Quote:
Originally Posted by HowlinWolf  After much deliberation on my part, I've decided that my 300 f/4 lens does not have the pulling power that I would like (even on a DSLR), and need something of at least 400mm focal length. Ideally this will be a zoom, and I'm contemplating either the Nikkor 80-400 f/4-5.6 D ED-VR AF, or the Nikkor 200-400 f/4G AF-S. The latter has been described by Bjørn Rørslett as "...(this) might well be the finest telephoto or zoom lens I've ever tested": and at the price I should hope so!
The question is: although the 80-400 has VR, which is a plus for lenses of that length, will it even approach the quality of the 200-400. This lens, although bereft of VR, does have Silent Wave focusing which can also be an advantage. Has anyone on this forum have any experience in the field with either optic? I'd like a bit of input (persuasion?) before I commit to getting the lens (in the case of the f/4 lens, a once in a lifetime purchase).
HW |
I have not used either lens but have done a considerable amount of research via the internet on both. The 200-400 is reputed to be one of the finest lens ever produced by Nikon and is a natural step up from the 70-200, Nikon converters again working with the 200-400. The 80-400 is nowhere near the standard of the 200-400 but is still a fine lens for the price. It's the old, old story - you get what you pay for! The 200-400 costs 4 times as much so it's hardly likely to be on a par is it? Search the internet and you will get all your answers. We are treading the same path that thousands have trod before. Unless you're very well off join the ranks of those saving for their dream lens. In the meantime use a lens such as the Bigma which, though nothing near the standard of any Nikon lens, is excellent value for money and will give years of pleasure. (A good job cos it will take me years to save up!
