Nikon 80-400: I have an opportunity to buy the lens at a very good price. I have read mixed reviews about the lens. Most of my photography is landscapes, wildlife, portraits. I'd...

bobgreen Loc: Maryland

I have an opportunity to buy the lens at a very good price. I have read mixed reviews about the lens. Most of my photography is landscapes, wildlife, portraits. I'd appreciate the always astute opinions of UHH.

Apaflo Loc: Anchorage, Alaska

bobgreen wrote:

I have an opportunity to buy the lens at a very good price. I have read mixed reviews about the lens. Most of my photography is landscapes, wildlife, portraits. I'd appreciate the always astute opinions of UHH.

The new AF-S or the older AF-D?

Bill_de Loc: US

Apaflo wrote:

The new AF-S or the older AF-D?

The "D" has nothing to do with the type of focus. Some lenses are labeled as both AF-s and "D"

The D simply means the lens sends distance information to the camera to help with exposure, in particular flash exposure.

--

Apaflo Loc: Anchorage, Alaska

Bill_de wrote:

The "D" has nothing to do with the type of focus. Some lenses are labeled as both AF-s and "D"

The D simply means the lens sends distance information to the camera to help with exposure, in particular flash exposure.

--

But "older AF-D" as opposed to the AF-S is very specific.

The D following the f/stop specification is as you say, but "AF-D" is not "AF-S".

bobgreen Loc: Maryland

I'm pretty sure it's the older version especially given the price. I've asked for clarification.

Bill_de Loc: US

Apaflo wrote:

But "older AF-D" as opposed to the AF-S is very specific.

The D following the f/stop specification is as you say, but "AF-D" is not "AF-S".

I could be wrong, but I don't think Nikon ever used AF-D as a designator. The photo writers used it, often erroneously, leading people to believe the D had something to do with the type of focus.

--

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

bobgreen wrote:

I have an opportunity to buy the lens at a very good price. I have read mixed reviews about the lens. Most of my photography is landscapes, wildlife, portraits. I'd appreciate the always astute opinions of UHH.

http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/80400vr.htm

Apaflo Loc: Anchorage, Alaska

bobgreen wrote:

I'm pretty sure it's the older version especially given the price. I've asked for clarification.

Probably true. The older version requires the camera have the built in focus motor. It is relatively slow focusing for wildlife such as birds in flight. For other purposes it is just fine.

If the budget is tight it is a very good deal.

CO

Which version are you considering? The original version, introduced in 2000, has the slower screw type autofocus. I have the newer AF-S version introduced in 2013. The -S designation means it has the silent wave motor. It's sharp throughout the zoom range and has very fast autofocus. I really think the nano crystal coating on the glass gives it slightly higher contrast than lenses that have the standard multi-coatings.

mborn Loc: Massachusetts

bobgreen wrote:

I'm pretty sure it's the older version especially given the price. I've asked for clarification.

I have had both models newest one is much better

DaveC Loc: Illinois

I had the older one. Very soft until stopped down to at least f8. Never used it. Finally sold it to B&an and bought the 200-500. If it's the older version I would not recommend it.

Fotomacher Loc: Toronto

bobgreen wrote:

I have an opportunity to buy the lens at a very good price. I have read mixed reviews about the lens. Most of my photography is landscapes, wildlife, portraits. I'd appreciate the always astute opinions of UHH.

If it is the AF version that requires an in-body focus motor, it is slow to focus. I rented one for my trip to Alaska and found it OK for stationary subjects. It is well built but I would not buy it.

billnikon Loc: Pennsylvania/Ohio/Florida/Maui/Oregon/Vermont

bobgreen wrote:

I have an opportunity to buy the lens at a very good price. I have read mixed reviews about the lens. Most of my photography is landscapes, wildlife, portraits. I'd appreciate the always astute opinions of UHH.

The Nikon 200-500 have better specs and IQ than the 80-400.

Fotomacher Loc: Toronto

Bill_de wrote:

I could be wrong, but I don't think Nikon ever used AF-D as a designator. The photo writers used it, often erroneously, leading people to believe the D had something to do with the type of focus. --

That's correct. Nikon puts the "D" after the aperture and still uses the designation even for lenses that are AFS. For instance my trusty 50mm prime is designated AF 50mm f/1.4D

billnikon Loc: Pennsylvania/Ohio/Florida/Maui/Oregon/Vermont

Fotomacher wrote:

That's correct. Nikon puts the "D" after the aperture and still uses the designation even for lenses that are AFS. For instance my trusty 50mm prime is designated AF 50mm f/1.4D

D was used on lenses that sent distance information to the camera body and flash. It helped make the flash more accurate.