I got the 28-300 VR after suggestions to replace my beloved 18-200 VR.
That thread here, for those interested:
[url]http://www.naturephotographers.net/imagecritique/bbs.cgi?a=vm&mr=76238&CGISESSID=011ae5e4a8a98b095c34022bd83a58ef&u=15806[url]
Every image from the 28-300 was soft - don't know if I got a defective version of the lens, or if this is generally a problem with the 28-300.
So now I'm considering the 80-400VRII or the 70-200 VRII. Image quality seems excellent on both, from many reports. The 70-200 is much sturdier (pro model) while the 80-400 has lots of plastic and is more vulnerable. The 70-200 would take teleconverters, giving it a lot of versatility. All those ranges are already IN the 80-400. Both are similar size and weight.
Soliciting thoughts and comments, please - ideally from people who HAVE one of these lenses.
I recently bought this lens to use with my D-7100. It's nice and sharp, AF is quick, and the VR works very well. It is not super heavy, nor overly bulky. It's an FX lens at a good price. Reviews I read before buying were, for the most part, positive. It's not high-end Nikon glass, but will get the job done.
--P
Posted by Frederic Hore on March 22, 2014 at 6:49 AM
I currently use a Nikkor 70-200 f/2.8 VR11 on a D700 and D800 and have been very pleased with its performance. It remains very sharp with a Nikon TC 1.4 Teleconverter, a bit less at 200 with the older TC 2.0 E11 (I don't have the newer version E111). I also own an older 300 f/4 AF (that uses the slower, in camera focusing motor, as opposed to the faster AFS lenses) but it has noticeable CR - chromatic aberration problems.
I have been evaluating the 80-400 as my next purchase, and like you have consulted different websites to learn what others say.
Thom Hogan at Bythom.com is probably my favourite site to read Nikon reviews, as this pro photog tells it likes it is, he is not beholden to advertisers. His reviews are succinct and detailed. He says:
"Common questions: many who've read the review ask one of two questions: is the 80-400mm better than a 70-200mm with a teleconverter, and how are teleconverters on the 80-400mm? The answer to the first is that the 80-400mm at 400mm f/5.6 is better than the 70-200mm f/2.8 with a TC-20EIII at 400mm f/5.6. Definitely better at f/8. While everyone wants a "cheaper" solution, you get what you pay for. If 400mm is important to you, you need a lens that's designed for that use that performs well, period.
As to the second question, the only teleconverter you can use on the 80-400mm is the TC-14E, and really only on the most recent bodies (D7100, D600, D800, D4), which support autofocus at f/8. You're at the margin with focus even with those cameras, and I detect some variability to the focus performance that wasn't quite there at 400mm f/5.6, even on the bodies that only accept f/5.6 for autofocus. Since you're using 560mm (with the TC) usually for distant things, even a small focus error can impair your results. I'd say that the owners of those cameras (D7100, D600, D800, D4) would pretty much always be better off selecting a crop setting on the camera instead of adding the TC-14E."
Posted by Lindy Martin on March 22, 2014 at 7:33 AM
Hi sandy
I have the 80-400 on my d3s and it is tack sharp. The autofocus on the new 80-400 is better than my old 70-200. Balance, hand holding, and ease of manual focus is fantastic. Love this lens for birds - easy and fast. My main reason for getting it was to shoot agility and it is perfect for that. The down side for me it is that after a few hours of hand holding, it gets kind of heavy. When I need more reach, I rent the 5 or 600. I don't think you can go wrong with the 80-400. Moose Peterson wrote a great review on his blog that tipped the scales for me. Good luck with what ever your voice is. http://www.moosepeterson.com/blog/2013/04/04/new-80-400-af-is-fast/
Hi Sandy,
Currently, I have both the newest 80-400 and the 70-200 f2.8. I bought the 80-400 with the thought that I probably would sell the 70-200, but I haven't done it. The 80-400 on a D7100 is my walk-around rig, and I will use it for High Island migration this spring. The 1.4 only will work on 80-400 but it's easier to just put the D7100 on crop mode instead of going with the teleconverter. Focus is fast for the 80-400 on the D7100.
I find the 70-200 is killer sharp although the 80-400 is sharper than I expected, which was a nice surprise. Generally I like the 70-200 with teleconverters the best for bird blinds on a full-frame camera (D3s is what I have). I keep the 80-400 on the D7100 for walks through the parks. I generally use a monopod or light travel tripod for my park walks. Given that you can handhold the 500mm very successfully, I predict you will have no problem handholding either of these.
I don't have a D800 so can't tell you about a 80-400 and D800 combo.
Discussion
5 repliesThat thread here, for those interested:
[url]http://www.naturephotographers.net/imagecritique/bbs.cgi?a=vm&mr=76238&CGISESSID=011ae5e4a8a98b095c34022bd83a58ef&u=15806[url]
Every image from the 28-300 was soft - don't know if I got a defective version of the lens, or if this is generally a problem with the 28-300.
So now I'm considering the 80-400VRII or the 70-200 VRII. Image quality seems excellent on both, from many reports. The 70-200 is much sturdier (pro model) while the 80-400 has lots of plastic and is more vulnerable. The 70-200 would take teleconverters, giving it a lot of versatility. All those ranges are already IN the 80-400. Both are similar size and weight.
Soliciting thoughts and comments, please - ideally from people who HAVE one of these lenses.
Thank you!
Sandy
What about this: AF-S VR Zoom-Nikkor 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6G IF-ED
I recently bought this lens to use with my D-7100. It's nice and sharp, AF is quick, and the VR works very well. It is not super heavy, nor overly bulky. It's an FX lens at a good price. Reviews I read before buying were, for the most part, positive. It's not high-end Nikon glass, but will get the job done.
--P
I have been evaluating the 80-400 as my next purchase, and like you have consulted different websites to learn what others say.
Thom Hogan at Bythom.com is probably my favourite site to read Nikon reviews, as this pro photog tells it likes it is, he is not beholden to advertisers. His reviews are succinct and detailed. He says:
"Common questions: many who've read the review ask one of two questions: is the 80-400mm better than a 70-200mm with a teleconverter, and how are teleconverters on the 80-400mm? The answer to the first is that the 80-400mm at 400mm f/5.6 is better than the 70-200mm f/2.8 with a TC-20EIII at 400mm f/5.6. Definitely better at f/8. While everyone wants a "cheaper" solution, you get what you pay for. If 400mm is important to you, you need a lens that's designed for that use that performs well, period.
As to the second question, the only teleconverter you can use on the 80-400mm is the TC-14E, and really only on the most recent bodies (D7100, D600, D800, D4), which support autofocus at f/8. You're at the margin with focus even with those cameras, and I detect some variability to the focus performance that wasn't quite there at 400mm f/5.6, even on the bodies that only accept f/5.6 for autofocus. Since you're using 560mm (with the TC) usually for distant things, even a small focus error can impair your results. I'd say that the owners of those cameras (D7100, D600, D800, D4) would pretty much always be better off selecting a crop setting on the camera instead of adding the TC-14E."
You can read his complete report here:
http://www.dslrbodies.com/lenses/nikon-lens-reviews/nikon-80-400mm-f45-56g-af-s.html
Here's another, very extensive review by Brad Hill:
http://www.naturalart.ca/artist/fieldtests/AF-S_80-400mmVR.html
Visit the B&H website, and read 154, mostly positive and even ecstatic customer comments here (click on Customer Reviews):
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/936121-REG/nikon_80_400mm_f_4_5_5_6g_ed_vr.html
Current sale price at B&H is $2296.
Hope this helps!
Frederic in Montréal
I have the 80-400 on my d3s and it is tack sharp. The autofocus on the new 80-400 is better than my old 70-200. Balance, hand holding, and ease of manual focus is fantastic. Love this lens for birds - easy and fast. My main reason for getting it was to shoot agility and it is perfect for that. The down side for me it is that after a few hours of hand holding, it gets kind of heavy. When I need more reach, I rent the 5 or 600. I don't think you can go wrong with the 80-400. Moose Peterson wrote a great review on his blog that tipped the scales for me. Good luck with what ever your voice is. http://www.moosepeterson.com/blog/2013/04/04/new-80-400-af-is-fast/
A good thorough and even handed review of the 80-400 AFS VR with comparisons to both of Nikon's 70-200s as well as the 300 f4 AFS is here:
http://www.ejphoto.com/Quack%20PDF/Nikon%2080-400.pdf
As usual it depends on your use for the lens. But the reviews are good for the 80-400 AFS VR.
Hope this helps!
Robert Parnell
Currently, I have both the newest 80-400 and the 70-200 f2.8. I bought the 80-400 with the thought that I probably would sell the 70-200, but I haven't done it. The 80-400 on a D7100 is my walk-around rig, and I will use it for High Island migration this spring. The 1.4 only will work on 80-400 but it's easier to just put the D7100 on crop mode instead of going with the teleconverter. Focus is fast for the 80-400 on the D7100.
I find the 70-200 is killer sharp although the 80-400 is sharper than I expected, which was a nice surprise. Generally I like the 70-200 with teleconverters the best for bird blinds on a full-frame camera (D3s is what I have). I keep the 80-400 on the D7100 for walks through the parks. I generally use a monopod or light travel tripod for my park walks. Given that you can handhold the 500mm very successfully, I predict you will have no problem handholding either of these.
I don't have a D800 so can't tell you about a 80-400 and D800 combo.
Regards
Paula