Sponsor Message:
Aviation Photography Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Nikon 80-400VR Lens  
User currently offlineFallingeese From Canada, joined Apr 2001, 2097 posts, RR: 17
Posted (11 years 3 months 1 week 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 3839 times:

I'm looking at purchasing the Nikon AF 80-400mm f/4.5-5.6D VR ED in the near future. I'm wondering if any of you have used this in the past, and what are your feelings with regards to this lens.

I've read about somewhat slow autofocusing with the D100, but I am assuming that this is mainly that it is an AF lens, and not AF-S. Is it true that there is also a locking mechanism so that it doesn't have to hunt through the whole range?


Mark McWhirter...Contrails Photography
11 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineAirNikon From United States of America, joined Apr 2000, 290 posts, RR: 35
Reply 1, posted (11 years 3 months 1 week 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 3803 times:

The 80-400VR is a real dog when attached to the D100. I liked it when I used it with the F5 and N80, but was a disappointment when I stopped shooting film. Sure, its functional enough but is currently parked in my closet.

The 70-200 f/2.8 AFs VR is far superior in sharpness and speed [obviously], and when hooked-up with the TC-14EII Teleconverter the results are excellent.

Yes, you can limit focus between full-range and/or 2.5M-Infinity and the focusing speed is even quicker.



Don't get married, don't have kids, and you will have more money than you know what to do with...
User currently offlineN178UA From United Arab Emirates, joined Jan 2001, 1713 posts, RR: 65
Reply 2, posted (11 years 3 months 1 week 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 3752 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

This lens perform amazingly good and steady sharp ONLY at 300mm or above range I found. I shoot many turning like A2A stuff far away from airport, it turned out great the way you can't get with a consumer cheap lens like 75-300, It is very heavy compared with D100 body, so it tends sometimes get unbalance and blurry shot because of the weight attached to the lighter body. The F5 is perfect match with the 80-400 VR.

For lower range, go with Air Nikon opinion, 80-200 or 70-200 f2.8 is bulletproof! For any serious shooter, you gonna have that! But 80-400 provide one lens fits all, you don't need to attach or detach teleconverter, which at sometimes can be a pain and lead to missed out stuff.

Sam

[Edited 2003-09-22 16:11:58]

User currently offlineChrisair From United States of America, joined Sep 2000, 2185 posts, RR: 3
Reply 3, posted (11 years 3 months 1 week 22 hours ago) and read 3691 times:

Don't bother with the 80-400. 400 f/5.6 on the D100/D1X looks awful. The images are quite soft, and the focus, even limited, has a hard time picking up an object, and holding focus. I noticed this on my F100 too. My suggestion is 70-200 f/2.8 + TC-14E II. It'll run about $500 more than the VR, but believe me, the quality is much better. Another option is the 70-200 f/2.8 TC-20E II. I've shot this combination before, and I didn't have a quality problem.

User currently offlineFallingeese From Canada, joined Apr 2001, 2097 posts, RR: 17
Reply 4, posted (11 years 3 months 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 3671 times:

With which 70-200mm f2.8 lenses does the autofocus still work on, if attached to a teleconverter?


Mark McWhirter...Contrails Photography
User currently offlineAirNikon From United States of America, joined Apr 2000, 290 posts, RR: 35
Reply 5, posted (11 years 3 months 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 3658 times:

70-200 f/2.8 AF-S VR and 80-200 f/2.8 AF-S only [keyword AF-S]. It is a rather unique TC regarding compatibility.


Don't get married, don't have kids, and you will have more money than you know what to do with...
User currently offlineJoge From Finland, joined Feb 2000, 1444 posts, RR: 39
Reply 6, posted (11 years 3 months 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 3653 times:

My 80-200/2.8 (not the AF-S) works well with the 2X Soligor C/D7 teleconverter, both the exposure metering and the AF.

-Joge



Bula!
User currently offlineFallingeese From Canada, joined Apr 2001, 2097 posts, RR: 17
Reply 7, posted (11 years 3 months 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 3632 times:

I'm thinking that this weekend, I will head into the shop and see what is available to me.

Unfortunently money is a little tight for me, so I doubt I will be able to afford the 80-200 AF-S VR as sweet as it is.



Mark McWhirter...Contrails Photography
User currently offlineSkymonster From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (11 years 3 months 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 3600 times:

So, the truth is out there... Not only can Nikon not keep up with Canon on the digital bodies, now we find that their 80-400VR isn't as good as Canon's 100-400IS Big grin

Andy


User currently offlineN178UA From United Arab Emirates, joined Jan 2001, 1713 posts, RR: 65
Reply 9, posted (11 years 3 months 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 3579 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

I have no problem for the 80-400 VR at all. All my recent JFK photos are taken on that with D100. Practice make perfect. Down the end, it also depends on the photog I suppose, Art Brett also use that lens. But in comapre with the 70-200 /80-200 f2.8, since it is better lens (and more $$), the 80-400VR fall short. With Canon I would say the same.

Andy my photo beat your hits no, so does it mean my 80-400VR does a good job in winning that?  Big grin

Sam

[Edited 2003-09-26 01:09:36]

User currently offlineFallingeese From Canada, joined Apr 2001, 2097 posts, RR: 17
Reply 10, posted (11 years 3 months 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 3560 times:

The 80-400 is very tempting. I'm not a fan of having to fiddle with a tele-converter, and especially here in YYC, it would be on, then off, then back on again, just not economically feasible for me.

I'm going to take a look at them again tomorrow, and hopefully within the next month, I'll have my new toy, just in time for the British Winter charters.



Mark McWhirter...Contrails Photography
User currently offlineJeffM From United States of America, joined May 2005, 3266 posts, RR: 51
Reply 11, posted (11 years 3 months 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 3567 times:

Go with the xx-200 f2.8. You will not regret the decision.

Jeff


Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Nikon 80-400VR Lens posted Mon Sep 22 2003 03:37:27 by Fallingeese
Nikon 80-400 VR Lens posted Sun Nov 20 2005 06:45:28 by Psyops
Nikkor 80-400VR...mode 1 Or 2 posted Mon Aug 21 2006 15:43:04 by Nucky
Nikon's 80-200mm 2.8 Lenses posted Mon Jun 19 2006 17:24:46 by LukasMako
Nikon 80-200 F2.8D Focus Problem posted Sat Oct 8 2005 20:46:48 by Psyops
Nikon D50? Which Lens? Any Tips/Advice? posted Thu Aug 25 2005 07:14:42 by Ipilot777
Nikon 80-200 F2.8D ED-N Vs Sigma 70-200 F2.8 EX? posted Tue Apr 1 2003 00:02:45 by Richie777
Tokina 80-400mm Lens posted Tue Jan 15 2002 23:23:34 by LGB Photos
Lenses For Nikon F-80 posted Tue Feb 27 2001 22:17:44 by Berlinspotter
Nikon 80-400mm VR posted Tue Feb 27 2001 12:50:31 by Dsmav8r