Check out Panorama section of our forum.
Nikon 80-400mm
Apr 25, 2015 09:38:13 #
How sharp is this lens? I know it is nano coated and has a gold ring and costs a lot of gold, but I'd like to get some feedback from some users. How does it compare to say, the 70-200mm f2.8 if you've used that lens? Could it be used as a portrait lens?
Apr 25, 2015 10:26:51 #
SteveR wrote:
How sharp is this lens? I know it is nano coated and has a gold ring and costs a lot of gold, but I'd like to get some feedback from some users. How does it compare to say, the 70-200mm f2.8 if you've used that lens? Could it be used as a portrait lens?
It is sharp but do not know if you can use it as a portrait lens
Apr 26, 2015 06:33:46 #
Because the lens starts at 80mm, you can use it for portraits. It's sharpness is okay, but not as sharp as the 70-200. If you don't compare, you won't notice the difference.
80-400 apparent sharpness
80-400 sharpness compared to 70-200
Apr 26, 2015 07:26:42 #
SteveR wrote:
How sharp is this lens? I know it is nano coated and has a gold ring and costs a lot of gold, but I'd like to get some feedback from some users. How does it compare to say, the 70-200mm f2.8 if you've used that lens? Could it be used as a portrait lens?
It's ok - not in the same league as the 70-200, which is an order of magnitude sharper.
Apr 26, 2015 07:55:17 #
jcboy3 wrote:
Because the lens starts at 80mm, you can use it for portraits. It's sharpness is okay, but not as sharp as the 70-200. If you don't compare, you won't notice the difference.
That's what I suspected as well. Even though everyone always claims the 70-200 is in a league of it's own, after looking at those comparison shots anyone can see that the difference is virtually indistinguishable.
Apr 26, 2015 08:46:49 #
I have very much enjoyed my nikon 80-400, nice to carry one lens while hiking. I have been using it on a d90 which is not fair for the lens, but I HAVE A D750 ON ITS WAY FROM B&H which will allow the lens to reach its full potential.
Apr 26, 2015 09:01:39 #
deepdiverv
Loc: arizona
I have the new model of both of these lenses. I prefer the 80-400mm over the 70-200mm. Yes the 70-200mm is a better lens on paper but the 80-400mm has double the magnification. It also depends on your type of shooting, the 80-400mm is my pick for wildlife and sports photography.I very seldom use my 70-200mm.
Check out Traditional Street and Architectural Photography section of our forum.
Apr 26, 2015 09:21:25 #
deepdiverv wrote:
I have the new model of both of these lenses. I prefer the 80-400mm over the 70-200mm. Yes the 70-200mm is a better lens on paper but the 80-400mm has double the magnification. It also depends on your type of shooting, the 80-400mm is my pick for wildlife and sports photography.I very seldom use my 70-200mm.
That's what I'm thinking. I have a friend who has the Canon 100-400 and she takes excellent photos with it at Antelope Island State Park. My alternative would be to get the 300mm f4 and a 1.4x, although it doesn't give me the flexibility of the zoom.
Apr 26, 2015 12:06:59 #
I've used the 80-400 on wildlife safaris on my D7000 and have been well pleased. Very good for long shots and as animals approach. Not so much for portraits. Waiting as well on my new D750 for greater potential.
Apr 26, 2015 14:47:14 #
I have both lens. The 70-200 is definitely sharper and would be better for portrait photography. The 80-400 is too heavy IMHO for portraits. I use it for sport and wildlife on a monopod or tripod mostly.
Apr 26, 2015 16:57:09 #
My cousin went with me to Florida on a birding trip,an had the new 80-400 for 5 weeks an it was working fine until we got there an it would not focus then the zoom locked up he was sick. Called nikon they said send it in an would check it out. He got an email from them saying it had internal damage an would cost 700 to get it fixed. Never dropped the lens or did any thing to cause it to stop working. They should have fixed it since it was under warranty.I would have been pissed off if it were mine.
Check out Digital Artistry section of our forum.
Apr 27, 2015 06:06:17 #
SteveR wrote:
How sharp is this lens? I know it is nano coated and has a gold ring and costs a lot of gold, but I'd like to get some feedback from some users. How does it compare to say, the 70-200mm f2.8 if you've used that lens? Could it be used as a portrait lens?
Erv has the new 80-400 and loves it check with him
Apr 27, 2015 07:55:04 #
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Check out The Pampered Pets Corner section of our forum.