Sponsor Message:
Aviation Photography Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Using The Nikon 80-400VR With The D90  
User currently offlineAlasdair1982 From UK - Scotland, joined Mar 2008, 468 posts, RR: 0
Posted (5 years 1 month 16 hours ago) and read 12179 times:

I know the 80-400 is said to be 'slow', but a lens review for the Sigma 150-500 mentioned that the slowness is down to lack of AF-S

Does the 80-400 work any faster with the D90 which does not require AF-S lenses?

Thanks

25 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineClickhappy From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 9628 posts, RR: 68
Reply 1, posted (5 years 1 month 15 hours ago) and read 12162 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)

[Edited 2009-08-02 10:25:18]

User currently offlineAlasdair1982 From UK - Scotland, joined Mar 2008, 468 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (5 years 1 month 12 hours ago) and read 12141 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?


User currently offlineCpd From Australia, joined Jun 2008, 4879 posts, RR: 38
Reply 3, posted (5 years 1 month 4 hours ago) and read 12105 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).


User currently offlineN440ER From Poland, joined Jan 2006, 78 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (5 years 4 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 12070 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
User currently offlineLexy From United States of America, joined Jun 2006, 2515 posts, RR: 8
Reply 5, posted (5 years 4 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 12053 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!



Nashville, Tennessee KBNA
User currently offlineSFO2SVO From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 399 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (5 years 4 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 12045 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 Sad
Look at what new VR system did to the price of 18-200VR...



318-19-20-21 332 343 717 727 737-234578 743-4 752 763 772 D9/10 M11/8x/90 F70 RJ85 ATR72 SF340 E120 TU34/54 IL18/62/86/9
User currently offlineAlasdair1982 From UK - Scotland, joined Mar 2008, 468 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (5 years 4 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 12045 times:

Nikon 80-400 v Sigma 50 or 150-500, hmm...

User currently offlineDiezel From Netherlands, joined Oct 2002, 646 posts, RR: 11
Reply 8, posted (5 years 4 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 12043 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.

Roel.



Never be afraid of what you like. (Miles Davis)
User currently offlineN440ER From Poland, joined Jan 2006, 78 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (5 years 4 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 12037 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  Wink

Cheers,

Maciek



"You know, back in my day, sex was safe and flying was dangerous." - Gallup
User currently offlineNIKV69 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 10, posted (5 years 4 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 12014 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

 checkmark  Not even close


User currently offlineSluger020889 From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 456 posts, RR: 2
Reply 11, posted (5 years 4 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 11997 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!
User currently offlineLexy From United States of America, joined Jun 2006, 2515 posts, RR: 8
Reply 12, posted (5 years 4 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 11993 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.


Nashville, Tennessee KBNA
User currently offlineCpd From Australia, joined Jun 2008, 4879 posts, RR: 38
Reply 13, posted (5 years 4 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 11965 times:

I fully agree with those going for the 80-200 or the 300mm F/4 prime lenses - the 300/4 is about the sharpest thing you'll find at the price.

I think you can even get a new 300mm F/4.0 at a cheaper price than the 80-400mm VR.


User currently offlineSluger020889 From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 456 posts, RR: 2
Reply 14, posted (5 years 3 weeks 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 11903 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!
User currently offlineAlasdair1982 From UK - Scotland, joined Mar 2008, 468 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (5 years 3 weeks 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 11897 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


User currently offlineSluger020889 From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 456 posts, RR: 2
Reply 16, posted (5 years 3 weeks 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 11892 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!
User currently offlineAlasdair1982 From UK - Scotland, joined Mar 2008, 468 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (5 years 3 weeks 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 11880 times:

Any problems using the 300mm f/4 hand held with its lack of VR?

User currently offlineNIKV69 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 18, posted (5 years 3 weeks 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 11873 times:



Quoting Alasdair1982 (Reply 17):
Any problems using the 300mm f/4 hand held with its lack of VR?

I have only tried mine with a monopod but I don't think it would be a problem.


User currently offlineCpd From Australia, joined Jun 2008, 4879 posts, RR: 38
Reply 19, posted (5 years 3 weeks 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 11869 times:

It's fine hand-held - no problems at all. The lens is light and easy to handle. You don't even need a monopod for that lens - it is so light.

Use shutter speeds about 1/640sec and steady hand movements and you'll be quite okay.


User currently offlineSluger020889 From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 456 posts, RR: 2
Reply 20, posted (5 years 3 weeks 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 11867 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!
User currently offlineN440ER From Poland, joined Jan 2006, 78 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (5 years 3 weeks 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 11828 times:



Quoting Sluger020889 (Reply 20):
Nope, when the light starts to fade dial in f4 maybe boost the ISO a bit and keep on shooting.

Easy for you to say, Mr. Steady Hands  Wink

-Maciek



"You know, back in my day, sex was safe and flying was dangerous." - Gallup
User currently offlineSluger020889 From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 456 posts, RR: 2
Reply 22, posted (5 years 3 weeks 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 11811 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!
User currently offlineAlasdair1982 From UK - Scotland, joined Mar 2008, 468 posts, RR: 0
Reply 23, posted (5 years 1 week 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 11452 times:

Does adding the x1.4TC onto the 300mm f4 require use of a tripod?

User currently offlineClickhappy From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 9628 posts, RR: 68
Reply 24, posted (5 years 1 week 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 11444 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
PHOTO SCREENER



Quoting Alasdair1982 (Reply 23):
Does adding the x1.4TC onto the 300mm f4 require use of a tripod?

No, but you will want to layoff the Monster.



User currently offlineAlasdair1982 From UK - Scotland, joined Mar 2008, 468 posts, RR: 0
Reply 25, posted (5 years 1 week 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 11439 times:

You'd be dead before succumbing to hand shake...

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...
Opinions On The Nikon D60? posted Sun Nov 16 2008 08:44:27 by OSU_av8or
More On The Nikon 70-300 VR posted Wed Jan 3 2007 04:52:04 by D L X
Any News On The Nikon 70-300 VR... posted Sun Dec 3 2006 18:32:06 by D L X
Sony Alpha, Nikon D80, Or The Canon 30D? posted Sun Dec 3 2006 07:52:33 by Kaitak744
A Nikon D200 In The House! posted Sun Oct 8 2006 16:43:56 by Nucky
Price Of Nikon D1X In The US posted Tue Jun 3 2003 10:35:04 by Rotate
Saving Fils With The Nikon 4000 ED posted Sun Mar 17 2002 09:32:17 by Alaskaairlines
Using New Film - Here Are The Pics! posted Fri Jun 29 2001 20:42:32 by Sonic99
How Do You Remove The Blue Spots Off The Pic? posted Fri Apr 10 2009 22:57:02 by Spiderguy252
Nikon 80-400 AF VR Versus Sigma 150-500 HSM OS posted Sun Jan 11 2009 12:22:30 by GimliGlider