Nikon 80 - 400

[NickoHG]

Hi
Does anyone have experience with the Nikon 80 - 400mm ED lens

NickoHG

[kiwi]

Not personally, but I know a fair bit about it, what are you wanting to know in particular ?

The general consensus says that IQ is very good, but it's AF is quite slow

[chris_m]

Have a look at http://www.bythom.com/80400VRlens.htm for a reasonable review.

I looked at it as a possible long lens for safari work but have discounted it because of its slowness.

[MarkW]

Yep I have one, have had it for about 3 or more years.

As said AF is very slow and hunts, even using the focus limiter only reduces the problem a little. Images are a little soft at the 400 end but pretty good to excellent at the short and middle zoom. Its VR is first generation which these days is just acceptable. There is no tripod setting for VR. Softness at 400mm isn't apparent on an 8 x 12 print.

Personally I think its a good quality kit lens despite its gold band but when you go past the 300 plus mm lenses they start to cost significant amounts of cash even when they are kit quality. The lens is an excellent lens to take on holidays when travelling by aircraft. Its light weight and relativelly small when compared to other 400mm lenses such as the prime and the 200-400 which means that it can easily fit your camera bag.

For me, I heading towards a 200-400 but thats still a pretty big package and with a cost of round $7K it will still take a bit of saving before I have one in the bag.

[NickoHG]

Thanks kiwi, I have heard the same, a difficult decision for me.
NickHG

[NickoHG]

Hey MarkW

Thanks for your information, always a difficult choice, cost is a major consideration so I doubt if I will go for a more expensive lens. I do travel frequently and like to add wildlife as well as landscapes so the choice is this lens or the 80 200 2.8D ED with a teleconverter?

By all accounts this lens is pretty good with the focus limitations.

How easy is it to manual focus with moving objects?

NickHG

[NickoHG]

Hey chris_m

I wonder if manual focus would be best for wildlife anyway?
Thanks
NickoHG

[chris_m]

I reckon you would want to use auto focus.

In some circimstances you may have plenty of time, but most likely you will just get a few seconds to compose and focus.

Take all the benefits you can get from new technology.

[MarkW]

AF with wildlife all depends on what you are shooting and where you are shooting.

If its birds which are likely to be in trees with branches or leaves in the focal area then its manual focus especially with this lens. If its big game - my wife used this lens in Africa on both her trips and came back with some great photos - then use AF as the animals don't move as quickly and you're unlikely to have branches and stuff interfering with the focus.

[NickoHG]

MarkW

Great, thanks for you input and suggestions.

I will consider, yet I think this lens will suit fine.

Thanks
NickoHG

[NickoHG]

Hey Chis_M

Thanks, interesting article.I think the lens will suit me though.

The 80 200 f2.8 is a very sharp lens, are you happy with it?
NickoHG

[chris_m]

Its a great lens but I am looking to replace it with the 70-200 vr so it will be on the market shortly.

[NickoHG]

Interesting, so why would you change to the VR lens?
Or should I say what is it about the 70 200 VR that interests you?
I assume you are going for the new version VR II>

[chris_m]

The main reason for the 70-200VR is an african safari we are doing later this year. Most of the work will be done in the back of an open 4x4 handheld, so I want as much help as possible with that.
I will also couple it with a TC17 to get some extra reach. This will cost 1.5 f/stops, but I reckon it will give enough reach and still have good quality.
I use the 80-200 when I know light will be an issue or I want a pin sharp image, otherwise its the 18-200vr as my walk about lens.
I am planning to sell the 80-200 with a kenko 1.4 TC.
I will probably get the II version but I am looking at second hand ones at the moment. The first version looks like it more than satisfactory for a DX body so I need to work out if its worth paying the extra to get the II version.

[MarkW]

In the end you'll wish you had the extra range of the 80-400. The IQ of 70-200 even in the new VRII with a TC17 isn't as good as just an 80-400 all on its own, especially at the long end which is what you'll need. Fitting a TC also slows down the focus time with the bigger the TC the slower the focus becomes. As I have previously said, big game like you will find in Africa doesn't move like small birds do. You will have plenty of time to focus and compose. This is more so as you wont be allowed out of your transport to get closer or recompose. You only get what your given.

The biggest difficulty you will encounter is getting the safari guides to get you close enough without disturbing the animals and as it stands the animals are more important that the tourists. If the guides take you too close they risk their employment.

[NickoHG]

Yes the DX body seems to suit the old model 70 - 200 VR best according to some reviews I have read.

Let me know when your ready to move on your 80 - 200 2.8 I may be interested.

Good luck with your decision.

[NickoHG]

Interesting facts about the African safari, fair comment I feel.

Form experience even with DX the 200 can be frustrating when trying get in close with wildlife, hence the thought on 80 - 400mm.

Good news that the wildlife thanks precedence over thoughtless tourists.

[TommySix]

I'm torn between a 70-200 VR or the 80-400 VR. Just want a nice lone tele for candid shots out around town and details of buildings etc.

Contemplating 70-200 VR second hand with the TC-17 but then the 80-400 has a little bit more reach but I would love to have the pro quality of the 70-200.....

I have a D3 so it should be able to drive the AF on the 80-400 a bit better than the non pro bodies.

[kiwi]

Apparently the new 2x tc works like magic particularly on the 70-200


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[MarkW]

I have a D3 so it should be able to drive the AF on the 80-400 a bit better than the non pro bodies.

Refering to my previous posts on how slow the 80-400 is, this lens was only ever used on an F5, a D200 and a D700. Whilst the two digitals are not truely pro level, they're not consumer level either and their specs very closely match the pro level camera (D2 & D3) of their respective time.

[NickoHG]

Hi Kiwi

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1030&message=31024609

Check out this link of users.

As far as I am concerned I'm sure it will do the job for me
Noel

[MarkW]

Nicko
Just remember that what you are reading there on DP is no better or worse than what you read here. The opinions are generally those of amateures with a few professionals thrown in. Generally the pro's won't have that lens so their comments hold little relevance and the amateures who actually have the lens may be insufficiently skilled to recognise good from bad or where a problem really exists. For example one respondant complained about the vibration even in MLU. This is a result of partially the lens leg and more his choice of tripod and head. There are aftermarket legs for this lens which will improve this situation. Many of the respondants ranted on about how the VR system needed an update. This lens should really be used with some sort of support, ie a tripod, a monopod or even a beanbag. Its not the weight or physical length of the lens, its what your doing with it. Your shooting at a long distance, so you need support.

After spending twenty minutes working through a sine rule calc, if the end of your lens at full extension (which is aout 400mm from the sensor) moves 0.1mm then at your subject some 40 metres away you will have a deflection of 3.046mm. This is enough to totally ruin your image as that much movement cant be removed using photoshop. A tenth of a millimetre is a very small movement at your end.

The 80-400 is only a relatively small lens when compared to its prime lens cousins. You would never consider hand holding a 400 prime for too long and especially when shoot at a distance. Birds in flight are an anomoly, you cant tripod your lens as you just cant move quick enough to maintain lock on the bird - its a specialist skill and a slightly out of focus BIF is acceptable where as a static subject even at 40 metres should be in focus.

[NickoHG]

MarkW
Yes one has to take such comments with a grain of salt, and no matter what lens is reviewed there are varying comments made. I have read that the collar needs replacing to steady the lens and even that it just requires tightening well, I suppose I will find out when I purchase the lens. Others suggested using a monopod with VR and it works perfectly?

Anyway I ready appreciated your comments and now it is up to me.
Nicko

[MarkW]

Just so you know before hand, you cant tighten the lens collar to remove the vibration issue, its caused by the design of the collar leg which needs a webbing in the casting. Making it thicker would help but to be engineered correctly the use of a web element allong the front edge would remove the compressive bend.

The alternative is to replace the collar and leg assembly. Kirk make one - see here http://www.kirkphoto.com/Lens_Collar_for_80-400mm_f4.5-5.6_VR.html

This will remove the vibration from the lens movement.

[NickoHG]

Thanks MarkW

I had read about this collar so thanks again for the link.

Are they available in Australia or just from Kirk?

NickoHG

[MarkW]

There are a couple of these sorts of companies but unfortunately they are all overseas and don't have Australian agents. This sort of gear is generally for the very dedicated or pro photographer and mostly catering to wildlife and nature. As they cater for such a small niche market you find that the prices are very high and then coming mostly from the US, you have to factor in exchange rates, shipping, insurance and whether you go over the magic $1000 AUD which means your subject to GST and Customs fees. All of these can add up to a very hefty cost for something relatively insignificant.

The ones I use are:

Kirks - http://www.kirkphoto.com/

Really Right Stuff - http://reallyrightstuff.com/index.html

Wimberley - http://www.tripodhead.com/index.cfm

The secret behind all of these companies is the interchangability across the the quick release tripod plate, called an "arca-swiss" type plate. Once you set your system up using this type of QR plate, you open yourself up to a marvel range of systems for flash head, lens mounts, tripod systems and the list goes on.

Good luck holding onto your credit card - this world aint cheap ;)

[TommySix]

Apparently the new 2x tc works like magic particularly on the 70-200


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Got any links to comparisons? I'm intrigued..!

Now if only I can find a used 70-200 VR1 somewhere

[NickoHG]

Hi MarkW
So if I go down the path of Kirk lens collar does that mean I will require another plate to fit to my tripod/monopod?

[MarkW]

Yes

Everthing works around the acra swiss QR plates which replace the QR plate on your support systems.

See here http://www.kirkphoto.com/Universal-Quick-Release-Clamps.html

[NickoHG]

Oh dear, that means my favorite Manfrotto pistol grip may have to move on. Any way I will wait until the lens collar arrives and see what the go is.
Thanks again MarkW for your support.
NickoHG

[MarkW]

Pistol grips are reknown for bad support due to the distace the camera is from the ball mechanism. This distance acts as a leverage point (3rd order of levers) so that a minor movement or vibration is amplified - a horrible situation for a long lens.

[NickoHG]

Hi MarkW
I'm surprised with that, the Manfrotto 322RC2 HEAVY DUTY GRIP BALL HEAD does not seem to have any vibration and seems to lock really tight. However I am inexperienced with more serious photography so one learns.

What is your option between the Nikon 14-24mm f/2.8G ED, 16-35mm f/4G ED VR Lens, 17-35mm f/2.8D IF-ED, 17-55mm f/2.8G ED-IF AF-S DX Zoom ?

NickoHG

[MarkW]

Having looked at your model ball head its not the model I was taking about - the model I thought you had was the 222 Joystick head which has the release mechanism between the QR plate and the actual ball assembly.

http://images.manfrotto.com/imageservlet/image?sysid=125449496226559334&format=gitzo_product_big&refresh=null
Which as you can see is a stupid way to support a camera - any movement at the ball or the connection to ball is amplified along the support shaft.

As for the lenses - I don't use DX, never have but that is a hangover from my days with 35mm film. Sensor sizes were always going to get bigger to match the old 35mm frame. My hope is they never produce an FX2 sensor size but then all my lenses are today futureproofed as best as possible.

So we have discounted the 17-55

The rest of the lenses are landscape lenses or at least that is what I presume you want to do with them.

The 17-35 I own and have had for a few years now - a very good lens, no VR which is a shame for a walk around but for a tripod mount its hard to beat. Watch out for barrel distortion below 20 but then who cares about BD when shooting landscapes.

The 14-24 doesn't have screw on front filters and for a landscape lens that truely is unacceptable, how am I to fit a CPL or a grad?. I think Lee came up with a solution but that was big bulky heavy and just not good enough. Anyway once your down below 20 barrel distortion does start to play havoc. Maybe this lens could be used for real estate photos or something similar but for holidays no thanks.

The 16-35 - This is a very new lens and from the early accounts is supposedly pretty good, but then the reviews have only been done by DPR or the like. Its f4 which is really pretty slow and around the same price as the 17-35. With the 17-35 you get f2.8 constant, with the 16-35 you get VRII - choose your poison but I don't think VR is that big. As for the lens reviews, for me I would prefer wait until until Hogan or Rorslett had reviewed the lens rather than to all accounts a bunch of amateurs.

I'm assuming you don't have all these lenses to choose which to take so I will add one to the mix, the 24-70. Ok it doesn't come with VR again a shame, but this lens is rasor sharp over the full range, constant f2.8, internal focus AF-S and really to me just right for a walk around scenery/landscape lens. At 24mm there is no BD and it works wonders on the FX.

[NickoHG]

Hi Mark, wonderful thanks.

The D200 is DX?

Yes I'm looking for a really good landscape lens hence the 17 53 2.8.

When I purchased my D300 I nearly added the 24 70 2.8 yet cost killed me hence the 18 200 I have got. After a year or so it time to add more quality lens.

Anyway decision time.
Noel

[MarkW]

Noel

ATM all Nikons except the D3 and variants and the D700 are DX.

When it comes to lenses I alway buy the best I can get and if that means waiting a couple of months or even a year then so be it. I once bought a Tamron and it was crap, it actually moved backward to focus compared to Nikon - this was the 1980s and times have changed but my resolution to never buy 3rd party has not. There are lots of people who say how good this or that lens is, mostly they're not protogs, they haven't tested a number of that lens, nor equivalent lens from other manufacturers - how can they justify their comments.

With the 17-35 there are plenty of write ups and not everybody liked it as much as I do but every lens in the market seems to have one or two issues as I mentioned in my last post but look here at the lens review by Rorslett http://www.naturfotograf.com/index2.html

and by Thom Hogan http://www.bythom.com/1735lens.htm

These are the people who I trust to give an accurate un-biased review. They have and do call a spade a spade.

Hogan gives it a drawback on the price but this was when it was more than $2.5K cost price. These days it can be had for less than $2k grey market - see here http://www.d-d-photographics.com.au/nikonslracc.htm

In the end you have to buy whats right for you - best wishes

[kiwi]

Mark's right when it comes to waiting for a great lens. What you shouldnt do though is give up/miss all the shots and experience in the meanwhile that you could get with a 3rd party lens

Never an easy call

With landscape lenses, sometimes primes like the 20 2.8 present tremendous value in comparison

[Gregg Bell]

I tried out a 80-400mm for the day, the optics in it are very nice. The motor in it, was good enough for me personally, but It does take time sometimes, it was pretty good, however I was quite happy with the 80-200mm motor, so maybe take mine with a grain of salt?

End of the day I just care about optics, and as long as its motor is faster then the the 18-55mm DX.

[NickoHG]

Hey Mark
Good glass is obviously the best way to go, I have gone ahead with the 80 400, should arrive next week. I find D D Photo has the best prices for most lens, pretty good to deal with as well.

What do you know about 135mm f2 defocus lens?

NickoHG

[NickoHG]

Hi Kiwi
Yes the 20mm is good value however with the D300 it become 30mm, not so good as wide angle which is what I'm after.

Actually damn confusing.
NickHG

[NickoHG]

Gregg
So how was the result compered with the 300 F4?
NickoHG

[NickoHG]

Hey Mark
I see Thom recommends 12 24mm and 14 24mm for D300, moreconfustion.
NickHG

[MarkW]

What do you know about 135mm f2 defocus lens?

NickoHG

Me - nothing, never used this lens. Rorslett list it as a specialist purpose lens and gives it a 4 out of 5.

[MarkW]

Hey Mark
I see Thom recommends 12 24mm and 14 24mm for D300, moreconfustion.
NickHG

Ok we talked about the 14-24 and its lack of an adequate filter system for landscape work.

The 12-24 is a DX lens and its f4
For me it wont support all my cameras and I'm just not buying the best I can get ie f2.8 or better.

Remember Thom has to cater for a wide demographic - those that only want DX and will never go FX, those with lots of disposable funds to those who scrape to get a kit lens. Basically he has to recommend for "now" with what you have at the moment rathter than recommend for the future of your photographic hobby. You need to remember that your D300 will probably be replaced in a few years time so where would you be likely to go, if you suspect FX or worse don't know then an FX lens will always work but a DX lens is confined to DX bodies.

[Gregg Bell]

Gregg
So how was the result compered with the 300 F4?
NickoHG

My 300mm f/4.5 is a manual focus lens, it is the only 300mm I have tried. If I had $2000 to spare, I would probably spend it on that lens if I was going to use it.

[NickoHG]

Thanks Greg B

[NickoHG]

MarkW
Good thought, yes possible D700 in the future so lens decisions should comply.

I really appreciate your experience and ideas with such maters, it is a steep learning curve.

NickoHG