Well, FINALLY we get an updated 80-400

tc88

PB_PM, actually I believe most digital cameras overestimate the sensitivity. So ISO 100 is more like ISO 70.

But I agree that it's mostly marketing, and corporations tend to put better light on something that's not as good as it's claimed to be. How often do you see a zoom underestimate its range?

Golf007sd

N-Photo article on this new lens versus the old.

JJ_SO

Could somebody enlighten me about the nature of that "problem" or "issue"? Please? To say it with Sean Connery "what can you buy with 8 billion $ what you can't buy with 4 billion?"

Which picture you can't shoot with 193mm and would need the full 200?

At the time I started with photography I thought I really need Zeiss lenses. And a Contax. What does one do with a salary 10 times too small to buy those lenses? He's asking for datasheets to get something to dream about. You would be shocked, but this gangsters didn't sell a single lens out of 25 different ones at the focal length they pretended the lens would have! This was scandalous, wasn't it? And they were keen enough to write the exact focus length in their datasheets.

"That way people will feel less cheated." SOME people would always feel cheated, if it's not focus breathing then it's aperture inaccuracy. Probably this lousy 70-200/2.8 maybe has only f/2.91?

As for the lurkers: Don't know about you guys here, but I recognize other manufacturers also doing a good job I'm not on the pay-list of Nikon's advertisement department. My opinion about focus breathing is just "too much ado about nothing serious", others have other opinions, that's the way it is.

If one can't see the whole package of a lens and remains on demanding "the specs must be fulfilled the way I want to have it, under all circumstances" I start to ask myself, is that still about taking pictures?

PB_PM

@JJ_SO I think what happens is that our heads get ahead of our hearts (I know we all love photography), at least somewhat. Some might be more gear head than photo lover, but that's another topic. In places like this we end to get so bogged down in technical details, that we forget why we love photography in the first place. It isn't really about 192mm vs 200mm, but a sense that you aren't getting what you paid for, which IMO isn't true anyway.

tc88

JJ_SO, you are free to rant and express, as I said, this is a "free will" society and I hope the forum stays that way too.

193 is the maximum focus length at infinity. I believe for typical usage, the 70-200 is more like 70-175. That's a waste of 23% pixels right there if you intend to use it at 200. So I can certainly see people complain about it, especially if they were not aware of this before hand. I think it's perfectly fair pointing out the issues.

JJ_SO

@tc88 I still can't see a "waste of pixels" - You seem to assume one can't move from the place of shooting? One step forward at a focus distance which might cause 175mm focal length and either no pixel is "wasted" or you're swimming already in the lake in front of you

Sorry, it's not against you but it's impossible to me to take this "issue" as one. Some posts before somebody mentioned, it's more like 60-175, so you gain 10 mm to the wide side.

I just wanted to point out, since interchangeable lenses or lenses at all became possible, it was a pure coincidence, when a "50mm lens" was 50 mm and not 45 or 53. It's not the lens filling the frame, it's the photographer.

And I'm completely the wrong person to address complaints about missing mm of focal lengths to - I just don't care about 10 more or less (in 200mm range).

Edit:

@PB_PM I only can agree with you.

Lockon

N-Photo article on this new lens versus the old.

The article says nothing new.

TaoTeJared

This obsession with the 70-200 VRII is just weird. When I tried the lens to see if I wanted to upgrade, I set my VR I to the close focus distance, the VR II was basically the exactly the same, give or take a couple of MM (rows of pixels) of 200mm. People wanted it to focus closer to get more shots, the end result, is that people can get the shot and have more room to do so. I don't see anyone getting cheated but getting an additional opportunity for close focus shots that they would have missed.

N-Photo article on this new lens versus the old.

Link is not linking to anywhere for me.

Back on topic, I'm just going to sit back and wait for people to offload their older 80-400mm's, and pick one up for a song.

Golf007sd

@Lockon: The link was purely for info. To see what other had to say and such.

@TaoTeJared: I think the link as been removed. I will PM it to you.

Msmoto

Somehow with the "focus breathing" issue we may have drifted off to the 70-200mm.....this thread is on the 80-400mm I thought. I think once someone does a "home test" on the new lens, we will know if it has "focus breathing".

I have found just using the lens I have and being happy I can use it works best for me. Whether the lens is exactly what the "name" implies, i.e., 200mm meaning about 4X magnification over 50mm, this is not so important as my ability to use the lens to the best of its ability. The equipment we use are only our tools, not the end product we build with the tools. And, often one hammer works pretty much like another. The real question is whether we can hit the nail on the head.

adamz

as I was absent for the last couple of days I see that this discussion went way to far from the topic. I know that some of You would like to compare it to N70-200/2.8 with TC20, but going this way why not get a N70-300 and off brand TC. You simply can't compare this two lenses to each other. as for being 5.6 at 400mm... well Nikon could make it 400/4 - they already have such a zoom N200-400/4 and it costs more than twice the price of the new 80-400.
focus breathing - it's one of the aspects with zoom lenses that existed in the past and will exist in the future. that's a payoff for having a zoom. in some constructions it's visible more in some other less but it's always when You have a zoom. don't like it get a macro prime.

N80-400 vs N300/4 af-s + TC1.4
I had the N300/4 and I sold it due to three reasons:
- no VR
- no Nano coating
- shitty tripod collar - I even got Kirk Photo collar for it and even after this it wasn't full functional (twisting the barrel 90 deg was a nightmare)

so, please wait with conclusions till we see some 3rd party tests.

BTW:
it brings me laugh when I read, is it worth $1000 than the old one... is 600/4 worth 5 times as much as the old 80-400. is d4 worth 10 more than d3200?

Msmoto

@ adamz

Yes, folks do love to get off the topic....or ramble... I suspect the issue in some of these is the idea that we all like to think of ways to get something for nothing. I suspect when we have some real images from the new lens, this will answer the question, is it worth it. And, if it is as sharp as it is predicted to be...what a side kick on a crop sensor for the 400m + TC20. The big advantage is it can hang around one's neck and be used for a grab of a close shot, while using the long lens for the ones in the distance. (Sports action)

sevencrossing

Have a look this
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/in-pictures-21740060

taken the days when you did not need a 400mm + x 2 TC to shoot motor sport

Msmoto

@ sevencrossing

Yes, I remember being abel to stand so close we could shoot with a 50mm on 35mm film......or an 80mm on 2 1/4...

squoop

Hi folks,
The new 80-400 has arrived at B&H. Mine is being shipped tomorrow I'm a wildlife enthusiast who cannot afford the monster lenses, so I have been waiting years for this moment!!!!! It was $200 more than I expected, but looks like they put a lot into improving it. Should pair nicely with my D800. Also just got a TC-14e ii. Sue

adamz

@squoop - please share some snaps with us. I'm so eager to see how it will perform.

squoop

@adamz ... will do!

scoobysmak

Hi folks,
The new 80-400 has arrived at B&H. Mine is being shipped tomorrow I'm a wildlife enthusiast who cannot afford the monster lenses, so I have been waiting years for this moment!!!!! It was $200 more than I expected, but looks like they put a lot into improving it. Should pair nicely with my D800. Also just got a TC-14e ii. Sue

I think this is a record time of Nikon doing a press release and then having product ready to ship. Maybe lenses and camera bodies are totally different but I think Nikon has been holding on to this for a while since it still has VRII and ready to ship.

squoop

I had ordered it the day after the announcement. I think they might have only received a limited quantity, because their store is still showing it on pre-order with expected availability of march 19. Ditto Amazon.

Regarding VR, I am going to quote a post I saw on dpreview as this person explained it well: " "VRII" on one lens is not necessarily the same as "VRII" on another. Under Nikon's nomenclature scheme, the first version of the lens with VR is called "VR." The next version is "VRII." A lens on its third version of VR is called "VRIII." A brand new lens with VR for the first time will have that "VRIII" technology, yet be called "VR" because it is the first version of the lens with VR. THIS lens, by definition, is the second 80-400 with VR, so it's VRII, no matter what version of the VR it has. "

And why would they use old generation VR technology yet give it the latest state-of-the-art super-ED glass?

Golf007sd

@squoop: congrats. I too am looking forward in seeing some of your photo's. I also agree with your remarks that this will have the latest VR technology from Nikon.

Happy shooting...cheers.

P.S. If possible do a "unboxing video" and your usage of it in the field. If you have two bodies that is :P

Lorenzo

Regarding VR, I am going to quote a post I saw on dpreview as this person explained it well: " "VRII" on one lens is not necessarily the same as "VRII" on another. Under Nikon's nomenclature scheme, the first version of the lens with VR is called "VR." The next version is "VRII." A lens on its third version of VR is called "VRIII." A brand new lens with VR for the first time will have that "VRIII" technology, yet be called "VR" because it is the first version of the lens with VR. THIS lens, by definition, is the second 80-400 with VR, so it's VRII, no matter what version of the VR it has. "

And why would they use old generation VR technology yet give it the latest state-of-the-art super-ED glass?

Yes that is all true about VR nomenclature but in this case the lens actually does have the second version and not third version of VR....seems to have the version found in the 70-200 F2.8 VRII (good to approximately 4 stops) as opposed to the latest version of VR found in the 70-200 F4 which is supposed to be good to 5 stops. Maybe it is because as someone else suggested, this lens was made and ready before the latest VR technology and Nikon was waiting to release it.

adamz

I think that Nikon had this lens on hold for some time. super-ed wasn't developed this year (N800/5.6) already had it and it was used during the last olympics, so I guess Nikon 70-200/4 was simply developed later and pushed to the market earlier than this lens. anyway, can't wait to see real life examples. so guys hurry up

sevencrossing

It has

A Lens barrel lock (when the barrel is collapsed at 80mm position) prevents the barrel extending under its weight when the lens is not in use.

So it is not an internal zoom

squoop

@ Golf... thank you! Sorry won't be able to do an unboxing video as I am clueless about video plus no 2nd body.

@ Lorenzo... just because the latest VR technology is good for 5 stops on the 70-200/f4, isn't it the case that perhaps that ability isn't possible with the much longer 80-400 even if it does have the latest VR?

haroldp

A crop sensor does not magnify anything, it just crops. Cropping on the computer does exactly the same thing.

Crop sensors of the same pixel count have finer pixel pitch under a given area, but this effect diminishes quickly based on the resolution of the lens. When DX and FX sensors were both 12 mpx this mattered more.

It is not even remotely a substitute for real optical magnification.

I often use the the D800e in DX crop mode if shooting wildlife and I know I am not filling the frame, why load empty pixels, but I would always opt for a longer lens and FX frame if one were available.

Regards ... H