Nikon 200-400mm AF-S VR vs. Nikon 80-400mm AF-S VR

[DaveKlein]

I was just reading Artie Morris' internal debate about Canon's various fixed focal length super-telephotos vs. the new 200-400mm +internal 1.4X TC and have a similar question as a Nikon shooter: I have recently acquired the 500mm AF-S VR as my main bird lens after having used the 200-400 very successfully for several years with a DX body (D300/300s) and TC's. I also have the 70-200mm AF-S VRII. I am considering selling the 200-400mm and replace more than that zoom range with the new 80-400mm version. I will likely retain the 70-200mm when needed for low light situations or for sports photography, etc. but wonder what thoughts might be out there regarding this new lens, particularly for BIF use. I find that travel will also be more difficult with both the 500 and 200-400. The savings in size and weight would be very helpful when traveling by plane. I appreciate any and all opinions on this topic - thanks!

[PhilCook]

Have not used the new version of the Nikon 80-400 VR, but a good friend of mine just received his and the results are pretty impressive, a noticeable improvement from his original 80-400. I've only seen a few results with in flight birds, and quite a few static shots inn;low light and great results.

I think the 80-400 would complment your 500 very nicely, and a very handy focal range especially if using bird hides

[Lyle Gruby]

I have used the new 80-400 just a little bit. It is definitely a big upgrade over the old model. However, it's not in the same league in autofocus speed as the 200-400. In your situation, however, it seems like a great tradeoff since you already have the 500mm.

[Arthur Morris]

Focal length-wise the new 80-400 is a perfect fit with your 500 VR. And a lot lighter than the 200-400. I am thinking that it will be a fine flight photography lens in competent hands. Does anyone know if you can manually pre-focus before AF-ing? Lastly, the speed of initial focusing acquisition is far less important than the accuracy of the tracking.....

[Dan Brown]

Focal length-wise the new 80-400 is a perfect fit with your 500 VR. And a lot lighter than the 200-400. I am thinking that it will be a fine flight photography lens in competent hands. Does anyone know if you can manually pre-focus before AF-ing? Lastly, the speed of initial focusing acquisition is far less important than the accuracy of the tracking.....

Yes, I have read that MF is possible in AF mode.

[Arthur Morris]

Hey Dan, If that is accurate, it would be great as simply manually pre-focusing speeds up initial focusing acquisition....

[DaveKlein]

Thank you all for your input - I truly value your thoughts and perspectives. I believe this is the direction I will go as two relatively hefty telephotos likely don't make much sense and I am more interested in streamlining my array at the same time not sacrificing IQ and focus acquisition for BIF. I would be happy to hear from any others on this thread, particularly anyone who has experience with the new 80-400 in the field. I gave up on the old 80-400 several years ago seeing that I could grab a cup of coffee between initiating AF and it actually achieving it. Usually the bird had migrated south by then, too. Thanks again!

[Dan Brown]

Hey Dan, If that is accurate, it would be great as simply manually pre-focusing speeds up initial focusing acquisition....

Agreed! I will have one soon!

[Bill Jobes]

... I am more interested in streamlining my array at the same time not sacrificing IQ and focus acquisition for BIF.

Hi Dave,

As the former owner of a Nikon 200-400, I can say with the authority of experience that you'll be giving up a perfectionist's tool. I only sold mine to fund a 600mm.

But make no mistake, you will be sacrificing AF and IQ when you compare the 200-400 to the 80-400. The lenses just aren't in the same league.

Someone coming 'up' to the 80-400 may be pleased; someone coming 'down' to the 80-400, I predict, will be disappointed.

You'll be sacrificing AF and IQ for portability and additional focal length (which you already have covered with the 70-200).

I have not used the new 80-400. But the early comments around the web are consistently inconsistent.

Whatever your decision, I hope it's the right one for you !

[Arthur Morris]

Hi Dave,

As the former owner of a Nikon 200-400, I can say with the authority of experience that you'll be giving up a perfectionist's tool. I only sold mine to fund a 600mm.

But make no mistake, you will be sacrificing AF and IQ when you compare the 200-400 to the 80-400. The lenses just aren't in the same league.

Someone coming 'up' to the 80-400 may be pleased; someone coming 'down' to the 80-400, I predict, will be disappointed.

You'll be sacrificing AF and IQ for portability and additional focal length (which you already have covered with the 70-200).

I have not used the new 80-400. But the early comments around the web are consistently inconsistent.

Whatever your decision, I hope it's the right one for you !

Hey Bill, With all due respect I need to disagree politely with just about everything that you say above. I will take them one at a time.

#1: top professional nature photographer Wayne Lynch of Canada told me that he and many other professionals from the Great North refused to use the old 200-400 because it was not a sharp lens. When I asked him about the new version he said, "Same thing." Both by personal comment.

#2: I do not understand how you can comment on IQ of the 80-400 when you have never used one.

#3: Same things goes for your "sacrificing AF" comment with the 80-400 as you have never used one.

#4: This one has nothing to do with anything. It is a known fact that all of the internet experts trashed AF on the older version of the 80-400. I shot a roll of flight images with it with film about a zillion years ago and every one of them was razor sharp.

#5: as far as the "web comments of inconsistency" are concerned, most of those folks are a total joke. According to them none of the lenses I use or have ever used are sharp, you cannot make a sharp image with any TC, and none of the cameras I use or have ever used can focus accurately. Pretty much every camera and lens ever made is better, sharper, and smarter than all of the internet experts combined. Those folks never go out and make images and if they did, they would surely lead the league in operator error.

[Bill Jobes]

Hi Artie,

Politely returning your ladle of 'due respect' I offer this:

I don't need to have used a $1,200 lens to presume it will not be up to the standards of a $6,700 lens.

Since you didn't say that your friend from the Great North had used the latest 200-400, I have to presume he didn't. I found it to be blazing sharp. Which goes to show it's all about personal observation and perception, at least at this level below rigorous scientific testing and analysis.

I stand by my comments, which are obviously just my opinions.

I respect your right to disagree.

-Bill

[Arthur Morris]

He had tried to new 200-400. And do consider this carefully: most lenses are sharper than most photographers. While that may seem to be only a catchy tune what it means is that competent photographers can produce very sharp images with nearly every Canon and Nikon lens and that lousy photographers cannot make a sharp image with a 10-$17,000 lens. And as a final note, I do not place any faith in the MTF charts. I go by the images.

And BTW, this is a very big assumption: "I don't need to have used a $1,200 lens to presume it will not be up to the standards of a $6,700 lens."

I am betting that any skilled nature photographer is capable of creating stunning, professionally sharp images with the new Nikon 80-400 VR jsut as they did with the older version. So I guess what bugs me is your advising Dave against a lens that may very well be perfect for him. The you will be disappointed bit is quite presumptive on your part :).

What I have tried to do for two decades is to say, "Here is the gear I have used and here are the images." It has been a good formula.

[Andrew McLachlan]

I cannot comment on the new version of the 80-400 but do intend to switch out my old version for the new one at some point however, I am in no rush to do so as my old 80-400 that I have dropped and repaired twice still produces sharp images. I certainly hope Nikon improved the tripod collar on the new lens. The biggest problem with the old version was the crappy tripod collar, which I replaced with one from Kirk Enterprises as it cradles the lens for superb stability.

For my landscape work I often manually focus the lens in Live View for consistently sharp results, I find for birds I get my best results at f8, and it is my go to lens for blurs

[Jeannean Ryman]

Bill, this lens retails for right at $2700, not $1200, unless you know of a deal I haven't heard about. I wish it was only $1200. I'd own it now if it was. I've heard really good things from people who own it.

Dave, I think your plan makes sense. I have the 70-300mm VR and use that lens more than any I own because I do a lot of walking every morning and evening with my dogs, and this lens goes with us everyday. I'll get the new 80-400mm one of these days to replace the 70-300mm. If a lens is too heavy/cumbersome to walk around with casually, it takes some planning to use. I can't handhold my 500mm very well, and so that means taking along a tripod. Even if I could, it's just not as easy and versatile as a zoom like the 80-400mm. It might not have the same IQ, but I bet you'll take more pictures with it.

[Bill Jobes]

You are right, Jeannean -- thanks for correcting me.


And Artie, I agree it's the skill of the artist, more so than the quality of the tool, that has the greatest bearing on the quality of the final work.

But all other things being equal, it's my opinion that the higher quality (value?) tool should be the preferred creative instrument. It should present the best opportunity for the most positive outcome.

[Gary Kinard]

I tickle myself sometime. I read the statement " And Artie, I agree it's the skill of the artist, more so than the quality of the tool, that has the greatest bearing on the quality of the final work." I got all fired up and got out my old gear cleaned it up went out yesterday shot 400 shots. Processed a few of the best. Put the old beautiful camera and lenses up. Pulled out my Canon gear. Picked up my 1D Mark IV and gave it a kiss. Looked at my two L lenses, Sexy man.. wow. My last thoughts before drifting off to sleep were. Why am I keeping that junk... LOL It is nice to be a nature photographer hack... Give me all the new and greatest gadgets.. Anything to help me get a decent pic.

Even worse I do this about once a year. I hear that statement and think.. Ok this is it. I am going to really put those old lenses to use... 24 hours later I have my Canon gear with me and very satisfied...

[Arthur Morris]

And Artie, I agree it's the skill of the artist, more so than the quality of the tool, that has the greatest bearing on the quality of the final work. But all other things being equal, it's my opinion that the higher quality (value?) tool should be the preferred creative instrument. It should present the best opportunity for the most positive outcome.

Hey Bill, I did not realize that the new 80-400 was priced so high but it surely puts it in the same upper echelon class as the faster 200-400. Heavier and faster and more expensive does not mean better. Not to mention that my friend Todd Gustafson uses the relatively cheap (B&H price: $1,046.95) Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 28-300mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR zoom lens regularly in Africa and produces great images with it. Todd is the author a a great book, A Photographer’s Guide to The Safari Experience. It is mandatory reading for everyone traveling to the Dark Continent and even for those thinking about doing the same. We are co-leading a trip to Tanzania this summer--though it is late in the game we still have an opening or two. Please e-mail me for details.

[PhilCook]

Well I just got sent another lot of images from a friend who for years has used the older 80-400 with usually quite good results.
He just received the new model a few weeks back and the results he is getting and sending me are outstanding, a very noticeable improvement on images compared to the old version, including amazingly sharp in flight images. From what I am seeing results appear to be certainly comparable to many images I have seen with 500 or 600 f4. He has it coupled with a Nikon D7000, the fellow I speak of is 76 years of age by the way.......his images are proof to me how capable this new version 80-400 is

[Sarah Jessup]

Well, I can jump into this discussion as I had the original version of the 200-400, and I now have the 80-400 newest version. I actually once bought the older 80-400 and sent it back as I couldn't tolerate the slow focus. The 80-400 current version is in a different league, and it seem s to focus extremely fast. The IQ with TC isn't as good as the 500, but I think it compares very nicely to the 200-400. It is so versatile, I can't imagine I would ever want a 200-400 again.

[Arthur Morris]

Thanks Sarah. You forgot lighter!

[Arthur Morris]

Well I just got sent another lot of images from a friend who for years has used the older 80-400 with usually quite good results.
He just received the new model a few weeks back and the results he is getting and sending me are outstanding, a very noticeable improvement on images compared to the old version, including amazingly sharp in flight images. From what I am seeing results appear to be certainly comparable to many images I have seen with 500 or 600 f4. He has it coupled with a Nikon D7000, the fellow I speak of is 76 years of age by the way.......his images are proof to me how capable this new version 80-400 is

So get the old man to join and start posting images here!

[PhilCook]

So get the old man to join and start posting images here!

Have suggested it...but it's a definite NO !

[Gary Kinard]

Frankly all this new gear coming from Canon and Nikon amazes me! If you buy it and just learn the basics. You are going to get killer photos. Wall hangers to rival the best.

[Dperkell]

Sarah I love your opinion. I have the VRII 200-400 and love it but the 80-400 for wildlife looks like it is making a lot of sense based on the weight and travel issues when carrying another super-tele of greater focal length.

[Bill Marquardt]

I have the new 80-400 and I really like it. But I may be part of that "moving up to it" group. And I am rather new to birds. I took it to visit the local Osprey nest yesterday.

[Randy Stout]

Folks:

Brad Hill has been doing an ongoing evaluation of the new 80-400 vs. 70-200 2.8 VRII, 70-200 4, 70-300 VR and 200-400VR. Very interesting, and from a skilled nature photographer. Well worth a read.

http://www.naturalart.ca/voice/blog.html

When the price drops a bit, I will be adding one. I have the old version, too slow AF for my needs, but a wonderful range, esp. on DX body.

Cheers

Randy

[Monte Comeau]

As an owner of the 200-400 I find it as sharp as the 400 2.8 that I sold to buy the 200-400 and as sharp as the 600 f/4 I just rented for a week. With one caveat...distance. The 200-400 is not a great performer wide open out past about 200 yards. Even with large subjects like deer and sheep. Within that range it is a beautiful lens. Professional in every aspect, Image IQ, AF speed, Build quality to name a few.

Last friday evening I was fortunate enough to be able to capture a 42 image sequence of a bald eagle swooping in on a fish directly in front of me as I was kayaking on a small lake. All 42 images were in focus and I would not have been able to do better with the 400 or 600. I don't think you can compare the 200-400 to the 80-400 really, they are two totally different quality and performing lenses made for different types of photographers. You will not achieve what I described above with the 80-400. The 200-400 did the job with ease. Here are three samples from the series.

[Randy Rimland]

The 80-400 is an amazing lens.......I know several shooters who sold their 200-400's after getting an 80-400

[Monte Comeau]

The 80-400 is an amazing lens.......I know several shooters who sold their 200-400's after getting an 80-400

Since my last post I have had the opportunity to give one a try out. Good lens. Image quality was good, a bit soft on the edges on my FX. Compared to the 200-400 it definitely falls short on AF speed.

[Randy Rimland]

Since my last post I have had the opportunity to give one a try out. Good lens. Image quality was good, a bit soft on the edges on my FX. Compared to the 200-400 it definitely falls short on AF speed.

you must have one great 200-400, I also shoot the 400vr and the new 80-400 AFs as fast as the $9k prime, maybe I have a great copy of the new 80-400

[Randy Rimland]

Hi Dave,

As the former owner of a Nikon 200-400, I can say with the authority of experience that you'll be giving up a perfectionist's tool. I only sold mine to fund a 600mm.

But make no mistake, you will be sacrificing AF and IQ when you compare the 200-400 to the 80-400. The lenses just aren't in the same league.

Someone coming 'up' to the 80-400 may be pleased; someone coming 'down' to the 80-400, I predict, will be disappointed.

You'll be sacrificing AF and IQ for portability and additional focal length (which you already have covered with the 70-200).

I have not used the new 80-400. But the early comments around the web are consistently inconsistent.

Whatever your decision, I hope it's the right one for you !

the authority of experience but wait, you've never shot an 80-400

[Randy Rimland]

As an owner of the 200-400 I find it as sharp as the 400 2.8 that I sold to buy the 200-400 and as sharp as the 600 f/4 I just rented for a week. With one caveat...distance. The 200-400 is not a great performer wide open out past about 200 yards. Even with large subjects like deer and sheep. Within that range it is a beautiful lens. Professional in every aspect, Image IQ, AF speed, Build quality to name a few.

Last friday evening I was fortunate enough to be able to capture a 42 image sequence of a bald eagle swooping in on a fish directly in front of me as I was kayaking on a small lake. All 42 images were in focus and I would not have been able to do better with the 400 or 600. I don't think you can compare the 200-400 to the 80-400 really, they are two totally different quality and performing lenses made for different types of photographers. You will not achieve what I described above with the 80-400. The 200-400 did the job with ease. Here are three samples from the series.

nice shots...funny comments

[Monte Comeau]

you must have one great 200-400, I also shoot the 400vr and the new 80-400 AFs as fast as the $9k prime, maybe I have a great copy of the new 80-400

I do have a great copy.

Nice shot of the Osprey, wow you must have been close! 98mm? Do you have a nest on your deck? :)

[Randy Rimland]

I do have a great copy.

Nice shot of the Osprey, wow you must have been close! 98mm? Do you have a nest on your deck? :)

sometimes I think I have RTH nest on my deck with all the recent action...the Ospreys nest on shoal markers in the middle of Lake Norman