Is the Nikon 80-400 lens as good as the Canon 100-400L?

[DanJeffery]

I have a Canon 40D and a 100-400L lens. I am considering upgrading to a full frame camera and have been looking at the 5D MkII. However I am considering switching to Nikon by buying a D700.

The main reason is that I prefer the 51 point focus system as compared to the Canon's 9 points. But also the Nikons have a built in wireless flash system. I prefer the smaller pixel count but lower noise and better low light functioning of the Nikons.

I have one initial question but then several smaller ones. The main question is does anyone know if there is a lens similar in price and quality to the Canon 100-400L? The price of the Nikon 200-400 is too high but I wonder how the Nikon 80-400 compares to the Canon 100-400L in terms of image quality? I love the Canon 100-400L and would probably not switch systems if there is no equivalent Nikon lens.

I have the following:
Canon 40D
17-85mm IS kit lens
50mm f1.8 lens
100-400L lens
580 II Canon Speedlight

I would buy a new Nikon D700 and seek to part ex the above items including the Canon 40D for the following:
a similar lens to the Canon 17-85mm IS kit lens
a similar lens to the Canon 100-400L
a speedlite similar to the Canon 580 II

Does anyone think this is a reasonable plan? Is there anything that I have overlooked? Any thoughts/comments welcome. Thank you.

[rogpow]

Hi Dan,

Can't comment on the Canon lens, but the Nikon 80-400 is quite an old model now, and I seem to remember it always scored quite badly in reviews on the speed of its autofocus. It's not an AF-S lens and its an early version of VR.. OK for still subjects but not too special for sports/action.

Have a look at:

Nikkor 80-400mm VR Lens Review by Thom Hogan

or: Nikon 80-400mm VR

or: Review of the Nikon AFD VR 80-400mm

Cheers,
Rog

[DanJeffery]

Thanks for your reply and help.

I have tried googling to find out what AF-S is but only get stuff about AF-S lenses, without an expanation of what it is. Is it to do with the 51 focus points?

[pressld2]

Hi Dan,

The S in AF-S means that the lens has a "Silent-wave" motor built in. The 80-400 is just AF, not AF-S, so it doesn't have the silent-wave motor. This is why it's not as fast to auto-focus as more modern lenses.

I have owned this lens for over three years now and used it on my D70 and D300. I have to say that for a 5 x zoom I think the image quality is superb. The vast majority of the bird and mammal photos in my Gallery, pressld2 Gallery - Wildlife Photography, were taken with this lens. I've never been a Canon user so can't say whether it falls short of, matches or exceeds the 100-400.

There have certainly been times when I've wished it was quicker to focus but I'm not bothered about the older version of VR. I hardly ever use the VR anyway for reasons explained in this thread: VR (or IS) - Is it worth it?

Dave P.

[Heidfirst]

If you are willing to consider the Sony A900 then the 70-400mm G SSM is better than the Canon 100-400 L IS (I have loads of friends with that so I know it well).

Won't give you the high ISO ability of the D700 but will give more resolution.

[DOXHOPE]

Ive used the Nikon 80-400 for a few years now, yes it is slow AF, I think its Nikon slowest, but it is one hell of a lense imo..I specialise in flying birds, its my thing, I cant really afford ultra fast lenses, so you adapt to what you have. The VR works mint for me.

[willing to learn]

I have a canon 100mm - 400mm and it would be the last lens I would let go just because of its versatilty, and the image quality is not to shabby either. I also have the 40D which as served me well. But I also just started using a 1D mk IIN (long story had it some time but it had several issues that took forever to sort out) And over the last week had and used a 7D all I can say is both these camera's work very well the auto focus and frame rate is something else and they bring the best out of the 100mm - 400mm. I know nothing of Nikon so I can't comment.
Regards
Colin

[DrNickBurton]

Something not mentioned so far is that if you go full frame, you lose the crop factor from your 40D. 80-400mm on a D700 is nowhere near as long as 100-400mm on a 40D.

That's not to say that the D700 is not a good camera for wildlife, in fact it's great - especially at dawn/dusk (after all, the best times to shoot) and in dimly lit woodlands. It's a big change though - something to consider carefully, especially given the cost of switching systems.

What sort of wildlife photography do you shoot? For "larger" animals like seals, deer and foxes, you can get away with a full frame sensor, assuming you can get reasonably close to your subject. For birds though, or for subjects that are difficult to approach, I would go with a cropped sensor.

As for the 80-400mm, it doesn't have the greatest reputation, though perhaps that's a little unfair given it's age. It is rumoured to be replaced next year.

Although I shoot Nikon and would heartily recomend a D300s and a 300mm f4 +1.4TC if you were starting from scratch, I have to say that if I were in your position, I would just buy a 7D.

[momji1971]

Have to agree with Nick. 7D is said to have great AF for birds in flight and the noise issue also seems to be sorted. 100-400 is a great lens from what I read. I'm a Nikon shooter but have a look over on birdphotographers.net for some help on seeing what your lens and a 7D is capable of.

AF is not the fastest with a 5mk2 apparently!

Good luck.

regards.
Stu.

[DanJeffery]

I started this thread in the Summer. Since then the 7D has been released and it had a lot of features that got me looking at the Nikons. So I bought a 7D and I love it! Thank you for all your input everyone.