Clickhappy From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 9444 posts, RR: 72 Reply 1, posted (3 years 9 months 3 weeks 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 8866 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW PHOTO SCREENER
You are confusing your technologies.
AF-S is Nikon's newer, in-body focusing system (aka Silent Wave).
The D90 can focus these types of lenses, as well as older mechanical driven focus system (which the 80-400 uses), but it will be slower than an AF-S lens.
Lower end Nikon bodies (D60, D40, D3000, D5000) only autofocus with AF-S lenses (or third party equivalents IE Sigma HSM)
Alasdair1982 From UK - Scotland, joined Mar 2008, 461 posts, RR: 0 Reply 2, posted (3 years 9 months 3 weeks 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 8845 times:
Ok thanks
I know I run the risk that if I bought one, a new AF-S version would appear on the market the next day. But is there any real reason not to buy it for aviation (or railway) photography?
Cpd From Australia, joined Jun 2008, 4879 posts, RR: 44 Reply 3, posted (3 years 9 months 3 weeks 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 8809 times:
Quoting Alasdair1982 (Reply 2):
I know I run the risk that if I bought one, a new AF-S version would appear on the market the next day. But is there any real reason not to buy it for aviation (or railway) photography?
I've had people recommend it to me, but after trying it - I just didn't like it - awkward feel and somewhat slow autofocus.
Maybe the 70-200VR (note the new VR II version coming very soon) lens and a 1.7x tele-converter might be a better choice if you can afford that combination. That'll give you a number of combinations for many situations (along with a pro-grade lens).
N440ER From Poland, joined Jan 2006, 78 posts, RR: 0 Reply 4, posted (3 years 9 months 3 weeks 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 8774 times:
I've been using the 80-400VR for over three years now and have shot many airshows and sporting events with it. Very rarely have I had any focus or sharpness issues. True, it's not the perfect lens for low light photography, but it definitely does the job. Only when you're photographing objects that are changing their distance from you very rapidly (i.e. athletes, animals) can it get tricky. Overall I'm extremely happy with it, and not changing lenses anytime soon.
-Maciek Majewski
"You know, back in my day, sex was safe and flying was dangerous." - Gallup
Lexy From United States of America, joined Jun 2006, 2362 posts, RR: 9 Reply 5, posted (3 years 9 months 3 weeks 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 8757 times:
Quoting N440ER (Reply 4): I've been using the 80-400VR for over three years now and have shot many airshows and sporting events with it. Very rarely have I had any focus or sharpness issues. True, it's not the perfect lens for low light photography, but it definitely does the job. Only when you're photographing objects that are changing their distance from you very rapidly (i.e. athletes, animals) can it get tricky. Overall I'm extremely happy with it, and not changing lenses anytime soon.
My thoughts on it exactly. Just how fast do you need the thing to focus? It does have a limiter on it that keeps it from screwing all the way out when focusing. Great lens and can produce some simply STUNNING shots if you do it right. I have had nothing but good stuff to say about it. If I could take every picture with it, I certainly would. LOL!
SFO2SVO From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 392 posts, RR: 0 Reply 6, posted (3 years 9 months 3 weeks 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 8749 times:
Quoting N440ER (Reply 4): I've been using the 80-400VR for over three years now and have shot many airshows and sporting events with it. Very rarely have I had any focus or sharpness issues. True, it's not the perfect lens for low light photography, but it definitely does the job.
Also agree.
Search DB for "80-400VR" (have to use quotes) to see some examples.
Rumors are that 80-400 replacement is just around the corner which will probably include AF-S but I am sure it will also come with free sticker shock
Look at what new VR system did to the price of 18-200VR...
Diezel From Netherlands, joined Oct 2002, 646 posts, RR: 12 Reply 8, posted (3 years 9 months 3 weeks 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 8747 times:
The problem with this lens is, that there are so many better quality lenses in the same or cheaper price class but none of these lenses get to 400mm.
Don't ever try an old second hand 80-200 F2.8D or a 300mm F4 when you own the 80-400 because you will not use the 80-400 again as the quality of those other, much cheaper lenses is so much better. Trust me, it happened to me and it was the reason I sold the 80-400.
If you often take pictures through gates and windows, remember that the 80-400 is not internal focus, it will get longer or shorter when the AF is working which is very annoying when taking pictures through windows and gates.
The 80-400 is very sensible to lens flaring. At dusk or dawn it's hard to not get those ugly green stripes on your pictures.
The 80-400 does the job. It's relatively cheap and portable with a decent picture quality. But I will not go back to that lens and I would not recommend it, unless you need that 400mm desperately and the 200-400 is too expensive.
N440ER From Poland, joined Jan 2006, 78 posts, RR: 0 Reply 9, posted (3 years 9 months 3 weeks 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 8741 times:
Quoting Diezel (Reply 8): The problem with this lens is, that there are so many better quality lenses in the same or cheaper price class but none of these lenses get to 400mm.
Don't ever try an old second hand 80-200 F2.8D or a 300mm F4 when you own the 80-400 because you will not use the 80-400 again as the quality of those other, much cheaper lenses is so much better. Trust me, it happened to me and it was the reason I sold the 80-400.
If you often take pictures through gates and windows, remember that the 80-400 is not internal focus, it will get longer or shorter when the AF is working which is very annoying when taking pictures through windows and gates.
The 80-400 is very sensible to lens flaring. At dusk or dawn it's hard to not get those ugly green stripes on your pictures.
The 80-400 does the job. It's relatively cheap and portable with a decent picture quality. But I will not go back to that lens and I would not recommend it, unless you need that 400mm desperately and the 200-400 is too expensive.
You pretty much said it Roel. For me, it will be hard to find a replacement because of the flexibility it gives me. I love the reach of 400 mm, and now that I think about it, the lens is at that focal length very often. Also, VR is something I really appreciate as my hands aren't that steady. Yeah, the lack of internal focusing and the flare is annoying, but she does the job. Until I have the finances to get my hands on a 70-200 VR and a 400 mm prime-type combo, she'll remain my trusty companion
Cheers,
Maciek
"You know, back in my day, sex was safe and flying was dangerous." - Gallup
NIKV69 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 10, posted (3 years 9 months 3 weeks 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 8718 times:
Quoting Diezel (Reply 8): Don't ever try an old second hand 80-200 F2.8D or a 300mm F4 when you own the 80-400 because you will not use the 80-400 again as the quality of those other, much cheaper lenses is so much better. Trust me, it happened to me and it was the reason I sold the 80-400
Sluger020889 From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 456 posts, RR: 2 Reply 11, posted (3 years 9 months 3 weeks 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 8701 times:
Quoting NIKV69 (Reply 10):
Quoting Diezel (Reply 8):
Don't ever try an old second hand 80-200 F2.8D or a 300mm F4 when you own the 80-400 because you will not use the 80-400 again as the quality of those other, much cheaper lenses is so much better. Trust me, it happened to me and it was the reason I sold the 80-400
checkmark Not even close
Yep, that's what happened to me, gave my 80-400 the boot. Some copies are better than others, I swear even after getting ran over Maciek's (N440ER) 80-400 is sharper than mine ever was.
Joey
I would love to fly a cargo plane full of rubber dog shit out of Hong Kong!
Lexy From United States of America, joined Jun 2006, 2362 posts, RR: 9 Reply 12, posted (3 years 9 months 3 weeks 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 8697 times:
Some intresting comments here both for and against the lens. Like I said earlier, I like the lens alot and haven't had any problems with it luckily.
Sluger020889 From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 456 posts, RR: 2 Reply 14, posted (3 years 9 months 3 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 8607 times:
Quoting Cpd (Reply 13): I think you can even get a new 300mm F/4.0 at a cheaper price than the 80-400mm VR.
Bought my 300 F4 for 1100 USD, bought my 80-400 for around 1700 i believe.
The 300 F4 out performs the 80-400 in every way possible, but its not for everybody, some people shutter at the thought of missing a side on.
Joey
I would love to fly a cargo plane full of rubber dog shit out of Hong Kong!
Alasdair1982 From UK - Scotland, joined Mar 2008, 461 posts, RR: 0 Reply 15, posted (3 years 9 months 3 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 8601 times:
Thanks for all the replies.
Quoting Diezel (Reply 8): The problem with this lens is, that there are so many better quality lenses in the same or cheaper price class but none of these lenses get to 400mm.
The 300mm f/4 does look REALLY tempting. Any opinions on a 300mm f/4 + x1.7 teleconverter combination? I'd probably sell my 70-300 to fund it, but then i'm looking for something to fill the gap between 105mm and 300mm
Sluger020889 From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 456 posts, RR: 2 Reply 16, posted (3 years 9 months 3 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 8596 times:
Quoting Alasdair1982 (Reply 15): The 300mm f/4 does look REALLY tempting. Any opinions on a 300mm f/4 + x1.7
I use mine with a 1.4x, which gives 420 f5.6. The only problems I've run into with the extender is when i'm shooting in hot and humid air, it seems to multiply the heat haze as well as the reach of the lens.
Sweet combo I think.
Joey
I would love to fly a cargo plane full of rubber dog shit out of Hong Kong!
Sluger020889 From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 456 posts, RR: 2 Reply 20, posted (3 years 9 months 3 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 8571 times:
Quoting Alasdair1982 (Reply 17): Any problems using the 300mm f/4 hand held with its lack of VR?
Nope, when the light starts to fade dial in f4 maybe boost the ISO a bit and keep on shooting.
Joey
I would love to fly a cargo plane full of rubber dog shit out of Hong Kong!
Sluger020889 From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 456 posts, RR: 2 Reply 22, posted (3 years 9 months 3 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 8515 times:
Quoting N440ER (Reply 21): Easy for you to say, Mr. Steady Hands Wink
Didn't have to say it, I typed it.
I don't shoot too much in low light anyway. Having success in low light is more or less about the skill of the photographer, you can have all the VR and IS in the world but if you can't get into a rhythm with your subject, you're screwed.
Joey
I would love to fly a cargo plane full of rubber dog shit out of Hong Kong!
Clickhappy From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 9444 posts, RR: 72 Reply 24, posted (3 years 9 months 1 week 17 hours ago) and read 8148 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW PHOTO SCREENER
Quoting Alasdair1982 (Reply 23): Does adding the x1.4TC onto the 300mm f4 require use of a tripod?
Sponsor Message: 
From UK - Scotland, joined Mar 2008, 461 posts, 
From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 9444 posts, 
From Australia, joined Jun 2008, 4879 posts, 
From Poland, joined Jan 2006, 78 posts, 
From Netherlands, joined Oct 2002, 646 posts, 
Not even close
Printer friendly format 
