Now more directly to the original topic. I am struggling to understand to whom this lens is geared toward. It is too slow a lens for sports or wildlife and too expensive to just lay around being a paperweight almost all the time.
It seems there are better values in the marketplace for almost every use.
I almost never see the current 80-400 on the birding grounds or national parks, I travel.
I am a potential buyer. When traveling locally, I use my 20-400 f4 VR, which is too big to conveniently get onto an airplane. When traveling by air for wildlife shoots I have been using a 70-300 3.5 - 5.6 VR, which is sharp at F8 but not at 300mm and f5.6. F8 is fast enough in daylight and I like the DOF, but many wildlife opportunities come around at dusk.
If the new lens is sharp at 400mm and F5.6, (the MTF's look good) it is a big step up for my usage and I will grit my teeth and buy one (maybe wait for rebates).
Regards .. Harold
D810, D3x, 14-24/2.8, 50/1.4D, 24-70/2.8, 24-120/4 VR, 70-200/2.8 VR1, 80-400 G, 200-400/4 VR1, 400/2.8 ED VR G, 105/2 DC, 17-55/2.8. Nikon N90s, F100, F, lots of Leica M digital and film stuff.
I am a potential buyer at the moment to get 400mm I use a 70-200 + TC2 III but am not happy with the results I don't think teleconverter + a zoom lens + a D800 is a good combination I was thinking of a 200 -400 f4 but it is heavy and expensive I tried a sigma 50 -500 and the results were very poor 300mm is not long enough
I just bought one and am awaiting delivery. I'm a wildlife enthusiast who was looking to get to 400mm without shelling out $6000. Have tried both the 70-200 F2.8 + TC2 ii, and Sigma 50-500, and like sevencrossing was not impressed with IQ of either. Moving up from 70-300 vrii. I agree with all haroldp just said about that lens. Been pining for the upgrade to the old 80-400 which was notoriously slow to focus even in good light. Preliminary results are showing this new version to be lightning-quick to focus and every bit as sharp as the MTF charts suggest.
My thinking is that this lens may provide an amazing amount of resolution for the price. If the MTF charts are anywhere near accurate, to do better at 400mm will cost a lot. For those who must have f/2.8 at 400mm....Nikon does make one. But, if your bird is still (never have seen one this way) the VR will give the ability to shoot at 400mm and possibly 1/125 or 1/200 sec and f/5.6 handheld.
Im not sure you realize how much of an impact VR can have with a steady hand, msmoto. I can get sharp images out my 200mm @ f2 at handheld shutter speeds as low 1/5, so a lens like this at 400mm @ f5.6 might be tolerant of shutter speeds as low as 1/10, maybe lower depending on the shooter.
Modern VR is amazing and I would not buy a tele without it, even on tripods.
I typically have my 200-400 f4 VR on a gimbal head which is not tightened but with VR on. This has worked better for me than tightening down the head and VR off.
In many situations such as wildlife, or theater, the big problem for slow shutter speeds is subject motion which VR does nothing for.
..... H
D810, D3x, 14-24/2.8, 50/1.4D, 24-70/2.8, 24-120/4 VR, 70-200/2.8 VR1, 80-400 G, 200-400/4 VR1, 400/2.8 ED VR G, 105/2 DC, 17-55/2.8. Nikon N90s, F100, F, lots of Leica M digital and film stuff.
According to Thom Hogan per his home page, this does have "the new VR system."
As for birds... I generally wouldn't try to capture one at anything under 1/1000, theoretically making VR a moot point for that subject but even then i use it because i like how it steadies the view in the viewfinder helping me to focus on the right spot.
Just unboxed the lens and it is magnificent. Makes my 70-300 look like a peanut. Balances extremely well with D800 handheld. Can't wait to aim it at the bluebirds that are nesting by my house.
Ordered a gitzo tripod and wimberley for when I use the TC-14ii, as I don't think I can handhold 560mm even with VR.
Agree...the only problem I have found with the birds is they rarely seem to be still. And this is the reason I suggest a higher shutter speed.
Handholding is an art as you know. And, in viewing some of your "mission impossible" photos from the various angles you shoot, I would think you have this down quite well. ("mission impossible" means for me...LOL)
@ 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?
LOL at this point I think these desperate people would be happy with video from a mobile phone..(as long as the Moire is under control .. )
Moments of Light - D610 D7K S5pro 70-200f4 18-200 150f2.8 12-24 18-70 35-70f2.8 : C&C very welcome! Being a photographer is a lot like being a Christian: Some people look at you funny but do not see the amazing beauty all around them - heartyfisher.
The day was overcast but the new 80-400 seems to have come through, these are both with D800 at 400mm, f/5.6, 1/1600 from about 30 feet, second one is more cropped to show detail. I did no post processing other than crop.
@squoop: Look like Nikon has winner here. I'm sure as you play and shoot with it more your photo's are only going to get better. Please keep the pictures coming.
Cheers
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 |
Comments
Now more directly to the original topic. I am struggling to understand to whom this lens is geared toward. It is too slow a lens for sports or wildlife and too expensive to just lay around being a paperweight almost all the time.
It seems there are better values in the marketplace for almost every use.
I almost never see the current 80-400 on the birding grounds or national parks, I travel.
When traveling locally, I use my 20-400 f4 VR, which is too big to conveniently get onto an airplane.
When traveling by air for wildlife shoots I have been using a 70-300 3.5 - 5.6 VR, which is sharp at F8 but not at 300mm and f5.6. F8 is fast enough in daylight and I like the DOF, but many wildlife opportunities come around at dusk.
If the new lens is sharp at 400mm and F5.6, (the MTF's look good) it is a big step up for my usage and I will grit my teeth and buy one (maybe wait for rebates).
Regards .. Harold
Nikon N90s, F100, F, lots of Leica M digital and film stuff.
at the moment to get 400mm I use a 70-200 + TC2 III but am not happy with the results
I don't think teleconverter + a zoom lens + a D800 is a good combination
I was thinking of a 200 -400 f4 but it is heavy and expensive
I tried a sigma 50 -500 and the results were very poor
300mm is not long enough
I'm a wildlife enthusiast who was looking to get to 400mm without shelling out $6000.
Have tried both the 70-200 F2.8 + TC2 ii, and Sigma 50-500, and like sevencrossing was not impressed with IQ of either.
Moving up from 70-300 vrii. I agree with all haroldp just said about that lens.
Been pining for the upgrade to the old 80-400 which was notoriously slow to focus even in good light. Preliminary results are showing this new version to be lightning-quick to focus and every bit as sharp as the MTF charts suggest.
Please show me where it is reported this, "lightning-fast" focusing you state. Thanks.
D3 • D750 • 14-24mm f2.8 • 35mm f1.4A • PC-E 45mm f2.8 • 50mm f1.8G • AF-D 85mm f1.4 • ZF.2 100mm f2 • 200mm f2 VR2
I typically have my 200-400 f4 VR on a gimbal head which is not tightened but with VR on. This has worked better for me than tightening down the head and VR off.
In many situations such as wildlife, or theater, the big problem for slow shutter speeds is subject motion which VR does nothing for.
..... H
Nikon N90s, F100, F, lots of Leica M digital and film stuff.
As for birds... I generally wouldn't try to capture one at anything under 1/1000, theoretically making VR a moot point for that subject but even then i use it because i like how it steadies the view in the viewfinder helping me to focus on the right spot.
Just unboxed the lens and it is magnificent. Makes my 70-300 look like a peanut. Balances extremely well with D800 handheld. Can't wait to aim it at the bluebirds that are nesting by my house.
Ordered a gitzo tripod and wimberley for when I use the TC-14ii, as I don't think I can handhold 560mm even with VR.
Agree...the only problem I have found with the birds is they rarely seem to be still. And this is the reason I suggest a higher shutter speed.
Handholding is an art as you know. And, in viewing some of your "mission impossible" photos from the various angles you shoot, I would think you have this down quite well. ("mission impossible" means for me...LOL)
Being a photographer is a lot like being a Christian: Some people look at you funny but do not see the amazing beauty all around them - heartyfisher.
Cheers
Thank you for posting, you have helped me (and B & H).
This is the info I was looking for to decide, 400/5.6 looks acceptable to me.
Regards ... Harold
Nikon N90s, F100, F, lots of Leica M digital and film stuff.