Well, FINALLY we get an updated 80-400

birdman

I suspect a late year significant rebate...and a used market from plenty with buyer's remorse looking to unload one. The price is high because the performance looks VERY STRONG. I think it will outperform a 70-200/2.8 with a 2X TC anyday of the week, and twice on Sundays.

Godless

OMT, why VR2 if we have VR3 already?

Because Nikon has had this lens ready for release for a long time. They released it now to boost their sales in this quarter. Sucks, but hey that´s business as usual. Consumers get whatever and whenever the companies decide so.

But the MTF curves look really promising.

adamz

I know godless and the questionmark was a rethorical one:)

Msmoto

Well, I blew it..the price...wow.....this must be as sharp as the 70-200mm f/2.8 VRII. But, at the price...

It would appear this is in the "Big Buck" category and the folks willing to spend this kind of money may indeed have the ability to purchase the 300mm f/2.8, albeit at twice the price. However, if this proves to be an extremely well performing lens... maybe it will become a sought after piece of glass..........

Golf007sd

Well I must say, buyers seeking this focal length have a number of options. Personally, I'm not a fan of multiple aperture range...special given this lens's price tag. The 70-200 2.8 and a teleconverter would be a my recommendation, if the weight is not an issue for the user.

Once we get to see some sample images, most of us will find out if Nikon got it right. The spec of the lens sure are impressive. Nikon did not leave out much.

spraynpray

I think yous guys only have yourselves to blame - if you weren't on the forum so much screaming about wanting this lens updated, Nikon wouldn't have slapped 50% extra on the price! )

I'd love one but I'll wait until the old ones are being given away.....

shawnino

I think this was another rhetorical question from @AdamZ, but it bears closer inspection: "[W]hy do You always have to make the same mistake Nikon and overprice Your products so much at the beginning and only later confront the price with reality[?]"

The textbook answer, of course, is that Early Adopters of new technology always pay more for the privilege.

But here's what's interesting. In 13 years, the photosynthesis page implies that Nikon has sold about 190,000 80-400 lenses: 116,000 of the first series and 72,000 post-2006. So the uptake for this lens might be 10,000 to 15,000 pieces a year? People who won't be buying it:
--Those happy with their existing 80-400
--Those who want to buy the older version at essentially half the price with the current rebate (this option disappears when they're all gone)
--People who buy third party lenses
--People who opt for 70-200 + TC

So there won't be enough early adopters, IMO, to move serious numbers of product at this price.

AdamZ's question thus remains unanswered, unless we count "Nikon Epic Fail" as an answer.

Or am I missing something?

pippigurl

With all it's short comings certainly makes the current rebate deal for $1350 from B&H more appealing . Especially if you are planning to use for wildlife on a set of legs.

Rx4Photo

The pricing is out of control but based on comments from previous threads, many of us expected such. The same will likely happen with the updated 300mm f/4 and the often asked for 24-70mm f/2.8 "VR".

Godless

With all it's short comings certainly makes the current rebate deal for $1350 from B&H more appealing . Especially if you are planning to use for wildlife on a set of legs.

I would not touch the old version, as you can get the Sigma 120-300 2.8 OS for the same amount of money where I live. I´d even take the 300mm f/4 and 1.4xTC before the old version of the 80-400. Both alternatives I mentioned yield better image quality than the old 80-400 @ 400mm.

JJ_SO

Well, Nikon lost a lot of money (= earnt less than they planned), somehow they need to get the balance straight again

just kidding.

pippigurl

@Godless:I understand that the option of the 300 f/4 is a good one, although it is also on the "possible" update list. But price was the issue and the Sigma 100-300 ($3200US) is above the new 80-400. i already have the Nikon 1.7 and 2.0 TC. Where do you live?

obajoba

I have a 70-200/2.8 VR and have been contemplating "trading up" to a 70-200/2.8 VRII prior to getting the TC-20. If you think about the 70-200/2.8VRII + TC20, you're right about the same price as this lens but you lose 10mm and 1.5 stops on the short end up to 200mm. That's kind of a killer for indoor/evening sports. So, as much as I want 400mm for my safari trip, I think the 70-200/2.8 VRII + TC-20e III is still the way to go. Although, with the high ISO capability of the D4, perhaps I'm wrong...

adamz

@obajoba - for me thing is how will the new n80-400 work with tc1.4. as for n70-200/2.8, sure You can put tc20 on it, but to stack another 1.4 requires some modification on the tc side. not to mention additional lost of inflexibility.

obajoba

@adamz - I hadn't considered pushing it to 560mm @f/8 with a TC. Did I miss a spec that says it works with a TC? I honestly didn't see it and my understanding was that the variable length zooms don't typically work with the TC's. I will admit, though, that I am a newb to TC's and getting the longest reach I can so your point is definitely an interesting and valid one.

adamz

the new N80-400 will work with TC1.4, according to Nikon.

Yetibuddha

Well, I was looking forward to this update for wildlife, and even expected a higher price than the older version. But this is too high for me at least right now. Can purchase a 300f4 plus at 1.7TC for about $1900 US. Not as convenient, but maybe just as good. Light may be a bit of a problem. What do you think?

PB_PM

The 300mm F4 and 1.4c TC has served me well for the last four years. Go for it, it will most likely still be better than the zoom anyway and you net an extra 20mm.

scoobysmak

Here is my take on this, the new 80-400mm is probably a really good lens but I don't see me getting it. Maybe after I see what it can really do I change my thinking. I see this being an all around lens for some but a travel kit for others.

Travel kit thinking, telephoto needs:
I see this being a very light way to get to 400mm without a TC. There is no other option unless you plan to pack more than 7 lbs of lens on your trip, and then its not cheap or light. The option to add a TC on to this lens makes it great but I would probably go a different route. I see not being able to fit the 400mm 2.8 or 200-400mm for a trip but I think I could find the room for a 70-200 VRII and the 300mm F4. Add a TC-2 and you could have a 600mm F8 combo Vs the 560 F8 the 80-400 gives you with the 1.4 TC. Until someone produces real life shots from the 80-400mm plus 1.4 TC combo, I would say the quatily would be about the same overall but I could be very wrong and admit this. If Nikon comes out in say a year with an improved version of the 300mm F4 with VR that can use TC's with the same quality the 70-200 seems to get reviews using the 2.0 TC, I see the 80-400mm sitting around. If you honestly can only fit one telephoto lens in your travel kit then the 80-400 is probably the best option to travel light, unless you know that everything you want to shoot is on the long end then I would go for the 300mm F4 again.

Walk around lens thinking:
I would probably use the 28-300mm, I shoot too much stuff below 80mm that I would still have to carry more lenses anyway so if I could only use one lens, the 80-400mm would not be my choice.

Both of these depend more of subject and personal taste than the overall quality of the setups. At this moment I hear too many horror stories of the old 80-400mm can't focus in low light or my subject moves to fast for the autofocus to work. My main problem would be with action, if it can't focus fast enough I can't use it for my purpose.

Sand

I guess people complaining about price hasn't put the MTF of two lens side by side. Can't you see the significant improvement over the old one. I am sure there will be significant improvement in AF speed also. I think that should justify increase in price..my take..

donaldejose

Question: If you have a 70-200 f2.8 rather than pay 3k for an 80-400 which is f5.6 at 400mm why not pay $1,200 for the D7100 (or about $2,000 for the yet to be D400) and shoot them with a 70-200 f2.8 at the new 1.3 DX crop mode (if the D7100 has it so will the D400) for an effective doubling of focal length turning your 70-200 f2.8 into a 140-400 f2.8? 16mp in the 1.3 DX crop mode should be enough for good image quality in reasonable size prints. Instead of bigger lenses, use smaller sensors.

Lockon

Question: If you have a 70-200 f2.8 rather than pay 3k for an 80-400 which is f5.6 at 400mm why not pay $1,200 for the D7100 (or about $2,000 for the yet to be D400) and shoot them with a 70-200 f2.8 at the new 1.3 DX crop mode (if the D7100 has it so will the D400) for an effective doubling of focal length turning your 70-200 f2.8 into a 140-400 f2.8? 16mp in the 1.3 DX crop mode should be enough for good image quality in reasonable size prints. Instead of bigger lenses, use smaller sensors.

Or, just shoot in DX mode and crop on your computer, or just shoot in FX mode and crop more - same thing... but that's not the point. Optical 400mm across a given array of pixels will always be better than artificially cropping an image and to get an "effective" zoom.

Msmoto

Donald, I would guess the reason to have the 400mm focal length, 600mm on a DX sensor, is to get the reach. As to going to a smaller crop sensor, the reason we have full size sensors is because we like the image it gives us. Primarily, the subtle color rendition and ISO speed along with outstanding resolution.

Even though my 4/3rds sensor Olympus gives beautiful photos, I prefer the D4. But, I think instead of the 80-400mm at the $2700, I would go all the way to a 300mm f/2.8.....for only $3000 more....

Lockon

...But, I think instead of the 80-400mm at the $2700, I would go all the way to a 300mm f/2.8.....for only $3000 more....

Not sure if you are serious but if so, that's very twisted logic Why not just "go all the way" and get the 400mm f/2.8 for only $7300 more? [edit: oops, forgot the last smiley]

adamz

add 1 at the beginning and don't limit Yourself and go for 800/5.6

but seriously, I was a DX shooter and since I moved to FX I really don't wanna go back (this may change with the d400). the way FX sensor renders the image gives sth to the image. it's hard to explain but hopefully those of You who have FX and were shooting on DX will understand my point of view.

as for 300/2.8 or sigma 120-300/2.8 - sure, You can compare the new N80-400 to them but only on the price level not on portability one. You get a really lightweight 400mm lens that can be easily extended to 560mm - still below 2kg (4lbs). for me it's a huge plus, especially when I travel.
on the other hand we have N300/4, which is a great lens (was using it for long time). the problem with that lens is the lack of Nano coatings and lower performance on d800. was excellent on d3s. the second drawback is the shitty tripod mount, which when upgraded (had kirk collar) gets better but focus ring is a little bit obstructed (very annoying when You want to change the focus in a short period of time). the third drawback is the lack of vr - which I love for nice panning.