Nikon 80-400mm AF VR
I'm thinking of getting a:
Nikon Zoom Telephoto AF VR Zoom
Nikkor 80-400mm f/4.5-5.6D ED Autofocus Lens (Vibration Reduction)
and eventually a 1.4x converter.
I would like to hear oppinions about the lens and the combo.
My limiting factor is the price, so going to 200-400mm AF-S
is out of question.
Is the AF too slow as some critiques suggest?
Appreciate any answers!!!:)
Cheers, Ilija
That lens has a rather slow AF, plus you would not use a TC on it for sure. The IQ and AF would degrade markedly with the TC. It is fine for stationary objects and such. Your best bet would be to get the Nikon 300 f4 AFS lens, then you could use both the 1.4 and 1.7 TC's without too much problem.Originally Posted by dukovski
Thanks I'll look into that.
Solid advice and fully agree !!! I make good use of the 300 f4.0 With the 1.4X the AF is adequate with the 1.7X just possible ... do need to be careful tracking (not recommended)
Thanks for the advice,
I think I'm convinced to go with the 300mm f4 AF-S VR
and a 1.4 TC
Cheers, Ilija
I just realized that the above lens is not VR.
I'm trying to get a VR lens.
What do you think about
70-300mm VR AF-S f/4-f/5.6
with
1.4 TC
Would that work fine? The total price would be under $1000
would loose f/4 to f/5.6 but gain the VR.
What's is the verdict on this one?
I would really appreciate your opinion.
Cheers, Ilija
I think it's f4.5-5.6. Anyhow, one of the best bang-for-the-buck lenses out there. Sharp from 70 to 150 or 200 depending on who you talk to. A bit soft at 300 and so better stop down one or two stops. Some hate it and would rather get a 70-200 f2.8 plus 1.4 to get a 98 - 280 f4 as a result. But 70-200 f2.8 is known for its sharpness. But, 70-300 only costs a few hundred dollars.
This lens does not fit any Nikon TC II teleconverter. If you use those from other brands, be warned about the results.with 1.4 TC
Hmmm... It seems that for the type of work
I'm trying to do, the original 80-400mm VR is not that bad
compared to the alternatives at the same or lower price.
I cannot use TCs but I think I can live with that.
I'll be using this lens handhold on birdwatching trips
very often in forested areas. Most likely takeing
shots of perched rather than flying/moving birds.
I guess I can live with the slow AF rather than AF-S
and gain on the versatility of the 80-400mm VR.
Comments appreciated, as always.
Cheers, Ilija
Hello Ilija,
Like you I need more focal length. I do use an 80-400 VR.
Here is a gallery to looks at. Is this best lens around. No. Is it something I could afford. Yes
I now use use a D300 with the 80-400 VR. I have also the 70-300 VR, quality may be a tad better.
With either lens you can use the Kenko Pro 300 1.4 teleconverter. Quality, not the best, but usable.
Good light is your best friend.
Here is a gallery with the lens and D200.
http://www.pbase.com/techwish/wildlife_2006
Best Regards
Gale
Having owned both the 80-400 VR and the 70-300 VR I think you'll be disappointed with the 80-400.
The VR on that lens really doesn't make up for the slow aperture all that well. If you're going to be in forested areas, you'll need all the light you can get. Good technique and wide aperture will trump VR every time, so I'd recommend taking a good hard look at the 300 f4.
Maybe you can rent them both to test them out before deciding.
Done,
I ordered 300mm f4 AF-S.
Interesting to note that many places do not have it in stock.
Any idea why the shortage?
Thank you all for the great advice.
It helps a great deal. :)
Cheers, Ilija
Although the 80-400 VR is much maligned for its slow focusing speed, it is also praised by those in the know for its rich color rendition, tack sharp images, and rugged build. Furthermore, with practice and a good camera such as a D300, I have captured sharp images of swiftly flying purple martins with the lens.
I use the 300/4 AF-S with a TC-14E and more often with the TC-17EII; I also have the 80-400. Fully support what Alfred said - the 300/4 with 1.4x is fine, with 1.7x one is more limited. The 80-400 by itself is OK - I have tracked birds in flight but AF is indeed slow. Forget adding a 1.4x behind it though - more than suffering in AF speed is the decrease in AF accuracy - I recently tried for the first time - and it will be the last time.
What I thoroughly wish was Nikon updating the 300 to VR and/or the 80-400 to AF-S. Better even would be a new 400/5.6 AF-S VR.
Dieter:
You've made some good comments. But in the end, the use for the lens should be a key determinant. Mounted on a tripod for typical wildlife photography, the 80-400 mm VR will reach further without a TC. And if a TC is attached to the 300 mm AF-S you will also have an f/5.6 combination, so no light gathering advantage. That the faster speed of AF-S might be an advantage in certain situations cannot be doubted.
But the 80-400 mm VR is not such a slouch on the newer Nikon camera bodies, and one could not consistently obtain sharp images hand holding the 300 mm AF-S without VR!
Norm
This is becoming quite interesting discussion.:)
At the end we compare 400mm both at f5.6 but:
first is: VR AF
second is: AF-S
What is better for a handheld shooting?
The VR adds 3 stops. How bad is the bad AF. Will I consistently miss perching birds?
How good is the AF-S compared to adding 3 stops?
Again I'll be using this one mostly handheld on birding trips in diverse habitats
including forested areas.
Thanks so much for the discussion so far.
I already made my decision for the AF-S but nevertheless would really like to
keep this going to get a sense of a prevalent oppinion.
Cheers,
Ilija:
For perched birds, the 80-400 mm will focus very quickly. I've used it successfully with a D1, D70, D100, D200 and now D300 body. Setting the limit switch for the range at which you will be shooting is also helpful in eliminating undue hunting by the lens. The relatively slow AF becomes an issue only with swiftly flying birds, and as I've said that can be overcome by practice and by using a faster camera body such as the Nikon D3 or D300.
But if the majority of your shooting will be hand held, I really think that the VR will make a huge difference.
Norm Dulak
I hand-hold both the 300/4 AF-S with 1.4x or 1.7x and the 80-400 routinely - the former presents no problem if I can keep the shutter speed faster than 1/1000s. I find myself reaching for the 80-400 whenever there is not enough light or when I want more DOF and can't get faster than 1/1000s. In terms of optical quality - I can't really tell the difference between the 300/4 AF-S with TC-14E and the 80-400 at 400mm. I never did a timed comparison, but my feeling is that the 300/4 AF-S with a TC-17EII doesn't have much, if any, advantage over the 80-400 - and the difference isn't that great when the TC-14E is attached. A three-step focus limiter would be welcome on either of the two lenses though - better even would be the one the older 300/4 AF IF-ED provided.
I recently photographed some Black Skimmers and had intended to use the 300/4 AF-S for the task but ended up shooting with the 80-400 instead - missed a few completely, on others some images in a burst tracking a skimmer weren't in focus, but I got some nice keepers too. Probably would have had a few more with the 300/4 AF-S, but it would also have necessitated a larger crop in some cases.
There are pluses and minuses for both - and an easy solution if Nikon would finally wake up and update what is long overdue.
AMEN.an easy solution if Nikon would finally wake up and update what is long overdue.
I love these discussions, its always a toss up between the lenses mentioned. I really think an update would help things out...
Al, what is your verdict on 300 f/4 AF-S +1.4X TC on Nikon D700/D3? How good is adequate compared to a Canon 400 f/5.6L (wo TC) on a 40D body? can you track harriers, avocets or terns with the combo?
Thanks
recently returned from a photo shoot at Yellowstone. Used the 80-400 with my D3 and D2X and found it disappointing with regards to image softness for most of the wildlife and birds we were shoot. A number of others on the shoot with me were also using the 80-400 with D300 and D700 and had exactly the same experiences with this lens. My wife shot with a D90 and the 70-300 VR and got far better shots in terms of sharpness of the image. I do have the 200-400 f4 VR and this lens is far sharper however I didn't take it to Yellowstone due to baggage restrictions. I really wish I had.
A number of the photographers on the trip were using the Sigma 150-500 with good success especially in good lighting. I would think this lens would not work well in low light condition unless boosting the ISO on the D3 to higher levels.
Bob:
That's very odd. My wife and I returned recently from a trip to the Galapagos Islands and an Ecuadorian cloud forest. We both used Nikkor 80-400 mm VR lenses with D300's, and we obtained hundreds of very sharp images of Galapagos critters and hummingbirds. We had no problems with our lenses.
If you hand held and used the VR, I assume you know that it takes about 1 second for the VR to actuate. Shooting instantly from standby might account for your softness problem.
Norm Dulak
thiis is a gr8 discussion going on.
infact i have same d300 and 80-400 combo and working on birds since oct 2008.
i do also feel that its not that much bad.
but i am no expert.
can anyone post a setting here for d300 to work with 80-400 so i can make test and see what it gives as result ?
also can anyone tell me if there is any good RAW work flow for post processing for birds ?
Regards
Mital Patel
www.kevincreation.com
Not good form to hijack another person's thread Mital.
Better to post as a separate subject request.
apologize for that marc
will do the same soon.
Yes.......long overdue. We've all been waiting a long time for the 80-400VR AF-S & 300 f/4 VR. :(
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote