New Nikon (vr) 80-400 mm Lens

[art_sarles]

I was wondering if anyone might have some information on this new

lens that Nikons introducing. It sounds like just what I need and I

am sure its going to be a real winner.To be able to zoom from 80 to

400 mm and possibly hand hold the camera would almost be asking to

much.Does anybody have more information on this lens and about the

price.

Thanks

Art sarles

[dan_smith]

It won't be as fast or sharp as Nikons better 85's, 105's, 200's, 200's or 400's. You will pay a price in top performance for the 'hand holdability' feature. What good is it to have this in a slow lens that will force you to shoot faster film?

[dr._steven_bein]

Dan,

Canon has almost the same lens. It is very popular. Your comment seems like a shoot from the hip comment. The reason for the VR lens is to allow shots with slower film without shake. VR means vibration reduction, supposedly giving two to three stops of advantage over a non stabilized lens. I was in Africa last year with another photographer who used the Canon and swore by his 100-400 IS lens, the same effect as the Nikon VR. It was his most used lens on the trip. the Nikon adds a slight amount on the bottom end over the Canon. It should be a popular lens. I have not seen the nikon version, but have read available reviews and comments. Look them up.

[ShunCheung]

As far as I know this lens isn't available yet as a product (instead of a prototype), at least not in North America. Therefore, there isn't a whole lot of people with actual experience with it, and the comments here tend to be speculations.

 

The problem is that lately, Nikon seems to have quality control problems. For example, the expensive 28-70mm/f2.8 AF-S seems to have great sample to sample variation. In fact, the same seems to be true on Canon's 100-400 IS zoom. As a result, we hear drastically different opinions on those lenses. Sometimes the same photographer finds two separate samples very different. At least those quality-control issues seem to go away over time. But until the 80-400 VR is actually available, it is essentially impossible to know how good it is. In particular, this is Nikon's very first VR lens. It may take a little longer for them to get everything right. I wouldn't purchase early samples of this lens.

[dan_smith]

My comments on the IS/VR come from having used some of the Canon IS lenses. No way would I trade the 105 f/1.8, to the 300 or 400 f/2.8's for a slower lens no matter the tech toys embedded inside. Fast 'good glass' lenses are excellent wide open. The Canon 300/400/600 fast lenses with IS would be what I would consider. To have to shoot at 5.6 with a 400 is a killer, IS or not. You really limit your film choices this way while praying the shots will be sharp. Go with the faster lenses to start with & then ADD the IS/VR and you can get even more from your Velvia.

One would HOPE Nikon is getting off their collective Assterisks on this one and will actually get it right. Just like their development of the 600 f/4 AF lenses, they have had a few years to watch Canon do it before getting their own version out for sale.

 

As for the Canon 100-400 IS? A nice lens, but I wouldn't buy one over a prime, faster lens, IS or not.

[mark_haflich]

There really is no info available re this lens except what is on Nikon's web site. I have a $200 deposit on the first one my dealer gets (I trust the dealer to charge a me a fair price--I have done lots of business with him). If the lens I get doesn't perform well because of QC problems, the dealer and Nikon will replace it. I had an early F5 and Nikon treated me very well when it had some problems (completely overhauled it and cleaned for free after a month long shoot in Tanzania-the problems were minor). The Nikon lense will not work with the 14B and 14E teleconverters (because it isn't an I or S designation lense (the canon 100-400 IS will work with the Canon teleconverters). Some Canon shooters have gotton good results with the 1.4x tele and the 100-400 IS at 400 making it a 560 F8 (slow but usable especially pushing the new slide films a couple of stops). You will not be able to do that with the Nikon. In Africa I take a 24-120, a 80-200mm F2.8 AF-S (primarily for elephant shots) and a 400 F2.8 AF-I (and shoot it most often with a 1.4). Use a 2x with it for small bird shots. So I guess I use a 560mm F4 most frequently while on Safari shoots. The Nikon won't do it for me in Africa because of the tele incompatibility but I wil take it in leu of the 80-200 and I will use it more than I ever use the 80-200. A big plus also is having a 400mm hand held "toy lens" (as A. Morris would call it) for flying bird shots. Goodby to my fixed 400mm F5.6 Tokina as well as to the 80-200. All I need for the future is a 400mm F2.8 AF-S VR lens from Nikon to keep me really happy in Africa--it will come and I bet within a year or two. Also a 600mm F4 AF-S VR for my retirement days in Florida. I will file a shooting results report on the 80-400 lens when I get it. Knowing Nikon (it always always late in getting any quantity of a new product out) I expect to get it before years end, probably not much before.

[joe_fuhrman1]

I agree with Dan Smith's comments about preferring fast telephoto glass over the new 80-400 VR f5.6. However, I am planning to get this lens, not for flight shots of birds but for nest photography.

[ShunCheung]

Whether a relatively slow 80-400mm lens is useful or not highly depends on your needs. For example, Canon's 100-400mm IS is great for birds in flight shot hand held. A zoom lets you adjust the focal length quickly when the birds approach and a smaller slow lens makes it easy to hand hold. I can't imagine myself hand holding a 400mm/f2.8, for example. And IS/VR will be extremely helpful if you shoot from a canoe, etc.

 

For many other applications, a fast 80-200mm/f2.8, 300mm/f2.8 or 400mm/f2.8 will be a lot better, especially when you are using tripods. Personally, I think a long lens should be at least f4. f5.6 on the 400mm end is a bit too slow.

[mark_haflich]

My how we stray from a simple request for info on a new lens. Now we have evolved (partly my fault) to what is the best lens to have. The bottom line is that many of us can't afford or can't carry (because of flight restrictions or whatever (back packing)) a large number of lenses. From my limited experience, when in Africa on safari you can bring about one big lens (and getting that through undamaged is no small feat). A 400mm F2.8 with a 1.4x and a 2x does it all. Given the shaking that goes in in a safari vehicle (just me and my wife shooting and a driver (sometimes with the engine running)) an IS or VR couldn't hurt. Hand held? Forget it it. Propped up on bean bags etc yes and moving it quickly to follow an animal, yes. A 100-400 or 80-400 IS or IR to do almost everything else, yes including some handheld. Three lenses (a small 24-120 is the 3rd) and 2 tele conv and a set ot tubes and I'm almost flight legal. The carry on bag for the 400 2.8 and 100-400 or 80-400 will be too heavy. If someone complains, stuff the lenses all in your big vest pocket on the back, shove the film in your vest (a couple of hundres rolls) in the carry on, then repack after you get on. It looks stupid with that bulge on the back (boy does my wife complain if she has to do something like that), but it fits me (in general stupid looking) and it works.

[derek_franks2]

Dan,

Of course fixed 2.8 lenses over the 80-400 range will perform better than the new zoom lens. But you're overlooking an important factor for most amateur photographers: price. A new 400 2.8 sells for about $7,000. You could buy a pretty nice used car for that. My guess is that the new 80-400 zoom will go for under $2,000. Price is the reason I'm shooting a 400/5.6 instead of a 400/2.8. Yes, I would like the 2.8, but I'll just make do and keep my $6,000.

[stanley_mcmanus]

Two people who I greatly admire missed the boat in this discussion. Shun, I must disagree on the QC problems with Nikon or even with Canon. I think it is much more likely that we are dealing with different perceptions of what a quality image is by the different photgraphers. How many times have any of us thrown a photo in the trash only to find a friend who says "Why are you tossing that picture? It's great!". We look at it and see the slightly out of focus eye or the twig coming out of the head of the grizzly bear and reject the photo. Or we see a photo for sale at a big name gallery and wonder who would purchase such a technically poor and artistcly lousy composition. The perception of quality varies, I suspect, more than QC at Nikon or Canon.

 

Dan, while he has a good point, has also missed the boat. People purchase a lens such as the 100-400 IS because it is handholdable. Many of us when vacationing with family or friends simply can't lug around a tripod to steady our shakey hands. Yes, I know about good technique and I agree with those who say to get the technique down first and then help it with technology. Often I bring my camera equipment along on work related trips. But, taking a 400mm f/2.8 or even a 300mm f/3.8 is not practical for many reasons. However, a IS zoom in this range will fit into my suitcase. Also, many of us can't afford the price of fast glass.

 

The biggest problem with IS, VR technology is that they won't stop the subject motion. That is where the fast glass will help. When shooting active animals there is no substitute for shutter speed.

 

If only IS or VR would make as good a photographer as Dan or Shun, then life would be easy. But, not worth living.

[art_sarles]

I am pleased that there are others interested in this lens and was glad with the response.It could take the place of alot of lenses for the amatuer photographer.I liked what Shun mention of the canoe and I am quite sure it will be used for other options in the field.I intend to use a tripod with what ever lens I use but when it calls for a hand held shot,this might be the answer.I don't intend on throwing away my fast lenses but how often do you think about not using a tripod or hand holding the camera with fuji velvia.There is nothing like trying something new.Also I have to agree with Derek,I am not sitting on a pile of money and I gave up on the lotto.I will just have to wait and see what the pros have to say. Thanks for the response.Art

[ShunCheung]

Stanley, take a look at what I wrote again. Sometimes the same person tests two samples of the same lens and finds drastically different optical performance. A good example is Alan Yeo's reviews of two early samples of the Nikon 28-70mm/f2.8 AF-S. Alan found the first one sub-par at the 35mm range but the second one quite good. This is the type of results that really bother me. Am I going to end up with a "lemon"? (Americans call new cars with a lot of defects that require frequent repairs "lemons.")

[kurt_heintzelman]

I agree that, unfortunately, even with Canon L series lenses, there can be unit-to-unit variation. Some time ago, I traded the EOS 28/1.8 and 50/1.4 in towards a new 28-70/2.8L, and within a year I sold this L zoom because it just wasn't sharp (it was too often "soft", and seemed very prone to spherical aberration as well as severe ghosting with point sources of light in low-light conditions, even with no front filter). My sample was not as sharp as the above mentioned primes or, for example, the performance I've enjoyed with the 70-200/2.8L (I really don't believe my technique was to blame here). I subequently re-purchased the 28/1.8, but on a recent vacation, found myself wishing for the convenience and DEEP lens hood of that 28-70L zoom--so much so that I plan to borrow a friend's 28-70 for testing, and if the results look as good as his negatives do (mostly hand-held), I'll try another one. I may well have gotten a lemon.

 

Lastly, I disagree that a 300/4 IS (or the resulting 420/5.6 IS when using the 1.4 TC) are not highly useful and sharp, even wide open. My experience strongly suggests otherwise, and for those of us who can't yet afford those EOS big glass, Image Stabilized light harvestors (300/2.8, 400/2.8, 500/4, 600/4--"IS"), the slower but impressively sharp 300/4 IS (with or without the 1.4TC) is still the best choice IF one wants the freedom to hand-hold or not. In addition, Provia 100F, with its excellent pushability to 200 and even 320 ISO, makes the slower IS prime lens even more of a solid contender for those on a limited budget. After using the EOS 400/5.6L for over a year, I feel my 420/5.6 IS (300/4 plus 1.4TC) is actually sharper and more useful in most circumstances, so much so that I long ago sold the 400/5.6 in favor of the 300/4 IS and 1.4TC. I've not photographed with the 100-400/4.5-5.6L IS, but feel it's incredibly slow speed at the wider end would be rather annoying. Hopefully Canon will soon introduce a 70-200/2.8L IS.

[jeff_loffert]

I'm glad to see Nikon getting into the VR/IS game but this lens does not appeal to me. For one thing, it needs a Silent Wave AF. Who wants to drop $2K on a slow,noisy,powerhungry "driveshaft" AF system? It's not even compatible with the TC-14/TC-20E teleconverters. I feel the 5x zoom is a bit much as well. A 200-400mm would be sharper, or better yet, a fixed 300mmf/4 that can be teleconverted. Besides, most everyone has a 80-200f2.8, why shoot this range with a slower lens with the deeper DOF that comes with it? If they come out with a 300mmf/4 VR-AFS that is compatible with the TC-14/20E, I'll write a check in a heartbeat!! I went to an Aurthur Morris seminar yesterday(which was outstanding, by the way) and now I'm real excited about VR/IS, but they'll have to do better than this lens to get my cash.

[trevor_quested]

I have tried the new lens at a camera show in Sydney, Australia a month ago. They are talking September here and around $3150 Aussie dollars. Compared to my Sigma 400 APO 5.6 lens I found it much quicker in focusing. I am sure it will be sharper.

I found it quite easy to hand hold, not any heavier than what I have.

I am an avid birdwatcher who happens to carry a camera. Many of the birds I see closely are small and fast and aren't waiting for a tripod to be set up. I now need a birder from the US to bring me one and save the huge import duty in Australia. Any offers?

[tom_hill1]

Jeff,

 

I agree with you on writting a check for a 300 f4 VR-AF-S. I'd do the same in a heart beat. I long considered (two months) how to update my 300 f4 ED-IF because of the auto-focus speed. It just didn't cut it in my book for inflight bird photography. I considered the 80-400 VR and was very hopeful until discovering it wasn't an AF-S lens. I figure pushing film, using tele-converters on my 80-200 AF-S would tie me over until the lens I really want comes out.

 

Tom Hill

[alan_yeo1]

Since my name was mentioned, I thought it is only fair that I give my 2 cents worth on the issue of QC.

 

Shun is correct to worry about QC because sample variations do exist among lenses. To-date, I have tested four AF-S 28~70mm lenses and they all performed differently. This does not mean that this lens is hopeless. All it shows is that there are variations. Likewise, when I tested two AF-S 17~35mm, one was clearly sharper than the other. But to be fair to Nikon, I have also seen "bad" lenses from Leica. I won't bother to elaborate.

 

As for the 80~400mm VR lens, I believe this lens will be a hot seller despite it being a slow lens. I do not expect this lens to be as sharp as the AF-S 300mm f2.8 lens but as someone rightly put it, the VR lens will sell because it more versatile and, more importantly, a lot cheaper than those fast super telephoto lenses. I trust this lens will be sharp enough to satisfy the majority of the people. And if the VR feature really works as claimed(and I am sure it does), it will serve well in many shooting situations. I am, however, disappointed that this lens is not an AF-S lens.

 

Will I buy this lens? Yes, I would buy this lens because it will be a handy lens to carry when I go explore some new places. I just need to keep my fingers crossed that the lens I buy is a good sample :)

[gary_watson]

The Olympics have long been the occasion for Nikon roll-outs.A Nikon Canada rep hinted recently that there may be an ensemble of VR lenses unveiled in the fall.It might be worthwhile to watch the Nikon Japan website over the summer for VR news.

[richard_ditch1]

I'm one of the many people waiting for the Nikon 80-400 VR lens as I see it as a great tool for birds where a tripod is not feasible: small active birds in brushy terrain and pelagic species from boats off either coast.

 

But I've been troubled by one of the spec sheets that indicated the VR function would only work with the F5, F100, F80, and D1. NOT the N90S bodies I upgraded to so I could use the AF-S lenses.

 

I just called 1-800-NIKON-US and asked about this. The spec sheet is accurate, and I'm screwed again by Nikon. It seems the VR function requires the camera body to have 5 focus zones. On an N90S, the 80-400 works like any other AF-D lens.

 

So, I guess I'll just hang onto my money until Nikon gets around to making either a 400/5.6 AF-S lens or a 300/4 AF-S lens that I can mate with my TC14E for a walkabout hand holdable bird lens.

[al_menk]

If the VR function of AF80-400 new lens doesn't work with N90s or N70 bodies, this news will disappoint a lot of photographers. What is Nikon thinking? I'd rather switch camera systems than continue to be so far behind in the latest technology. First it's not an AF-S, now this.

 

Al

[robert_p._boner]

I agree with the comments about QC. It is inconsistent. I have had two 600 f/4L Canon lenses, and there was a big difference in their quality. I would like one of the 100-400 lenses, but I am worried about quality control. I have heard a lot of positive comments about the lens, but the one I tried was not very impressive at 400 wide open (where I would use it the most).

[john_sully]

You might look at Galen Rowell's comments on the Canon IS lenses in the current issue of OP. He takes a generally favorable view of the 100-400 optically ("it is as good as my Nikon 7?-300 [or whatever]"). He also adds that the IS feature is not a replacement for good fast glass and a tripod.

 

Finally, he says that out of 5700 images taken on this test trip (to Africa) 50 some odd of the keepers were taken with Nikon primes on a tripod and that 19 were taken with the Canon IS lens handheld. His claim is that these represent 19 additional images that he could not have gotten w/o the IS feature. He is anxiously awaiting the arrival of the 80-400 VR lens before he decides to switch systems :).

 

[Well actually he says that the is unlikely to switch systems because he is familiar with Nikon and knows what type of an image will be produced in any given situation. To him this is a very valuable trait as it should be to any of us, no matter what system we use.]

[aphoto]

Not sure what is the minimum focusing distance, but it certainly is helpful for the 100-400 IS to double as a close focusing lens, and I expect the VR lens to be of similar usefulness. I guess it is a good thing that Nikon is finally getting into the image stabilising business.<p>

 

There was a discussion about Galen Rowell comments on the IS in OP and majority of users did agree that should he be using the 500/4 IS instead of the 100-400 IS, the ratio of keepers against the 500/4 AF-S would increased markly. Below is an excerpt from Art Morris.<p>

 

------------

I read the Galen Rowell review of Image Stabilization in the latest issue of Outdoor Photographer.

 

Galen was comparing apples and oranges. All he needed to do was to compare results with the Nikor 500mm f/4 AFS lens and the EF Canon 500mm f/4 IS lens when used with THE 1.4x AND 2x tele-converters at slow shutter speeds AND THEN HE WOULD HAVE HAD SOMETHING TO WRITE ABOUT.

 

Arthur Morris/BIRDS AS ART

--------------------------------

[paul_dibiase3]

If one sincerely believes that he/she needs IS technology why would one wait to switch until after Nikon introduces its VR technology with the strong implication of more VR lenses to come? The time to switch was before Nikon made its VR announcement. Currently, unless there is a very pressing business reason or one simply has too much extra cash to burn, switching to get VR doesn't make much sense. Waiting a few more years should allow Nikon users to get VR without the great expense and hassel of switching system.

 

Playing the latest and greatest technology game is a great way to spend money that would be better spent on film, processing, instruction, and travel to interesting photo locations. My two cents.