Is the 80-400 VR zoom any good at 400 mm?

[ilkka_nissila]

The 200-400's VR does work on a tripod according to Nikon. This is just a question of programming really.

 

Canon's newer teles such as the 300/2.8 and bigger have an IS function which works on a tripod, but the earlier ones don't. So it's the same as with Nikon; only the really big lenses are thought to benefit from VR/IS on a tripod and so the smaller ones assume that if you use the function then you must be hand-holding.

[bruce_kerns1]

<i>The 200-400's VR does work on a tripod according to Nikon.

</i><br><br>I've had decent results just using a monopod.

[chuck]

You've used it?

[ShunCheung]

In this case Nikon's fall release date perhaps actually means summer :-), earlier than expected.

[bruce_kerns1]

<i>You've used it?

</i><br><br>Nikon says a monopod is fine. Tripods can induce a "feedback"

resonance as the VR is working. I've wondered if a rubber isolation puck under the

ball head would prevent it. When I've used a monopod I braced it against a wooden

observation platform railing and got quite sharp images.

[ilkka_nissila]

Bruce, I think we're talking about two different lenses here! :-)

[brian_caldwell]

Performance at 400mm is OK for distant subjects, but is terrible toward the close end of the focus range. This might explain the lousy test results, depending on the magnification ratio used for the test.

[bruce_kerns1]

The subject of this thread is the 80-400. Where are you?

[Carl Stone]

"But does Nikon make a converter that would maintain autofocus and VR with this

lens at its "new" wide open setting of f5.6? "

 

Douglas, you can find this out very easily, just do some homework. Here's a link, and

do scroll down to the bottom to get the info that you seek. This info is EASY to find.

 

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/

home?O=NavBar&A=getItemDetail&Q=&sku=274780&is=GREY&si=spec#goto_itemIn

fo

 

There is no cheap way to fast 400mm performance, and have quality at the same

time. If you want cheap, then look to third party equipment. If you want fast quality

buy a Nikon 400mm f/2.8, and you'll get it. Anything less is a compromise, but what

you seek isn't cheap.

 

As has been suggested, a 70-200 VR and a 2x TC, would be an extremely versatile

combination, and not a lot more than the 80-400 slow lens.

[chuck]

"70-200 VR and a 2x TC, would be an extremely versatile combination, and not a lot more than the 80-400 slow lens."<p>

Nearly twice as much, actually, if you are a stickler for Nikon; plus no chance of using it on a pre-F5 body.

[Carl Stone]

"plus no chance of using it on a pre-F5 body."

 

Quote: "Vibration Reduction works only with N65, 75, N80, F100, F5, D100 & D1

series (or newer) cameras."

 

That's 9 camera models that work with a TC and VR Chuck, and 9 that will AF with

AFS lenses and a TC. The F5 is not the only model to be able to take advantage of

these features. Even more cameras can use a G lens. Modern cameras can use the

newer technology, only the older models can't.

 

As for price for the 70-200, it is the most expensive zoom ever, but it isn't that much

more than the 80-400, and he doesn't have to buy that TC at the same time, so he

can split it up in two purchases.

[ShunCheung]

There is absolutely no comparison between the 70-200mm/f2.8 AF-S VR and 80-400 VR. The 70-200 is a fast f2.8 AF-S zoom and very well built. The 80-400 is a slow lens and has slow non-AF-S type AF and poorly build. A friend of mine accidentally dropped his 80-400 from about 12 inches (0.5 meter) high onto a metal surface and the lens split in half.

 

As far as usability goes, the 70-200mm is a G lens and you are restricted to the P or S modes on an F4, N8008/F801 and F90/N90. But since VR doesn't work on any one of those bodies, most likely you'll be using it on an F5 or later body anyway to take full advantage of VR and fast AF-S.

 

If you put a 2x TC onto any lens, image quality will suffer and the 70-200 AF-S VR is no different. That may be the biggest problem.

[douglas_greenberg]

"There is no cheap way to fast 400mm performance, and have quality at the same time. If you want cheap, then look to third party equipment. If you want fast quality buy a Nikon 400mm f/2.8, and you'll get it. Anything less is a compromise, but what you seek isn't cheap."

 

Yes, yes, a compromise! As I think I stated previously, I already own a 400 f/3.5, which is a wonderful lens but is absolutely impossible to hand-hold, in my experience. I probably will send the mount to Rolland Elliott (if I can get it off!) so that it can be upgraded for matrix metering with the D100. Actually, AF is not that important to me, as I'm of the old school and spent so many years focusing that I'm used to it :-). Also, with birds you have to get the focus just right, on their eyes, and even with AF you need to make some little adjustments manually most of the time.

 

As I also said, I have a Tokina ATX-SD 400 f5.6 that over the years I have found to be surprisingly sharp. The color rendition is not on the same level as the Nikon lens, but the sharpness and contrast are satisfactory(compromise!) If I could be sure that the Nikon VR 80-400 produced images as good (or better!) than this Tokina, that would be good enough for the purposes I would be using it for. It's just that hey, even $1300 is a lot of money and I want to minimize the possibility of "buyer's regret."

[chuck]

"most likely you'll be using it on an F5 or later body anyway to take full advantage of VR and fast AF-S. "<p>

Perhaps you are a little sketchy about how pictures can be taken using optics alone, and without either VR or AF? I used the 80-400 on FE quite often, and I found my self less exasparated with Nikon if I pretend the lens was meant for manual focus.

[Carl Stone]

"If you put a 2x TC onto any lens, image quality will suffer and the 70-200 AF-S VR is

no different. That may be the biggest problem."

 

Sure, but it would be fantastic for anything from 70-200mm, and not the worst way

to get to 400mm. There always a trade off.

[chuck]

"As for price for the 70-200, it is the most expensive zoom ever,"<p>

Actually, Nikon's own 1200-1700 f/5.6-6.7 ED IF cost 40 times as much in 1992 dollars. That's to say it cost twice as much as the then current model of Porsch 911, and as much as a 35 foot, well appointed, yacht. But who is keeping count. The upcoming 200-400 AFS VR, while not in the exotic car league of conspicuous consumption, will still leave a swath in your checking account 5 times wider than the dreams of even the most ambitious hawker of 70-200 VR.

[Carl Stone]

"The upcoming 200-400 AFS VR, while not in the exotic car league of conspicuous

consumption, will still leave a swath in your checking account 5 times wider than the

dreams of even the most ambitious hawker of 70-200 VR."

 

 

Touché

[douglas_greenberg]

This might be heretical, but one thing about the 70-200 VR that doesn't appeal to me is that heck, I don't really NEED VR at those focal lengths. I'm pretty shaky at 300 mm. and up; 200 might be marginal in some circumstances. But at 100, 150, nah. I know, people will respond that this would enable me to take pictures at 1/15 of a second, etc., but I rarely have any reason to do that. For me, the value of "VR" is associated with looooonger focal lengths.

[paul_dibiase3]

Doug has a good point at 200mm and f/2.8, the shutter speed may be fast enough to cover for a bit of shake. But, for me at least, above 200mm I need a ultra fast shutter (1/500 at least) to freeze the shakes. In my corner of the world we often have thick, dark clouds which force the use of low shutter speeds even when using ISO 400 film. VR is a real help under those conditions.

 

Of course, VR does nothing for subject motion, which is still my #1 problem when shooting wildlife, flowers, etc.

[georges_pelpel]

I used to own the 80-400VR.

The reason I bought it was to reduce the number of lenses and weight in my pack. It

replaced an AF-S 80-200/2.8 and an AF 300/4.

While getting a couple great shots from it, I have never been very pleased. At 400mm

I found my shots to be OK but not superb. I liked the lens zoom range, the VR

feature, its length but not it's diameter. And I missed my 80-200, not its size and

weight, but its image quality and convenience (most used range).

Then came the AF-S 70-200/2.8VR. Honestly if you have the money this is what you

want. It's outstanding on all counts (except one, see below). Couple it with a TC-14E

or TC-20E and you get an AF-S VR 280/4 or an AF-S VR 400/5.6. Quality with the

teleconverters is amazing. I found that the 70-200 + TC20E combo is sharper than

the 80-400. I tested both combo while shooting surfers in Santa Cruz last June. I was

using Fuji Provia 400F and the 70-200 + TC20E shots came out much better than

those

from the 80-400. It was a surprise but a great one as the 80-400 is now gone and I

have the best in both world; a superb 70-200 than can be extended up to 400mm

while keeping a great image quality.

I mentioned that the lens was exceptional on all counts except one. This ONE could

be a major drawback if you like to shoot against the sun. The lens is subject to

massive flare. I have own 3 varieties of 80-200/2.8 in the past and all were very good

at controlling flare. So I am kind of puzzled as why Nikon didn't pay more attention to

this issue in its latest incarnation of, probably, their most popular zoom line. I was

shooting at sunrise on the dunes of Death Valley NP last July and used the 70-200

quite a lot. Most of the shots came out great except for those I was either including

the sun in my picture or had the sun just outside the frame edge. These shots all had

major flare problems. That was really a downer.

But overall I love this zoom. It's very confortable to handle, has a great tripod foot,

and is extremely versatile.

[qdb]

"The 80-400 is ... poorly build" (sic)

 

I'd disagree with that statement. It's actually very well built, in my opinion. It is also a heck of a complex piece of engineering, with 17 elements.

 

As a value for money proposition, it represents remarkable value. It's sharp at the short end, and up to 250mm or so. It is reasonably sharp at 400mm (i.e. you need to press your face up to a large print to see very slight softness at the edges with a full frame camera, in my case a Kodak 14n). As a general purpose versatile lens, I'd recommend it highly.

 

Quentin