Nikon 80-400mm f4.5-5.6 Telephoto lens.

[wizzo]

Does anyone have any knowledge or experience of using one of these lenses, and what is your opinion of this lens compared to say, the Nikon 300mm f4? Thanks - Wizzo

[glsammy]

Dave (pressld2) has one. He generally rates it I think, but he does prefer to use it with the VR switched off. He did a load of tests and found the VR wasn't the help it was supposed to be.

[wizzo]

Thanks Graham...that's usefull to know - Wizzo

[DOXHOPE]

This has been one of my main lenses for over 4 years now, some of my best images have come from it..it is slow but I got used to this and as I specialise in flying birds still got some worth while images. It does go a little soft at the top end, but not as much as some other telephotos on the market, up to 310mm its lovely and sharp..the VR for me worked well, and I miss it on the 300mm AFS f4 I mainly use now..this lense is fast compared to the 80-400mm, with no softness even wide open

[johnf3f]

I may be speaking a little out of turn here as I am a Canon user, however I think my observations are food for thought.
Both the Nikon 80-400 and Canon 100-400 are decent versatile lenses (my 100-400 certainly was), however they are not at the top of the tree for IQ.
Both the Nikon & Canon 300 F4's are rated highly for IQ and sharpness.
I changed to the 300 F4 IS a little over a year ago now and have not looked back! I lost the shorter focal lengths (which I wasn't using much anyway) which didn't bother me too much, but I was concerned about the loss of 100mm. I was worried about nothing. The 300 will allow me to crop MUCH further and still have as good if not better image quality so it will actually out range the 100-400. From what I have read this should be the same on the Nikon lenses.
Remember TRY BEFORE YOU BUY! But I made this change and am very happy.

Good luck!

[pressld2]

I can (and will in a sec ) give you my opinion of the 80-400 but I can't compare it with the 300 f4 as I've never used that lens.

With the possible exception of the 200-400 f4, no zoom lens can match a prime for image quality but, that said, I have no complaints about the 80-400. I agree that it's sharpest when knocked back from 400mm slightly and I usually use it around 370mm. It's also sharper at f8 than at f5.6 when the light allows but f5.6 is still very useable. I guess that more than half of the bird shots in my Gallery were taken with this lens at f5.6.

It doesn't have a silent wave motor which makes it slower to focus than lenses that do. The f5.6 max aperture at the 400mm end also means that in poor light it is more likely to hunt than an f4 prime.

As Graham said, I leave the VR switched off as I find it softens images if the lens is supported in any way. Not just tripod mounted but resting on a fence post, a hide window ledge, a beanbag - any situation where there isn't any vibration to reduce. In my tests using my best hand-held technique, I got sharper shots at 1/100th of a second without the VR than with. There is more discussion about VR, plus some test shots from the 80-400, in this thread: VR (or IS) - Is it worth it?

The above might sound fairly critical but consider this: I broke mine just before Christmas when my tripod fell over. When the insurance settled I could have had a 300mm prime or a Bigma and either paid or pocketed the price difference but I chose to stick with the 80-400. I will own a prime one day, probably when I get my lump sum on retirement, but until then this one will do very nicely.

Dave P.

[wizzo]

Many thanks to everyone above for the very useful information. I'm edging toward the prime lens here, purely because of the image quality and relative lightness when compared to the 70-200mm Nikon, that I'm currently using. I'm also assuming that, the 300mm would be more 'cooperative' when used with my Kenko 2x tele-converter. Again, thanks for all of your contributions - Wizzo

[DOXHOPE]

Originally Posted by johnf3f

I may be speaking a little out of turn here as I am a Canon user, however I think my observations are food for thought.
Both the Nikon 80-400 and Canon 100-400 are decent versatile lenses (my 100-400 certainly was), however they are not at the top of the tree for IQ.
Both the Nikon & Canon 300 F4's are rated highly for IQ and sharpness.
I changed to the 300 F4 IS a little over a year ago now and have not looked back! I lost the shorter focal lengths (which I wasn't using much anyway) which didn't bother me too much, but I was concerned about the loss of 100mm. I was worried about nothing. The 300 will allow me to crop MUCH further and still have as good if not better image quality so it will actually out range the 100-400. From what I have read this should be the same on the Nikon lenses.
Remember TRY BEFORE YOU BUY! But I made this change and am very happy.

Good luck!

Im so much the same, I thought my 80-400 was the bees knees for years, the 300mm f4 has since taken over for me..so much so Ive recently sold the 80-400 (I may regret it in the future) but I put the money towards a D700, but its a rubbish camera, ha, ha, ha

[DOXHOPE]

Originally Posted by wizzo

Many thanks to everyone above for the very useful information. I'm edging toward the prime lens here, purely because of the image quality and relative lightness when compared to the 70-200mm Nikon, that I'm currently using. I'm also assuming that, the 300mm would be more 'cooperative' when used with my Kenko 2x tele-converter. Again, thanks for all of your contributions - Wizzo

If you going to put a converter on it make sure you get the AFS 3OOmm f4

[RobinP]

I considered the 80-400mm to give me more reach but the bulkiness and weight has put me off. Also it is not cheap (~£850) and I would lose money trading in my 55-300mm so I have bought a Nikon 1.4 converter instead (£250)

Hopefully image quality will be about the same, does anyone know if the VR works with teleconverters?

Cheers

Robin