Sponsor Message:
Aviation Photography Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Thoughts On The Nikon 80-400VR And Other Lenses?  
User currently offlineAndyHunt From Singapore, joined Jan 2001, 1306 posts, RR: 52
Posted (9 years 5 months 1 week 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 6716 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
PHOTO SCREENER

Hi Guys and Girls,

I'm thinking of investing in an Nikon 80-400VR, but the 50-500 Bigma also looks interesting. Price is not an issue, I just want to select the best lens that give the best vlaue for money.

Any users who can "guide" me in the right direction...pros, cons etc! Big grin

Or is there another config I should be looking at, converters etc??? I'm a D70 user.

Many thanks in advance.

Andrew


Full frame always beats post processing
27 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineAirplanepics From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2003, 2732 posts, RR: 40
Reply 1, posted (9 years 5 months 1 week 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 6707 times:

Quoting AndyHunt (Thread starter):
I'm a D70 user.

You poor poor person!  Wink



Simon - London-Aviation.com
User currently offlineClickhappy From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 9625 posts, RR: 68
Reply 2, posted (9 years 5 months 1 week 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 6705 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
PHOTO SCREENER

Thoughts On The Nikon 80-400VR

Crap.

Slow, noisy, soft, and a general embarrassment when compared to the Canon 100-400.

If you are looking at Sigma, why not the 80-400 OS?


User currently offlineChrisH From Sweden, joined Jul 2004, 1136 posts, RR: 16
Reply 3, posted (9 years 5 months 1 week 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 6697 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?



what seems to be the officer, problem?
User currently offlineKereru From New Zealand, joined Jun 2003, 873 posts, RR: 46
Reply 4, posted (9 years 5 months 1 week 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 6670 times:

If money is no object go for the 200-400 VR.
http://www.nikonusa.com/template.php?cat=1&grp=5&productNr=2146

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.


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Colin Hunter
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Colin Hunter



View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Colin Hunter



Some taken with Sam's 80-400 VR lens.


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Colin Hunter
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Colin Hunter



View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Colin Hunter
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Colin Hunter



I haven't ruled out the 80-400 as it is a bit lighter and smaller and maybe Nikon will replace it by the time I am ready for it.
Maybe one day a second hand 200-400 VR would be nice.  Smile

Cheers,

Colin
PS see you in Singapore in August 21.



Good things take Time.
User currently offlineWanderer From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2004, 233 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (9 years 5 months 1 week 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 6659 times:

Quoting Airplanepics (Reply 1):
Quoting AndyHunt (Thread starter):
I'm a D70 user.

You poor poor person!

Oi!!!

A friend of mine has an 80-400 VR and he says that, although the AF is crap, the results are superb. I'd like one, except I don't have £1100...


User currently offlineN949WP From Hong Kong, joined Feb 2000, 1437 posts, RR: 1
Reply 6, posted (9 years 5 months 1 week 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 6612 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.

'949


User currently offlineCancidas From Poland, joined Jul 2003, 4112 posts, RR: 11
Reply 7, posted (9 years 5 months 1 week 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 6601 times:

i use the D70 with the 80-400VR. simply love it! problem is i don't get to use it lately... got to work on that...


"...cannot the kingdom of salvation take me home."
User currently offlineScbriml From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2003, 12492 posts, RR: 46
Reply 8, posted (9 years 5 months 1 week 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 6597 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

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!)



Time flies like an arrow, but fruit flies like a banana!
User currently offlineRedfox From United Kingdom, joined Sep 2003, 172 posts, RR: 1
Reply 9, posted (9 years 5 months 1 week 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 6584 times:

Andy,
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!

Stephen


User currently offlineAAGOLD From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 546 posts, RR: 50
Reply 10, posted (9 years 5 months 1 week 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 6572 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Andy

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.

Art


User currently offlineNIKV69 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 11, posted (9 years 5 months 1 week 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 6529 times:

Hey Art!  wave 

Good to see you in this forum! I am saving for that lens. It's costs some serious  dollarsign 

Hopefully I can buy it by X-Mas. I want to be on the top of the parking garage at LAS and get some of those money shots like you!
 airplane 


User currently offlineAndyHunt From Singapore, joined Jan 2001, 1306 posts, RR: 52
Reply 12, posted (9 years 5 months 1 week 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 6513 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
PHOTO SCREENER

Hi Guys,

Thanks for all of the tips. From reading everything, I'm starting to lean towards the 70-200 AF-S VR F2.8....with a 1.7 TC. Sounds sexy!

200-400 sounds nice, but that is a little beyond my price point!

Andrew



Full frame always beats post processing
User currently offlineDiezel From Netherlands, joined Oct 2002, 646 posts, RR: 11
Reply 13, posted (9 years 5 months 1 week 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 6503 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.

Roel.



Never be afraid of what you like. (Miles Davis)
User currently offlineErwin972 From Netherlands, joined May 2004, 500 posts, RR: 44
Reply 14, posted (9 years 5 months 1 week 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 6461 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.

Still waiting for my D2X to be delivered  cry 

Kind regards,
Erwin



My gear: Nikon, Sony, Red, Sachtler etc.
User currently offlineChris78cpr From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2004, 2819 posts, RR: 51
Reply 15, posted (9 years 5 months 1 week 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 6403 times:

Andy,

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!

Chris



5D2/7D/1D2(soon to be a 1Dx) 17-40L/24-105L/70-200F2.8L/100-400L/24F1.4LII/50F1.2L/85F1.2LII
User currently offlineTsentsan From Singapore, joined Jan 2002, 2016 posts, RR: 15
Reply 16, posted (9 years 5 months 1 week 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 6391 times:

Hi Andy,

Lets go for a round one day, I've got both lens with me at the moment, so let me know if you want to try them out.

TT



NO URLS in signature
User currently offlineClickhappy From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 9625 posts, RR: 68
Reply 17, posted (9 years 5 months 1 week 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 6380 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...


User currently offlineChrisH From Sweden, joined Jul 2004, 1136 posts, RR: 16
Reply 18, posted (9 years 5 months 1 week 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 6365 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.


what seems to be the officer, problem?
User currently offlineClickhappy From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 9625 posts, RR: 68
Reply 19, posted (9 years 5 months 1 week 1 day ago) and read 6343 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
PHOTO SCREENER

Nice one Chris  Confused

Show me where I state "80-400 would be as sharp as a prime or AF-S lens shot wide open"

[Edited 2005-03-24 22:04:00]

User currently offlineChrisH From Sweden, joined Jul 2004, 1136 posts, RR: 16
Reply 20, posted (9 years 5 months 1 week 23 hours ago) and read 6333 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.


what seems to be the officer, problem?
User currently offlineClickhappy From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 9625 posts, RR: 68
Reply 21, posted (9 years 5 months 1 week 21 hours ago) and read 6311 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
PHOTO SCREENER

well, we both get to have our opinions. I have been shooting with the 80-400 for 2.5 years now, I still dont like it. It is slow to focus, noisy, and "hunts" a lot...

User currently offlineSulman From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 2035 posts, RR: 32
Reply 22, posted (9 years 5 months 1 week 21 hours ago) and read 6310 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?


Cheers


James



It takes a big man to admit they are wrong, and I am not a big man.
User currently offlineCodeshare From Poland, joined Sep 2002, 1854 posts, RR: 1
Reply 23, posted (9 years 5 months 1 week 10 hours ago) and read 6277 times:

I went for the 80-200mm f/2.8D option plus the teleconv (which is a Tamron one - so don't try it).
70-200 VR + Nikon teleconv. is a good otion in my opinion.

I tried the 80-400 with my old F80. But I can't really comment on the quality as it was just 2 or 3 photos taken with it.

I'd also look at the 300 f/4 or f/2.8 lens.



How much A is there is Airliners Net ? 0 or nothing ?
User currently offlineAndyHunt From Singapore, joined Jan 2001, 1306 posts, RR: 52
Reply 24, posted (9 years 5 months 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 6235 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
PHOTO SCREENER

Guys,

Thanks for all of the advice. Looks as though I'm going to go for the following:

70-200 AF-S VR F2.8
+
1.7 TC

:D Big grin Big grin

I figure that with this lens I get the following (1.5X Digital factor)

w/o TC : 105-300
with TC : 179-510

So overall I get a 105-510 lens, not a bad deal!

Once again, appreciate all of the help and advice, you're stars all of you!

Andrew



Full frame always beats post processing
25 Post contains images AndyHunt : The search is over and I'm now the proud owner of a 70-200 AF-S VR F2.8 plus a TC-20E teleconvertor...fingers now crossed for a sunny morning tommorow
26 Erwin972 : Congrats Andrew, you will start to love that 70-200 very soon. Kind regards, Erwin
27 Post contains images Tonimr : Although Andrew has already made its choice, I'd like to express my opinion. Optically the 80-400VR is equal (if not best) to the praised 100-400IS. B
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...
My Thoughts On The Sigma 80-400mm OS Lens (Nikon). posted Tue Dec 13 2005 21:49:48 by Yanqui67
Setting F-stops On The Nikon D50 posted Thu May 18 2006 03:28:26 by Cadet57
Your Thoughts On The Canon 35/350 F/3.5-5.6L USM? posted Sun Sep 12 2004 18:17:12 by UTA_flyingHIGH
Any Thoughts On The Olympus C-4000 posted Thu Aug 14 2003 17:25:20 by AC_B777
Opinions On The Nikon Coolpix 5700 posted Mon Jul 7 2003 18:10:18 by Manzoori
Thoughts On The 70-300 Nikkor Ed posted Wed Dec 13 2000 22:42:06 by Vaman
Your Thoughts On Watermarks And F/C Membership posted Sat Nov 4 2006 20:09:01 by BigPhilNYC
Nikon's 80-200mm 2.8 Lenses posted Mon Jun 19 2006 17:24:46 by LukasMako
Your Thoughts On This Photo - And Viewer Behaviour posted Fri May 26 2006 18:16:46 by Psych
Info Help And Opinions On The 5 Engine! posted Fri Apr 28 2006 06:32:44 by NIKV69