Well, FINALLY we get an updated 80-400

13468915

Comments

  • MsmotoMsmoto Posts: 5,398Moderator
    It will be interesting to see the bokeh at 400mm wide open. If there is anything one might be critical of is the fact it is not super fast. Like an f/2.8.... :)) But, this could be a great addition to one's kit.
    Msmoto, mod
  • ChromiumPrimeChromiumPrime Posts: 84Member
    @snp tc88 is talking about internal zooming not focusing which, AFAIK, does not exist (at least not in the Nikon line-up).

    @tc88 may I interest you in a prime lens instead?
    Way too much gear & way too few photos :-O
  • JJ_SOJJ_SO Posts: 1,158Member
    @snp tc88 is talking about internal zooming not focusing which, AFAIK, does not exist (at least not in the Nikon line-up).
    Are there two camera manufacturers named NIKON? I do have two zooms focussing and zooming internally, the don't get longer. Okay, one, the 14-24 is moving the front lens. But 24-70, 70-200 aren't. Or what do you mean?

  • ChromiumPrimeChromiumPrime Posts: 84Member
    The 24-70 does change lengths when you zoom. If you always use the hood when you shoot with it then it may seem like the lens doesn't change lengths. That's because the hood doesn't attach to the front element but directly onto the lens housing instead.

    Now as to the 70-200... I just looked it up and it does zoom internally so I stand corrected. I used to own a VR1 a while back so I should have known this... but then again I rarely shot with it (which is why I sold it) so I guess I just didn't handle it enough to notice #-o
    Way too much gear & way too few photos :-O
  • spraynprayspraynpray Posts: 6,545Moderator
    Thinking about tc88's problem with it not being an IF lens, is that seen as a big problem by others? All of my zoom lenses are non-IF and I don't get any noticeable problems.

    I suppose if they made it IF it would have a slower maximum aperture at the wide end? Can't think why they don't fix the tripod foot in place and incorporate a small hepa grade filter to take any dust out :-?
    Whoops! My bad, got my zoom mixed up with my focus. Dang! This photography is complex! 8-}
    Always learning.
  • tc88tc88 Posts: 537Member
    edited March 2013
    I believe most of the top line Nikon zooms have internal zoom. 14-24 f/2.8, 17-35 f/2.8, 16-35 f/4, 70-200 f/2.8 and f/4. The 24-70 f/2.8 is sort of an interesting exception where the hood is attached to the main barrel so that it shields rain drops and direct user introduced contact to the inner tube. A while ago, I told myself that I prefer future lens purchases to be top of the line internal zoom types since I have enough of the others.

    I already have a current 300 f/4. Even if I have to choose one now, I probably will still pick 300 f/4 at half the price. While never say never and I would love to collect glasses, to be rational, I have to constantly ask myself what kind of pictures I can not take with my current equipment and whether I should spend the additional expenditure to get those or find some other ways. I can take most of the stationary birds fine, and by being out more so that I'm at the right place right time some of the time, I have got most of the pictures I wanted. For BIF, I can still use some improvement, but I think that's more to do with the AF in camera, so that will be my first upgrade.

    I don't think filtering in extending zooms can do much to the moisture or the sticky salty ocean air. Also I recently was photographing some owls at the beach. I had to move some log out of the way. I had my gloves on and didn't realize it's full of sand afterwards. I kept shooting and only saw it a while later by which time the 300 had a bunch of sand on its barrel. I managed to blow them all off afterwards. But imagine if it's an extending zoom and I have already zoomed in and out several times. I can probably live with that on a $500 lens. But I would be sick to my stomach if it happened to a 80-400 which would be the most expensive lens I would have.
    Post edited by tc88 on
  • GodlessGodless Posts: 113Member
    But imagine if it's an extending zoom and I have already zoomed in and out several times. I can probably live with that on a $500 lens. But I would be sick to my stomach if it happened to a 80-400 which would be the most expensive lens I would have.
    Take a look at the new Sigma S series 120-300mm f/2.8 DG OS. Add to that a 1.4x TC and you´re at 420mm f/4 in the long end.. the previous version was really sharp and produced a really smooth bokeh. The new one is going to be as good, and you get to tune the AF speed & distance yourself with the USB Dock.

  • LockonLockon Posts: 13Member
    I don't care how good the weather sealing is on paper. If it takes half a volume of air from outside every time it zooms, I just don't trust it. With that out of window, I think the price is high for what it is.
    I have the old 80-400 which also extends and have shot > 400,000 frames with it, 99.9% of which were zoomed out > 80mm. I've never had a dust problem inside the lens even when shooting in dusty/smokey places like India, Kenya and Dubai

    Who was it that said (paraphrasing) "A lens is to look though, not at"? :)
  • LockonLockon Posts: 13Member
    I don't think filtering in extending zooms can do much to the moisture or the sticky salty ocean air. Also I recently was photographing some owls at the beach. I had to move some log out of the way. I had my gloves on and didn't realize it's full of sand afterwards. I kept shooting and only saw it a while later by which time the 300 had a bunch of sand on its barrel. I managed to blow them all off afterwards. But imagine if it's an extending zoom and I have already zoomed in and out several times. I can probably live with that on a $500 lens. But I would be sick to my stomach if it happened to a 80-400 which would be the most expensive lens I would have.
    (I should have read ahead to see your followup before posting the last message, but...) I have also shot the old 80-400 in salty sea air and had salt and even sea water on the lens... nothing got in. The seal on the extending barrel is very good. Just FYI because that tells us nothing about the new version. (now the D800 and sea water were another story - instantly fried it because I didn't have the rubber cap on the bottom :( )
  • MsmotoMsmoto Posts: 5,398Moderator
    I have been to the sea as well....and in any environment which has nasty stuff like salt air, sea water, sand, etc. I put the camera lens in a waterproof hood like a LensCoat RainCoat Pro, available from one of our sponsors.
    Msmoto, mod
  • Golf007sdGolf007sd Posts: 2,840Moderator
    edited March 2013
    If this new 80-400 has the same build quality as the 14-24 & 24-70 2.8...given the manner in which these two lenses function...dust, air, water (salted or unsalted) and sand will not be an issue. I have put both the 24-70 and 14-24 in all types of harsh conditions and never had an issue. The last time I shot at the beach was with Ironheart, very strong winds resulting in lots of sand blowing around and sea foam. My 14-24 got a nice facial of this foam'e stuff on it and the lens just kept on functioning without a single malfunction. I just made sure I cleaned it real good after the shooting was done.

    Sample of the foam'e stuff I'm talking about. This shot was taken with the 70-200 2.8 however.

    ARN_5963.jpg
    Post edited by Golf007sd on
    D4 & D7000 | Nikon Holy Trinity Set + 105 2.8 Mico + 200 F2 VR II | 300 2.8G VR II, 10.5 Fish-eye, 24 & 50 1.4G, 35 & 85 1.8G, 18-200 3.5-5.6 VR I SB-400 & 700 | TC 1.4E III, 1.7 & 2.0E III, 1.7 | Sigma 35 & 50 1.4 DG HSM | RRS Ballhead & Tripods Gear | Gitzo Monopod | Lowepro Gear | HDR via Promote Control System |
  • tcole1983tcole1983 Posts: 981Member
    edited March 2013
    I think it being variable aperture is what makes the lens seem so expensive. If the lens performs then it might be worth the price. I am sure the 70-200 has sold tons. It would be expensive to buy separate lenses to cover the same range but if you paid a bit more you could get f2.8 glass. Is it a beginner lens...it doesn't seem like it. Most don't want to spend half the cost of this lens on a body and lens. So who is it targeted at...I don't know. I am with Tao on a limit of cost..it is just a hobby for me and i cant justify those kind of funds. Not saying pros have unlimited funds but if it was my livelyhood i would buy f2.8 glass...not this. And cant comment on how the bokeh will look but i think the bokeh on the 300 f4 is amazing...i find that as an advantage to say the 28-300..
    Post edited by tcole1983 on
    D5200, D5000, S31, 18-55 VR, 17-55 F2.8, 35 F1.8G, 105 F2.8 VR, 300 F4 AF-S (Previously owned 18-200 VRI, Tokina 12-24 F4 II)
  • ChromiumPrimeChromiumPrime Posts: 84Member
    Since we're talking about internal zooming and focusing... isn't it possible the reason this lens doesn't have internal zoom is so to avoid focus breathing?

    We know the 70-200 VRII is a heavy breather because of its IF functionality (although not sure why VRI doesn't have it as bad as VRII). Also, and I'm guessing here based on VRII behavior, I believe the breathing is even further pronounced at the more telephoto lengths. Perhaps somebody with proper knowledge of lens physics and designs can shed some light on this.
    Way too much gear & way too few photos :-O
  • PB_PMPB_PM Posts: 4,494Member
    @ChromiumPrime The focus breathing appears worse in the VRII because it focuses closer, which enhances the effect.

    I don't think internal zooming has any effect on focus breathing, the lens still needs to to extend internally. Any zoom could be made to zoom internally, but that would make the body larger.
    If I take a good photo it's not my camera's fault.
  • JJ_SOJJ_SO Posts: 1,158Member
    edited March 2013
    Larger and heavier, too. Also servicing and repairing become more expensive. And I'm sure "avoiding focus-breathing" doesn't appear on first places of lens designer's priority lists. I don't have any zoom which is steady in focussing when zooming from wide to tele. Of course not: with 3-5 times enlarging the AF sensor "sees" more therefore will always be a bit of movement. And I don't see many situations a focus-breathing could ruin the shot.
    Post edited by JJ_SO on
  • ChromiumPrimeChromiumPrime Posts: 84Member
    It's got to be something else as both the VRI and VRII both close focus at 1.5 meters (VRI has higher magnification though) but the VRII suffers much heavier breathing... but then again VRI also seems to both zoom and focus internally and it doesn't suffer the same fate so maybe it is something unrelated.
    Way too much gear & way too few photos :-O
  • PB_PMPB_PM Posts: 4,494Member
    The VRII focuses to 1.4, not 1.5. ;)
    If I take a good photo it's not my camera's fault.
  • ChromiumPrimeChromiumPrime Posts: 84Member
    edited March 2013
    The VRII focuses to 1.4, not 1.5. ;)
    You're probably right about that. I'm not exactly sure how the close focus distance works on the VRII but in the VRI it's a little unique in that AF only goes as close as 1.5m however manual focus will take you all the way to 1.4m... so still the same :-j

    @JJ_SO I agree with you that focus breathing wouldn't exactly ruin the shot but lots of people (me included) don't like the idea of feeling "cheated" out of the focal length of a lens I'm spending a lot of money on. Take 70-200 VRII for example, it's been widely documented at close focus (which is by no mean macro distance) it behaved like a 60-135mm and only behaved like true 70-200mm at around 10 meters.

    If the new 80-400 was to behave anything like the VRII, I'd imagine it would be even worse because of the longer focal length it covers. Of course, hopefully it won't [-O<
    Post edited by ChromiumPrime on
    Way too much gear & way too few photos :-O
  • JJ_SOJJ_SO Posts: 1,158Member
    I know, it's not of a big use to tell my point of view but who knows? Maybe the someone get the idea of putting things into a different perspective.

    First, I don't own a 70-200/2.8 or 24-70

    But I know a bit about balancing: Getting an advantage always means there's a chance of getting a disadvantage for that reason.

    Solid lens = heavy lens
    Fast lens = heavy and expensive lens
    Constant length of the lens = the focal lengths will change, depending of distance to subject, it's really that simple.

    Focal length is always given as "focal length for a sharp picture of an infinitely distant subject". Everybody thinking the focal length will stay the same no matter of the distance to the subject should get used to the idea he might be wrong. Otherwise no glass element would have to be moved but it would be possible to see focussed subjects at any distances.

    Now the "spending a lot money on a lens" argument keeps to forget, what you really get for it: Solid construction, high optical performance, weather sealed, fast lens, no dimensional change while zooming/focussing. I'd like to say "stop whining around because this comes at the price of changing focal lengths the way it is done", but that'd be a confrontation what I don't want and nobody needs. But how about doing a step forward, literally, and get a larger picture? If the "disadvantage" is systematically, there's not much point in complaining about - I would not go for a DSLR, if I want a small, pocketsize, silent piece of camera. That's better than complaining about they gave me less than I paid for. Nikon never promised, you'd have under all circumstances constant focal lengths...
  • ChromiumPrimeChromiumPrime Posts: 84Member
    @JJ_SO What a funny way not to be confrontational... 8->

    First of all let's just clear something up, this is only a discussion of lens attributes as well as preferences for/against them... there is no whining involved here. The focus breathing in the VRII is not like any other lens or minor and it is widely documented and tested and therefore presents a clear disadvantage that does deserve to be discussed.

    Just as a quick comparison (and for fun), I've once done a crude test involving the 24 1.4, 10-24 and 24-70 all at 24mm of course. What did I learn? Pretty much what I expected. 10-24 was a little wider @ 24mm than 24 1.4 and 24-70 was a little longer @ 24mm but either one was barely noticeable. So yes, I am aware that FL are given only for infinity focus... and even then they're rounded up/down. However, the VRII is unique in this regard as it's predecessor which (as I recently relearned) also incorporates similar zooming/focusing mechanism was nowhere near as bad.

    By your own words it is about balancing. Adding to that, I'd also say what's balanced for you is not balanced for me, wouldn't you agree?

    Oh well, this discussion is veering off into a completely different direction. My original intention was not to discuss the VRII or it's focus breathing but to just throw it out there as a possibility why the new 80-400 doesn't incorporate internal zooming.
    Way too much gear & way too few photos :-O
  • JJ_SOJJ_SO Posts: 1,158Member
    The 200-400 has internal zooming, focussing and constant aperture. A 2× zoom, compared to a 5× zoom, and although the numbers are against, is 2.4× as expensive. Now, how much more expensive would the 80-400 have to be with internal zooming? Does the 200-400 have no focus-breathing? I would be surprised.

    I didn't say, it's balanced for me, I'm just saying, it depends on priorities. If you can't live with the focus-breathing, go for another lens. If you like the lens anyway, learn to live with. I don't see the point, especially not because I know this lens is a workhorse and able to produce stunning photos. Each decision of the lens designers comes at a certain price. The focus breathing has a physical reason, can't be avoided with this kind of lesn design and it's pointless to argue about.
  • ChromiumPrimeChromiumPrime Posts: 84Member
    edited March 2013

    If you can't live with the focus-breathing, go for another lens.
    I did. I went for the 70-200 VRI instead of the VRII exactly because of this :)
    The focus breathing has a physical reason, can't be avoided with this kind of lesn design...
    Which is precisely what I'm saying. Whether Nikon did this intentionally or not is anyone's guess but it seems we both agree because 80-400 lacks internal zoom then it most probably won't focus breathe so heavily, no? ;)
    ...and it's pointless to argue about.
    Stop arguing and start discussing then :D

    Peace :)>-
    Post edited by ChromiumPrime on
    Way too much gear & way too few photos :-O
  • MsmotoMsmoto Posts: 5,398Moderator
    My opinion only:

    I have posted a note somewhere on the focus breathing of the 70-200mm f/2.8 VRII At 200mm with a subject distance of 2 meters, the lens functions as approximately a 170mm lens.

    My theory on this is due to the fact one needs more light at closer distances, thus the lens if working at 200mm would require a larger front element to obtain f/2.8.

    The new 80-400mm with variable aperture has less of this problem, thus it may not "focus breath" as much as the 70-200mm fixed aperture.
    Msmoto, mod
  • tc88tc88 Posts: 537Member
    If you can't live with the focus-breathing, go for another lens. If you like the lens anyway, learn to live with.
    I'm digressing here. But JJ_SO, while I agree with most of your points, I find this to be misguided. Nikon or any manufacturer may say take it or leave it. Customers on the other hand will say give us what we want or we will complain. This is a "free market", "free will" society. There is nothing wrong with either side's position. Any third party can listen to both arguments and decide for themselves.

    Also there are lurkers on these internet forums. There may be people who plans to buy a 70-200 and didn't know the concept of focus breathing and thought they had the 200 covered. In reality they don't. And if they see this or other similar discussions, they may have second thoughts and decide otherwise.

    Here is some suggestion. Since I believe even at infinity, the 70-200 only focuses to 193. How about selling it as 70-185 instead? Or make it to focus to 220 at infinite if it focuses to 180 at close. That way people will feel less cheated.

    Just my opinion.
  • PB_PMPB_PM Posts: 4,494Member
    That's like asking Nikon to call ISO 100, ISO 150, since ISO 100 on almost all digital bodies is higher than the sensitivity of ISO 100 film. The numbering system works with round numbers, because it looks better. Same reason retailers often sell something for $99.99 rather than $100, it looks better to people, subconsciously.
    If I take a good photo it's not my camera's fault.
Sign In or Register to comment.