Nikon 80 - 400: I'm in the market to update my 70 - 300 zoom that my son is about to "borrow". It needs to be compatible with both the 7100 and the 800. I'm seriously considering the...

ollie Loc: Ogdensburg, NY

I'm in the market to update my 70 - 300 zoom that my son is about to "borrow". It needs to be compatible with both the 7100 and the 800. I'm seriously considering the 80 - 400 but the review in NPHOTO makes me wonder if it is the best option. Does anyone have suggestions or experience with the 80 - 400.
Is the drop off in sharpness noticeable at full telephoto ? Any alternatives I should consider

Bear2 Loc: Southeast,, MI

Can not answer you myself, but a good friend just returned from Africa and bought the 80-400. He also took his 500 prime, but left his 200-400 at home. Believe he kept the 80-400 on his D800, and left the 500 on his D300s, mainly for birds. His pictures are awesome. He is obviously a pro. Thinking about the 80-400 myself, as I have the 70-300 VR.

MT Shooter Loc: Montana

Both of the Nikon 80-400's are nicely sharp. The old AF model is terribly slow at autofocu while the new AFS model is extremely fast AF and has better VR.

howlynn Loc: pueblo west, co

ollie wrote:

I'm in the market to update my 70 - 300 zoom that my son is about to "borrow". It needs to be compatible with both the 7100 and the 800. I'm seriously considering the 80 - 400 but the review in NPHOTO makes me wonder if it is the best option. Does anyone have suggestions or experience with the 80 - 400.
Is the drop off in sharpness noticeable at full telephoto ? Any alternatives I should consider

Not sure what model of the 80-400mm you are talking about. Here is a shot from the AF-S model, 400mm, F/5.6, SS-1/500,ISO-200, cropped from 24mp to 5 mp.

nikon 80-400mm AF-S

(Download)

Wanda Krack Loc: Tennessee, USA

I have used the nikon 80-400, for several years, and I would not hesitate to recommend it.

luvmypets Loc: Born & raised Texan living in Fayetteville NC

I am waiting for Tamron to release the 150-600 with Nikon mount. The Canon mount is running about $1100. If you have seen any of Regis's photos they are super sharp. Here is a link to the photos he took showing the clarity at 150mm then at 600.

http://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-184939-1.html

amehta Loc: Boston

ollie wrote:

I'm in the market to update my 70 - 300 zoom that my son is about to "borrow". It needs to be compatible with both the 7100 and the 800. I'm seriously considering the 80 - 400 but the review in NPHOTO makes me wonder if it is the best option. Does anyone have suggestions or experience with the 80 - 400.
Is the drop off in sharpness noticeable at full telephoto ? Any alternatives I should consider

My dad has the older AF 80-400, and I was not impressed when I tried it. The newer AF-S is supposed to be much sharper. It better be, for double the price!

Bear2 Loc: Southeast,, MI

Yes but it is it in still less than 35% of the price of the great 200-400, and half the weight.

amehta wrote:

My dad has the older AF 80-400, and I was not impressed when I tried it. The newer AF-S is supposed to be much sharper. It better be, for double the price!

amehta Loc: Boston

Bear2 wrote:

Yes but it is it in still less than 35% of the price of the great 200-400, and half the weight.

Very true. I would like to see a comparison between the 80-400mm and the 70-200mm f/2.8 + 200-400mm f/4 pair. I don't expect the 80-400mm to "win", but it would be really interesting to see how close it gets.

BboH Loc: s of 2/21, Ellicott City, MD

I use them both.

The 70-300 is a bit easier to hand hold than the 28-300 but the 28 has a wider angle. The 80 has a longer reach but is the more awkward to hand hold among the three.

I tend to grab which ever one I think will be more suited for what I am going to do today.

As MT said - the auto focus on the new 80-400 is something FAST, expecially with the 7100!

norman816

it does not focus fast. It is also heavy. But if u think u need it nothing else matters. It's also about 1600.00

henk33 Loc: Netherlands

I used the very slow 80-400 AF-S for several years, but to slow for birds. Now I have the AF-D: very fast and more sharpness. I used it last year on the Farne Islands under very bad weather conditions. The rain made the lens wet and I got quite soft images, but PP did the job.

I give some examples of that trip, made with ISO 1600

(Download)

dennis2146 Loc: Eastern Idaho

ollie wrote:

I'm in the market to update my 70 - 300 zoom that my son is about to "borrow". It needs to be compatible with both the 7100 and the 800. I'm seriously considering the 80 - 400 but the review in NPHOTO makes me wonder if it is the best option. Does anyone have suggestions or experience with the 80 - 400.
Is the drop off in sharpness noticeable at full telephoto ? Any alternatives I should consider

I have an older 80-400 lens and like it a lot. I am told and I just read from another poster that the new one is much faster focusing. I sometimes wonder in real life how much faster it needs to be. On possibly 1 in 10,000 shots the slower focusing motor will make a shot or not. I don't know. Anyway I bought mine used with box and all papers and it is a very sharp lens. As I recall when I tested it the low end the image was somewhat soft. Other focal lengths were sharp.

Dennis

s9ast

I have the old version and it's surprisingly sharp. Took it to Africa this past summer and got some great shots. What's tempting is that the new version has a $400 rebate going with it now.

SX2002 Loc: Adelaide, South Australia

There is too much mis-info on equipment reviews...if we all listened to them and took notice, no-one would buy anything...there are knockers for just about any product...like millions of others, I would never have bought my Sigma 150-500 if I took notice of biased opinions...it's won me a few comps and I've had pics published in a national mag on several occasions...not bad for a lens that has been dubbed..."not sharp at the extremes"...probably 90% (or more) of my shots are at 500mm...