ChrisH From Sweden, joined Jul 2004, 1136 posts, RR: 17 Reply 3, posted (8 years 8 months 3 weeks 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 5858 times:
You probably had a dodgy example of the 80-400. Its equal to the 100-400 in that it needs to be shot @ f8 or more. The stuff Ive seen from the 100-400 doesnt look better than anything i got from my 80-400 when I had it.
I now use the 70-200 tho and thats a whole different beast ;o) If money is no object at all then maybe consider 200-400 VR?
I am just waiting on my 2x converter to arrive and will combine it with the 70-200mm f/2.8G ED-IF VR to give the extra reach and it will still have an effective aperture of f/5.6 wide open. I have some in the database with a borrowed 2x converter and they are okay.
N949WP From Hong Kong, joined Feb 2000, 1437 posts, RR: 1 Reply 6, posted (8 years 8 months 3 weeks 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 5773 times:
While there were some comments regarding the AF of the 80-400, do remember that it is not an AF-S lens, meaning that it has to be driven by the focusing motor in the SLR body itself. The higher-end the SLR body is, the stronger is the AF motor and AF system. I won't be surprised if folks have trouble getting quick focusing on the lower-end bodies, but my 80-400 has rarely missed a beat on the F5.
Scbriml From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2003, 11790 posts, RR: 48 Reply 8, posted (8 years 8 months 3 weeks 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 5758 times:
I have both the 70-200 and the 80-400.
Without a doubt, the 70-200 is one of the best lenses out there. I had a Sigma 170-500, but traded it in for the 80-400. I think the optics are fine (I always shoot at least f8), the VR is not as good as the 70-200 (think V1 vs. V2) and the AF is slowish - I have missed a couple of shots because of that. I haven't used the 80-400 as much as the 70-200, but I'm pretty happy with it when I need the extra length (ooh, Matron!)
Redfox From United Kingdom, joined Sep 2003, 172 posts, RR: 2 Reply 9, posted (8 years 8 months 3 weeks 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 5745 times:
I use 80-400 VR all the time. The lens is sharp and VR works very well, I agree with click happy with regard to slow focus speed but crap it is not.
I couple my 80-400VR to an S2 which is renowned for slow focusing speed but I miss very little. D70 CAM900 (I think) autofocus is faster than S2 some 30% I imagine you use the lens just as I do! A focus limit helps hunting speed. I once compared 50-500 bigma on a 10D with speed of 80-400VR on S2 and end to end speed seemed similar.
I read in the photography forums that 80-400VR will soon be updated to have AF-S - there is a blinding lens if it happens!
AAGOLD From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 545 posts, RR: 51 Reply 10, posted (8 years 8 months 3 weeks 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 5733 times:
The 80-400 VR is my primary lens and I use it a majority of the time even when I could use a lesser lens. As many have said I find shooting at F8 to be excellent and I don't have any problems with its focusing speed on the D100.
Diezel From Netherlands, joined Oct 2002, 646 posts, RR: 12 Reply 13, posted (8 years 8 months 3 weeks 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 5664 times:
Well, the 80-400VR is an excellent and small lens. I have been using it for about a year. It never let me down. I use it on a D100.
The slowish autofocus is not a point in aviation photography because you can limit the lens movement and all your subjects will be at about the same distance anyway. The main problem I have with the 80-400VR is sensor flare.
I also own the 80-200/F2.8 which is an excellent super fast lens but (of course) lacks the length of the 80-400.
You could also consider buying both the 80-400VR and the 80-200/F2.8 for less than the 70-200 plus the converter. Both the 80-400 and the 80-200 can also be bought easily second hand and are both always in demand, so you can ditch them for good money whenever you want to upgrade.
Erwin972 From Netherlands, joined May 2004, 499 posts, RR: 47 Reply 14, posted (8 years 8 months 3 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 5622 times:
Quoting AndyHunt (Reply 12): From reading everything, I'm starting to lean towards the 70-200 AF-S VR F2.8....with a 1.7 TC. Sounds sexy!
I have been using this combo for a few weeks now, it is really a superb lens and generally considered the best telezoom Nikon has ever produced so far. The 1.7 TC gives a bit sharper results than a 2.0 TC and maximum aperture is still 4.8.
Recently I tried the Nikor 300 2.8 VR on a D2X ~very impressive and an AF on steroids. Would love to try that 200-400 someday as well.
Chris78cpr From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2004, 2819 posts, RR: 51 Reply 15, posted (8 years 8 months 3 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 5564 times:
Take a look at the sigma 120-300F2.8EX. I have one and love it! It is so sharp and the AF is blisteringly quick too. Good build and it is an EX lens which makes it look lovely. Works very well with a 1.4x to get a 420mmF4 at the long end. It is a little heavy but you get F2.8 @300mm which is invaluable in low light!
5D2/7D/1D2(soon to be a 1Dx) 17-40L/24-105L/70-200F2.8L/100-400L/24F1.4LII/50F1.2L/85F1.2LII
Clickhappy From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 9549 posts, RR: 70 Reply 17, posted (8 years 8 months 3 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 5541 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW PHOTO SCREENER
I would say that people who praise the 80-400 VR just don't have much experience with other lenses.
I have one, it is currently rolling around the trunk of my car, I can't be bothered with it, its let me down too many times.
As for stopping it down to f8 or f11, all I can say is LOL. Come on! Any lens is going to be decent at those f-stops. the whole point of a VR system is for low-light hand held stuff. So unless you want to shoot at 1/50 @ f11...
ChrisH From Sweden, joined Jul 2004, 1136 posts, RR: 17 Reply 18, posted (8 years 8 months 3 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 5526 times:
If you thought a 1300$ zoom with a range of 80-400 would be as sharp as a prime or AF-S lens shot wide open then I'd say youre the one lacking experience. The 100-400 is useless at lower f-stops aswell so maybe your lens really is dodgy.
ChrisH From Sweden, joined Jul 2004, 1136 posts, RR: 17 Reply 20, posted (8 years 8 months 3 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 5494 times:
Well you claim its crap compared to the 100-400 when obviously it's not. The only telezoom sharper on the canon and nikon side (that I know of) is the 70-200. So I dont know what you would be comparing it to otherwise. Shooting wide open like you want really can't be expected from a zoom like the 80-400, making your argument a moot point. The VR does an excellent job enabling you to shoot @ 400mm handheld imo. Us poor nikonians I get a "free" f-stop seeing as we cant shoot lower than ISO 200 aswell hehe.
Sulman From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 2032 posts, RR: 34 Reply 22, posted (8 years 8 months 3 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 5471 times:
This Nikon 'ISO200' issue; I don't quite understand it. Output from their DSLR's that I've seen seems absolutely fine. Is there any parity with the same speed found on Canon gear, or is Nikon's equivalent effectively the same quality as the best Canon can produce?
It takes a big man to admit they are wrong, and I am not a big man.