Scbriml From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2003, 11360 posts, RR: 50 Reply 2, posted (7 years 4 months 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 2605 times:
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:
Scbriml From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2003, 11360 posts, RR: 50 Reply 4, posted (7 years 4 months 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 2585 times:
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.
UALDUDE From United States of America, joined Oct 2000, 165 posts, RR: 3 Reply 7, posted (7 years 4 months 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 2549 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.
Shaggy From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2005, 111 posts, RR: 0 Reply 10, posted (7 years 4 months 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 2468 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."
"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."
Jwenting From Netherlands, joined Apr 2001, 10213 posts, RR: 21 Reply 11, posted (7 years 4 months 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 2464 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
Kereru From New Zealand, joined Jun 2003, 873 posts, RR: 50 Reply 19, posted (7 years 4 months 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 2393 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.