User Tag List

Thanks useful information Thanks useful information:  2
Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 46

Thread: Nikon 80 - 400

  1. #1
    New Member NickoHG's Avatar
    Join Date
    10 Apr 2009
    Location
    Halls Gap
    Posts
    30
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Nikon 80 - 400

    Hi
    Does anyone have experience with the Nikon 80 - 400mm ED lens

    NickoHG

  2. #2
    Member
    Join Date
    12 Feb 2008
    Location
    Brisbane
    Posts
    7,837
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Not personally, but I know a fair bit about it, what are you wanting to know in particular ?

    The general consensus says that IQ is very good, but it's AF is quite slow
    Darren
    Gear : Nikon Goodness
    Website : http://www.peakactionimages.com
    Please support Precious Hearts
    Constructive Critique of my images always appreciated

  3. #3
    Member
    Join Date
    23 Nov 2007
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    115
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Have a look at http://www.bythom.com/80400VRlens.htm for a reasonable review.

    I looked at it as a possible long lens for safari work but have discounted it because of its slowness.
    ________________
    Chris

    Nikon D300, 17-55 f2.8, 70-200vr II f2.8, 18-200vr, Lensbaby, 50 f1.8, SB600, Tokina 12-24 f4, TC2.0e III, Kenko TC 1.4


  4. #4
    Site Rules Breach - Permanent Ban
    Join Date
    14 Feb 2007
    Location
    Western Sydney
    Posts
    352
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Yep I have one, have had it for about 3 or more years.

    As said AF is very slow and hunts, even using the focus limiter only reduces the problem a little. Images are a little soft at the 400 end but pretty good to excellent at the short and middle zoom. Its VR is first generation which these days is just acceptable. There is no tripod setting for VR. Softness at 400mm isn't apparent on an 8 x 12 print.

    Personally I think its a good quality kit lens despite its gold band but when you go past the 300 plus mm lenses they start to cost significant amounts of cash even when they are kit quality. The lens is an excellent lens to take on holidays when travelling by aircraft. Its light weight and relativelly small when compared to other 400mm lenses such as the prime and the 200-400 which means that it can easily fit your camera bag.

    For me, I heading towards a 200-400 but thats still a pretty big package and with a cost of round $7K it will still take a bit of saving before I have one in the bag.

  5. #5
    New Member
    Threadstarter
    NickoHG's Avatar
    Join Date
    10 Apr 2009
    Location
    Halls Gap
    Posts
    30
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Thanks kiwi, I have heard the same, a difficult decision for me.
    NickHG

  6. #6
    New Member
    Threadstarter
    NickoHG's Avatar
    Join Date
    10 Apr 2009
    Location
    Halls Gap
    Posts
    30
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Hey MarkW

    Thanks for your information, always a difficult choice, cost is a major consideration so I doubt if I will go for a more expensive lens. I do travel frequently and like to add wildlife as well as landscapes so the choice is this lens or the 80 200 2.8D ED with a teleconverter?

    By all accounts this lens is pretty good with the focus limitations.

    How easy is it to manual focus with moving objects?

    NickHG

  7. #7
    New Member
    Threadstarter
    NickoHG's Avatar
    Join Date
    10 Apr 2009
    Location
    Halls Gap
    Posts
    30
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Hey chris_m

    I wonder if manual focus would be best for wildlife anyway?
    Thanks
    NickoHG

  8. #8
    Member
    Join Date
    23 Nov 2007
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    115
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I reckon you would want to use auto focus.

    In some circimstances you may have plenty of time, but most likely you will just get a few seconds to compose and focus.

    Take all the benefits you can get from new technology.

  9. #9
    Site Rules Breach - Permanent Ban
    Join Date
    14 Feb 2007
    Location
    Western Sydney
    Posts
    352
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    AF with wildlife all depends on what you are shooting and where you are shooting.

    If its birds which are likely to be in trees with branches or leaves in the focal area then its manual focus especially with this lens. If its big game - my wife used this lens in Africa on both her trips and came back with some great photos - then use AF as the animals don't move as quickly and you're unlikely to have branches and stuff interfering with the focus.

  10. #10
    New Member
    Threadstarter
    NickoHG's Avatar
    Join Date
    10 Apr 2009
    Location
    Halls Gap
    Posts
    30
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    MarkW

    Great, thanks for you input and suggestions.

    I will consider, yet I think this lens will suit fine.

    Thanks
    NickoHG

  11. #11
    New Member
    Threadstarter
    NickoHG's Avatar
    Join Date
    10 Apr 2009
    Location
    Halls Gap
    Posts
    30
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Hey Chis_M

    Thanks, interesting article.I think the lens will suit me though.

    The 80 200 f2.8 is a very sharp lens, are you happy with it?
    NickoHG

  12. #12
    Member
    Join Date
    23 Nov 2007
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    115
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Its a great lens but I am looking to replace it with the 70-200 vr so it will be on the market shortly.

  13. #13
    New Member
    Threadstarter
    NickoHG's Avatar
    Join Date
    10 Apr 2009
    Location
    Halls Gap
    Posts
    30
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Interesting, so why would you change to the VR lens?
    Or should I say what is it about the 70 200 VR that interests you?
    I assume you are going for the new version VR II>

  14. #14
    Member
    Join Date
    23 Nov 2007
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    115
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    The main reason for the 70-200VR is an african safari we are doing later this year. Most of the work will be done in the back of an open 4x4 handheld, so I want as much help as possible with that.
    I will also couple it with a TC17 to get some extra reach. This will cost 1.5 f/stops, but I reckon it will give enough reach and still have good quality.
    I use the 80-200 when I know light will be an issue or I want a pin sharp image, otherwise its the 18-200vr as my walk about lens.
    I am planning to sell the 80-200 with a kenko 1.4 TC.
    I will probably get the II version but I am looking at second hand ones at the moment. The first version looks like it more than satisfactory for a DX body so I need to work out if its worth paying the extra to get the II version.

  15. #15
    Site Rules Breach - Permanent Ban
    Join Date
    14 Feb 2007
    Location
    Western Sydney
    Posts
    352
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    In the end you'll wish you had the extra range of the 80-400. The IQ of 70-200 even in the new VRII with a TC17 isn't as good as just an 80-400 all on its own, especially at the long end which is what you'll need. Fitting a TC also slows down the focus time with the bigger the TC the slower the focus becomes. As I have previously said, big game like you will find in Africa doesn't move like small birds do. You will have plenty of time to focus and compose. This is more so as you wont be allowed out of your transport to get closer or recompose. You only get what your given.

    The biggest difficulty you will encounter is getting the safari guides to get you close enough without disturbing the animals and as it stands the animals are more important that the tourists. If the guides take you too close they risk their employment.

  16. #16
    New Member
    Threadstarter
    NickoHG's Avatar
    Join Date
    10 Apr 2009
    Location
    Halls Gap
    Posts
    30
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Yes the DX body seems to suit the old model 70 - 200 VR best according to some reviews I have read.

    Let me know when your ready to move on your 80 - 200 2.8 I may be interested.

    Good luck with your decision.

  17. #17
    New Member
    Threadstarter
    NickoHG's Avatar
    Join Date
    10 Apr 2009
    Location
    Halls Gap
    Posts
    30
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Interesting facts about the African safari, fair comment I feel.

    Form experience even with DX the 200 can be frustrating when trying get in close with wildlife, hence the thought on 80 - 400mm.

    Good news that the wildlife thanks precedence over thoughtless tourists.

  18. #18
    Member TommySix's Avatar
    Join Date
    31 Mar 2010
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    4
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I'm torn between a 70-200 VR or the 80-400 VR. Just want a nice lone tele for candid shots out around town and details of buildings etc.

    Contemplating 70-200 VR second hand with the TC-17 but then the 80-400 has a little bit more reach but I would love to have the pro quality of the 70-200.....

    I have a D3 so it should be able to drive the AF on the 80-400 a bit better than the non pro bodies.

  19. #19
    Member
    Join Date
    12 Feb 2008
    Location
    Brisbane
    Posts
    7,837
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Re: Nikon 80 - 400

    Apparently the new 2x tc works like magic particularly on the 70-200


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  20. #20
    Site Rules Breach - Permanent Ban
    Join Date
    14 Feb 2007
    Location
    Western Sydney
    Posts
    352
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by TommySix View Post
    I have a D3 so it should be able to drive the AF on the 80-400 a bit better than the non pro bodies.
    Refering to my previous posts on how slow the 80-400 is, this lens was only ever used on an F5, a D200 and a D700. Whilst the two digitals are not truely pro level, they're not consumer level either and their specs very closely match the pro level camera (D2 & D3) of their respective time.

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •