Sponsor Message:
Aviation Photography Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Nikkor 80-400mm ED VR Opinions  
User currently offlineShaggy From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2005, 111 posts, RR: 0
Posted (8 years 3 months 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 4345 times:

I just wanted to see what the general view was on the Nikkor 80-400mm ED VR.

At the moment my long lens is a Sigma 170-500mm

Lee

22 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineSkidmarks From UK - England, joined Dec 2004, 7121 posts, RR: 58
Reply 1, posted (8 years 3 months 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 4342 times:

Some would appear to dislike it Shaggy, but it works for me. Like any lens, use it within it's parameters, and it's fine.

I'm still learning what you can do with it right now. But, I love it, so..........

Andy  old 



Growing old is compulsory, growing up is optional
User currently offlineScbriml From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2003, 12032 posts, RR: 47
Reply 2, posted (8 years 3 months 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 4332 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

I have this lens and have had some good results with it. I've also had some less than good results, but the % of good shots is improving.

It's the only non AF-S lens I have, so it's focus speed is slow (compared to all my other lenses). If it does lose focus while tracking a plane across the sky, it will start hunting and generally can lose you a shot in those circumstances.

In less than perfect conditions, it can be a bit soft at the 400mm end of it's range.

In my camera bag, it's competing with arguably Nikon's best lens - the 70-200VR. My preference is to use the 70-200 whenever I can, but if I need more reach, I won't hesitate to go for the 80-400.

All that said, I've got quite a few shots up here taken with it. A few recent examples:

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Steve Brimley
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Steve Brimley



View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Steve Brimley
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Steve Brimley




Hey AA, the 1960s called. They want their planes back!
User currently offlineShaggy From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2005, 111 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (8 years 3 months 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 4318 times:

The shots look nice, but as mentioned some people have had bad things to say about it.

At the moment though it will be better than 170-500 I have. Are there any other alternatives?


User currently offlineScbriml From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2003, 12032 posts, RR: 47
Reply 4, posted (8 years 3 months 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 4312 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Shaggy (Reply 3):
The shots look nice, but as mentioned some people have had bad things to say about it.

At the moment though it will be better than 170-500 I have.

There have been a number of threads here recently discussing this lens. I used to have the Sigma 170-500 as well, but really couldn't get on with it. In the end I traded it in for the 80-400VR and I'm glad I did.



Hey AA, the 1960s called. They want their planes back!
User currently offlineShaggy From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2005, 111 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (8 years 3 months 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 4293 times:

Sounds like the answer I am looking for  Smile I will of course try it out first.

Lee


User currently offlineKereru From New Zealand, joined Jun 2003, 873 posts, RR: 47
Reply 6, posted (8 years 3 months 1 day ago) and read 4283 times:

Quoting Shaggy (Reply 3):
Are there any other alternatives?

Yes but they cost a lot of money!

200-400mm f/4G ED-IF AF-S VR Zoom-Nikkor
http://www.nikonusa.com/template.php?cat=1&grp=5&productNr=2146

300mm f/2.8G ED-IF AF-S VR Nikkor
http://www.nikonusa.com/template.php?cat=1&grp=5&productNr=2154

Check:
http://www.airliners.net/discussions...tion_photography/read.main/212603/
Cheers



Good things take Time.
User currently offlineUALDUDE From United States of America, joined Oct 2000, 170 posts, RR: 3
Reply 7, posted (8 years 3 months 23 hours ago) and read 4276 times:

I use this lens and have had nothing but excellent results and performance from it. I have heard so many people complain of slow auto focus, but I don't notice that at all. I have had no problem doing action shots, takeoff, landings, etc. I have not shot with a Nikon 70-200mm 2.8 VR, which is supposed to be really fast, so I don't have a comparison. This lens is as fast as any of the other lens I have shot with for the past 12yrs. I have shot with Minolta and Nikon lens and this is my favorite. I am not really wild about Sigma lenses. I looked at the Sigma 80-400mm OS lens and was not impressed, too clunky and heavy. Not that the Nikon 80-400 isn't heavy, but compared to the Sigma it feels light.

User currently offlineSunilgupta From United States of America, joined Nov 2000, 775 posts, RR: 14
Reply 8, posted (8 years 3 months 23 hours ago) and read 4274 times:

The optics are the lens are good but the lens is very fragile. Mine has been back to Nikon at last four times (stopped counting) for various issues and now its just not as sharp as it should be.

Sunil


User currently offlineIngemarE From Sweden, joined Mar 2005, 285 posts, RR: 5
Reply 9, posted (8 years 3 months 16 hours ago) and read 4246 times:

Quoting UALDUDE (Reply 7):
I am not really wild about Sigma lenses

Neither was I,....until I tried them, that is.

Quoting UALDUDE (Reply 7):
I looked at the Sigma 80-400mm OS lens and was not impressed, too clunky and heavy.

-"Heavy is good, heavy is reliable." (..said with a thick "russian" accent.) (The actor is from former Yugoslavia, however.....)

I've had the Nikkor. I preferred to sell it, rather than using it as a 1500$ door-stop. (As I've heard others on this here forum does! Big grin)
Tried the Sigma, and it did beat the Nikkor. Hands down!

Of course this is just my opinion.  Wink



In thrust I trust.
User currently offlineShaggy From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2005, 111 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (8 years 2 months 4 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 4195 times:

I called Grey's Of Westminister, probably one of the finest Nokon Dealers in the UK and asked about this lens.

There reply was.

"I am at home at the moment and am 95% certain we have an 80-400 but would
not recommend it for a D2X (my past as a lens designer leaves me with
certain prejudices). The D2X sensor would probably out-perform the
resolution of the lens and you need a lens which is future proof and which
will out perform the D2X."

And then

"It is not easy to correspond by e-mail due to work nature and pressure.
Please call for a better explanation.

The 70-200 is the finest lens in that range. 80-400 is too much of a stretch
and aberrations affect the picture detrimentally.

You can go 200-400 with a zoom which is of superlative spec state of the art
quality if you wish to go beyond the 200 focal length.

80-400 is OK for the D70 range and perhaps D200 but even so the D200 may
out-perform it and the lens may not fully utilise the resolution of the
sensor. The D2X is frankly too good for the 80-400 and you will be getting a
D70 result if you use the lens."

Any thoughts?


User currently offlineJwenting From Netherlands, joined Apr 2001, 10213 posts, RR: 19
Reply 11, posted (8 years 2 months 4 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 4191 times:

If Gray (not Grey) says so I tend to believe it. He's probably the leading expert on Nikon equipment in Europe.

Of course you have to take budget into account, but with a D2x Gray will assume budget is not a real factor (you got a €5000 body, you're unlikely to be so short on cash as to be unable to afford a €2500 70-200VR).

Do note that both alternatives he mentions (and they are far superior, hardly surprising as they're at least a generation newer) cost several times the price of the 80-400, and both have AF-S which the 80-400 lacks.

If I at the moment were looking for a new telezoom and could afford it I'd likely go for the 70-200 VR myself unless I needed the extra reach of the 80-400 in which case I'd give serious consideration to the 50-500 Sigma instead for its superior AF performance.
The 200-400 for me is just too expensive, but I'd certainly not turn one down if it were offered me as a gift  Wink



I wish I were flying
User currently offlineShaggy From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2005, 111 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (8 years 2 months 4 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 4190 times:

I am going to take some test shots in a moment on the 80-400, if anything it will be alot better than the 170-500mm Sigma I am using at the moment.

And your right it is about budget. Maybe an 80-400 now and then a year down the line look at my options.


User currently offlineScbriml From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2003, 12032 posts, RR: 47
Reply 13, posted (8 years 2 months 4 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 4183 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Jwenting (Reply 11):
The 200-400 for me is just too expensive, but I'd certainly not turn one down if it were offered me as a gift

Join the queue buddy! smile 

Now if I could just get the right 6 numbers.... banghead 



Hey AA, the 1960s called. They want their planes back!
User currently offlineShaggy From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2005, 111 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (8 years 2 months 4 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 4178 times:

I toom some shots at lunch time in Tottenham Court Road, pretty much under the flight path into heathrow and the results were much better than my sigma lens.

I got a nice gift of off the lens too, a nice dust spot on the sensor  Smile

Still remain undecided.


User currently offlineCodeshare From Poland, joined Sep 2002, 1854 posts, RR: 1
Reply 15, posted (8 years 2 months 4 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 4163 times:

How about a 300/4 wit a teleconverter then?


How much A is there is Airliners Net ? 0 or nothing ?
User currently offlineShaggy From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2005, 111 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (8 years 2 months 4 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 4158 times:

I nearly got talken into a 70-200 with a Teleconverter, that would be a good option would it not?

Although putting all that aside, for the money the 80-400 will be a vast improvement on my 170-500


User currently offlineJwenting From Netherlands, joined Apr 2001, 10213 posts, RR: 19
Reply 17, posted (8 years 2 months 4 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 4142 times:

Quoting Scbriml (Reply 13):
Now if I could just get the right 6 numbers....

549900 (at least that's the price here in cents for the cheapest reliable store I know).

70-200 with TC would be great as well. Gives you either a very fast 70-200 or a reasonably fast 140-400.



I wish I were flying
User currently offlineShaggy From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2005, 111 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (8 years 2 months 4 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 4126 times:

Yeah, still dont know. the appeal of the 80-400 is that I dont have to frig around changing lenses Big grin

User currently offlineKereru From New Zealand, joined Jun 2003, 873 posts, RR: 47
Reply 19, posted (8 years 2 months 4 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 4120 times:

Quoting Shaggy (Reply 16):
I nearly got talken into a 70-200 with a Teleconverter, that would be a good option would it not?

I have the 70-200 f2.8 and it is great. The 2x converter the results are rather soft and I think the converters are best used on the prime lenses like the 300mm. I am keen to get the 80-400 as it is the best compromise as the 200-400 is just too expensive at the moment.

Cheers,
Colin



Good things take Time.
User currently offlineShaggy From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2005, 111 posts, RR: 0
Reply 20, posted (8 years 2 months 4 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 4112 times:

Those are my feelings Colin. I had a play today and have posted some examples on another website.

Its actually an OK lens. Focus was quick, the VR really did help.

I'll save for the 200-400 Big grin


User currently offlinePsyops From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 21, posted (8 years 2 months 4 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 4108 times:

I just got one a couple weeks ago - these shots are awaiting screening and were taken with the new toy...

http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/b...g/ready/CGHKWJan132006edited1A.jpg

http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/big/ready/CGPATJan132006edited1.jpg

The focus is not as fast as my 80-200 f/2.8D or 300 f/4, but it hasn't bothered me too much.

I recommend from my limited experience so far.

Pete


User currently offlineShaggy From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2005, 111 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (8 years 2 months 4 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 4102 times:

Yeah i think I have made my mind up.

I will get it on Monday unless I can find one at the weekend.


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...
Sigma 80-400mm OS Vs. Nikkor 80-400mm VR posted Thu Jul 14 2005 05:03:08 by Yanqui67
AF VR Zoom-Nikkor 80-400mm F/4.5-5.6D posted Mon Dec 11 2000 20:18:48 by Mikephotos
Nikkor 80-400MM Trouble/help! posted Mon Nov 8 2004 04:32:21 by FlyingColors
Just How Slow Is The 80-400mm VR Nikkor? posted Wed May 31 2006 07:46:54 by IAH777
Nikon 80-400mm VR posted Tue Feb 27 2001 12:50:31 by Dsmav8r
Nikkor 80-400VR...mode 1 Or 2 posted Mon Aug 21 2006 15:43:04 by Nucky
My Thoughts On The Sigma 80-400mm OS Lens (Nikon). posted Tue Dec 13 2005 21:49:48 by Yanqui67
Sigma 80-400mm OS -- Anyone? posted Tue Dec 9 2003 07:11:31 by Rotor1
Nikon 70-200mm F/2.8G AF-S VR Opinions? posted Sat Nov 22 2003 22:12:37 by Pilothighflyer
Tokina 80-400mm Lens posted Tue Jan 15 2002 23:23:34 by LGB Photos
Sigma 80-400mm OS Vs. Nikkor 80-400mm VR posted Thu Jul 14 2005 05:03:08 by Yanqui67
AF VR Zoom-Nikkor 80-400mm F/4.5-5.6D posted Mon Dec 11 2000 20:18:48 by Mikephotos
Nikkor 80-400mm Focus Speed posted Mon Aug 29 2011 11:30:15 by ail5901
Grain Problems With Nikkor 80-400mm posted Sun Oct 19 2008 12:42:25 by Packman
Nikkor 80-400MM Trouble/help! posted Mon Nov 8 2004 04:32:21 by FlyingColors
Just How Slow Is The 80-400mm VR Nikkor? posted Wed May 31 2006 07:46:54 by IAH777
Nikon 80-400mm VR posted Tue Feb 27 2001 12:50:31 by Dsmav8r
Shooting With The Nikkor 55-200 Non-VR posted Thu Aug 19 2010 08:26:19 by Numero4
Nikon 80-400 AF VR Versus Sigma 150-500 HSM OS posted Sun Jan 11 2009 12:22:30 by GimliGlider
Nikkor 200-400mm Demonstration Video posted Fri Jan 25 2008 01:13:54 by Jawed