X and 1.7X teleconverters. I use this kind of setup to get 300, 420, and 510 mm capabilities with excellent image quality. I have sacrificed the convenience of a zoom, but have found I rarely miss a shot because I'm changing the lens setup.

[joseph_smith3]

16 hours ago, ShunCheung said:

I would get the 500mm/f5.6 PF. Its value in the used market has dropped in favor of Z mount lenses. That should form a great combo with the 70-300.

I also agree with Shun's recommendation. I use and love my Nikon 500 f5.6 pf on my D500, D850 and Z9. I am 80 with some mobility and other aging challenges and the relatively smaller size and weight savings of this lens over larger and heavier zooms are  a huge benefit. 

[ShunCheung]

Several years ago, some friends and I all have both the 200-500 and 80-400 in the F mount. Some people felt that the 200-500 is the sharper between the two, but I like the 80-400 a lot. However, when Nikon introduced the 500mm/f5.6 PF in late 2018, plenty of people moved from the 200-500 to the 500 PF because it is much lighter. If you would like to have 500mm in the F mount, that is probably the best way to go. I also have the 300mm/f4 PF; that is a very compact lens but I rarely use it since I find 300mm too short.

In the Z mount, there are a lot of great telephoto choices, but those lenses are useless if you use Nikon DSLRs.

[bgelfand]

When I was looking for a long telephoto lens for my D750, I was able to try  several lens when a camera store had a day at the Sacramento Zoo. All the major manufacturers were there with their products. I could borrow whatever I wanted to try. I tested the Nikon 200-500, the Nikon 500PF, and the Tamron 150-600 G2 as well as some 24-70 lenses. I bought the Tamron 150-600 a year later.

The Nikon 200-500 was nice, but heavier, by over half a pound than the Tamron, and the focus was slightly slower than the Tamron or the Nikon 500 PF. The focal length was shorter than the Tamron both at the short and long ends.

The 500 PF is a beautiful lens. It is sharp. But, there is always a but, it is a prime. While I was testing it, I found it was too long for several shots I wanted, shots I was able to take with the 200-500 or the 150-600.  It is also $3600 (US), over twice the price of either the 200-500 or the 150-600. 

If you have a camera that carries Tamron near by, try the weight and see how it feels. If it is not too heavy, I think it would make a good replacement for the 200-500.

[Dieter Schaefer]

I had been very excited when I got the 80-400 back in early 2014 (believe that was the first time Nikon had a $400 rebate on it) - it replaced mt old AF-D 80-400 and for the most part also the AF-S 300/4 that I used almost exclusively with the TC-17EII. It did not disappoint being used on a D300 and then on a D7100; AF was fast (faster than the AF-S 300/4) and it was easy to handhold. It fell out of favor once I got the 200-500 (I am one of those who feel the 200-500 is the sharper of the two - and it certainly beat the AF-S 300 with the TC-17EII by a lot). Made the mistake to purchase a second copy of the (refurbished and discounted) 80-400 late in 2016 for my wife to use on the D500 instead of realizing that I would rarely use my 80-400 now that I had the 200-500 (which got obsoleted by the 500PF in late 2019). Now I have two rarely used AF-S 80-400 that have abysmal trade-in value (below $500 for a lens that cost $2700 at introduction and for which Nikon still wants some $2200 new).

There are basically three advantages of the 80-400 over the 200-500: (a) lower weight, (b) faster AF, and (c)a more versatile zoom range for everyday photography. Nowadays though, I very much prefer to use the 300PF and the 500PF instead - both work well with a TC-14EIII (the latter only when used on the Z9, not so much on the D500 and D850). Forget the TC-17EII (and any of the TC-20E); you are better off cropping.

 

I think for your intended use, the 80-400 is an excellent choice. Personally, I would not buy it as a wildlife lens but it is fine for everyday use and travel.

[rwa757]

Thanks to all for your advice!  It's much appreciated.  My local camera shop pointed me in the direction of the Tamron 100-400mm F/4.5-6.3 Di VC USD.  All reviews I've read are generally positive, with the exception of some AF issues.  Is anyone familiar with this lens?

[rwa757]

Thanks to all for your advice!  It's much appreciated.  My local camera shop pointed me in the direction of the Tamron 100-400mm F/4.5-6.3 Di VC USD.  All reviews I've read are generally positive, with the exception of some AF issues.  Is anyone familiar with this lens?