Fallingeese From Canada, joined Apr 2001, 2097 posts, RR: 20 Posted (9 years 8 months 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 2420 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?
AirNikon From United States of America, joined Apr 2000, 290 posts, RR: 40 Reply 1, posted (9 years 8 months 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 2384 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...
N178UA From United Arab Emirates, joined Jan 2001, 1626 posts, RR: 69 Reply 2, posted (9 years 8 months 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 2333 times:
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.
Chrisair From United States of America, joined Sep 2000, 1770 posts, RR: 4 Reply 3, posted (9 years 8 months 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 2272 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.
N178UA From United Arab Emirates, joined Jan 2001, 1626 posts, RR: 69 Reply 9, posted (9 years 8 months 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 2160 times:
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?