Experiences with the new Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 80-400mm f/4.5-5.6G ED VR Lens

heartyfisher

Pistnbroke said:

I don't get this ..why would you pay 2000+ for a 80-400 when I just paid 400 for a Tamron 100-400 and 800 for a N 200-500

A bit less than 1100 USD :-) couldn't resist :-)

PB_PM

The 80-400mm VR, D or AF-S. are not exactly known for being stellar, personally I'd skip it unless one really need the zoom range. Hope it works out for you.

heartyfisher

I am hoping it would.. I have been using my 70-200 f4 (really nice) with my d500 and sometimes with the tc17 (is ok) .. I gave away my old tamron 200-400 f5.6 and have been missing that reach... was looking at getting the tamron 100-400 but it does not work with that z7/6.. so this 80-400 looks like it would fit well with my system... which includes a 16-80 and maybe a z6 soon.

Sports

The 80-400 G is not as sharp as the 200-500 or some other new designs. That's to be expected when a lens offers 5 x zoom. The G version is, however, a huge step forward from the D!!!
I use it for airshows, where the 200-500 would be useless for my shooting, as things can get "much wider than 200mm" in a few seconds.

DenverShooter

Pistnbroke said:

I don't get this ..why would you pay 2000+ for a 80-400 when I just paid 400 for a Tamron 100-400 and 800 for a N 200-500

Because I only need to carry one lens instead of two.

You are already at $1,200 (800 + 400)..

And the new version of Nikon 80mm to 400 rocks...

Denver Shooter.

heartyfisher

DenverShooter said:

And the new version of Nikon 80mm to 400 rocks...

Denver Shooter.

Man you got me so ... frustrated waiting a few more days !!!! Arrrgh !! .... ( breath... Patience .... )

Yes those 2 for this one was also my thought.. and the crazy good ebay price I couldn't resist .. ...

Now I am thinking i dont need my 70-200 F4 anymore? .. but its so lovely...

Sports

Keep the 70-200! It's definitely a better lens for this range. And much lighter.

Pistnbroke

Denver shooter….but its the 100-400 for the wife on her 7200 and the 200-500 on the 850 for the birds for me

heartyfisher

Sports said:

Keep the 70-200! It's definitely a better lens for this range. And much lighter.

Yeah it is a lovely little thing. Went to my friend's daughter's wedding at the botanic gardens last weekend. Sure was perfect for some nice informal snaps.

spraynpray

800 FOR A 200-500?

Pistnbroke

£804 actually, Grey of course, I think it was shipped from Portugal..no problems pin sharp.
Currently £869 at E infinity but prices have gone up a bit in the last couple of weeks due to Brexit/ exchange rate ..bought lots from these people never had a problem.

heartyfisher

So the 200-500 was about the same(50 less ) as what I paid for for my 80-400.

Its a good price.. But I think I can pat myself on the back for what I got mine for :-)

PS: Picking it up tomorrow... hope its not broken or crap or cant focus straight .... cos it just feels "too good to me true" and most cases it usually is... ...

Pistnbroke

hope it goes well .I just bought a N 24-85 VR for £50 as it had a mark "under the front element" . It did but between the two front elements and fungus in the back. £20 refund , cleaned out the fungus and there we have a serviceable N 24-85 for £30

heartyfisher

Just picked it up.. my 80-400.. its ok... but there are some signs that its been "buzy". there are dust in side the lense internal elements Zooming out to 400 you can see very fine dust rings on the new exposed barrel of the lense. AF seems a bit "clunky" but it may be I am used to the smooth AF of my 70-200 F4 and 16-80. The clunkyness is about the same as my old 18-200 if it was the same size... anyone has the 80-400 who can share their experience with the AF ?

Yeh I may keep the 70-200 f4.. sure appreciating it :-) light and fast AF silently.

Zooming is not smooth. catches a bit. Maybe I just need to be more assertive when I zoom. I am probably too dainty.

The front element was also not pristine .. seems the previous owner wiped it down a bit before sending but didn't do a great job.. would seem to indicate that this ol lense was not looked after very well. at least its found a better home now :-).

I will probably keep it... not too bad for less than half price..

Capt_Spaulding

Hearty, How's the IQ?

PB_PM

Dust inside of that kind of zoom is common, it's almost inevitable with a cam type zoom like the 80-400, unless you only ever use it in a clean room. Considering that these types of zooms are very popular with wildlife shooters, it's very likely that it's been used outdoors extensively.

heartyfisher

Capt_Spaulding said:

Hearty, How's the IQ?

Its better than my old 200-400 F5.6 Tamron :-) so thats good .. :-)

Not as good as my 70-200 F4 but that is darn good. I am not sure if it is better than my 70-200 + TC17. So that is not a good thing.

Will be taking it out for a good work out in a couple of days. So will see how it goes then.

Looks like AF acquisition is also very good. I also wont need to do any micro adjustments.

heartyfisher

PB_PM said:

Dust inside of that kind of zoom is common, it's almost inevitable with a cam type zoom like the 80-400, unless you only ever use it in a clean room. Considering that these types of zooms are very popular with wildlife shooters, it's very likely that it's been used outdoors extensively.

Had another look.. its not as bad as I first thought .. esp after I cleaned the front element .. Thinking if I should get a filter for it... dont think it will help much as I will probably baby it a bit more than I should :-)

There is dust inside but as you say its to be expected for these types of Zooms.

Capt_Spaulding

As you noted, the 70-200f4 sets a pretty high bar. Mine is painfully sharp. It sounds good to me so far. I'll be interested to see how it goes with your workout.

Good luck.

PB_PM

Once you use the higher end stuff, with internal zooms, better build quality and sharpness, the other stuff seems like cheap toys, even if they aren't actually that cheap.

Capt_Spaulding

I'm probably safe from that PB-PM. As much as I would love a stable of low f-number long (and short) primes and internal zooms, I can barely scrape enough pennies together to buy the "cheap toys." It has a way of simplifying complex decisions.

spraynpray

It does indeed.

heartyfisher

Fun lense but heavy ...

Not as sharp as I hoped for.. maybe it needs servicing ?

PB_PM

It’s not know for being super sharp, the 70-200 F4 and 200-500 blow it away in that department.

spraynpray

Is that the earlier 80-400 Hearty? looks as soft as butter to me.