Old44

I love my Nikon 300 f/4 PF but miss a zoom. Any thoughts on the Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 80-400mm f/4.5-5.6G ED VR? Upgrade? Downgrade? Same IQ?

JennT Loc: South Central PA

Mine produces a most lovely bokeh on occasion...

Bob Mevis Loc: Plymouth, Indiana

I'm thinking about that one too.

Iron Sight Loc: Utah

How convenient would it be to rent one for a day or so?

camerapapi Loc: Miami, Fl.

I still use the original version because I do not shoot wildlife more than two or three times a year and the investment is not worth it. My old lens produces fine images and I know the new version is even better and has a far superior AF system.
If you do wildlife often I do not see how you could be wrong buying it.

"How convenient would it be to rent one for a day or so?" Very convenient.

fergmark Loc: norwalk connecticut

I chose this lens over the 200-500 thinking it would make more sense for my needs. It makes a good walk around lens though I was primarily interested in photographing egrets and such. I have seldom had it off my camera in the past year and a half, so I have used it in every imaginable way. It is capable of remarkable sharpness. A lot of the time I am shooting in very low light, with an elevated ISO and some exposure compensation to try keeping the speed sufficiently high. Pretty maxed out. My birds in motion in those conditions have been a bit disappointing. I have tried every conceivable setting with my 810, and have concluded I am attempting to exceed what is possible. I believe the D500 would likely be an improvement in those conditions and plan to rent one next season to see. Given reasonable light this lens performs awfully well, and I like it a lot. I know primes are probably superior, but I know I just cannot function with one. Zoom is key for acquiring composition for my style of photography. I don't love the bokeh like I did with the 70-200 f4 but for close subjects it can be quite nice. I have shot probably 40,000 images with it, so I am getting pretty familiar with it.

Fred Harwood Loc: Sheffield, Mass.

It's my most-used lens.

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

I think you will find a downgrade in sharpness over the 300 F4 PF. I wouldn't buy it. For a little less money, the Sigma Sport 150-600, and for even less $$ the Tamron 150-600 G2, and both will compete with the 300. I sold my 600F4 because I got a Sport and found it just as sharp, and I didn't need a tripod for it. The Tamron is even 2 lbs lighter. I borrowed the 80-400 Vr from Nikon on 2 occasions and was underwhelmed each time.

ClarkJohnson Loc: Fort Myers, FL and Cohasset, MA

I agree with gene51 that the 300 f4 PF is hard to beat in terms of image quality. For more reach, using the 1.4x TC is highly satisfactory. This is my regular setup. But, for zoom capability in a portable package, you might also check out the Tamron 100-400.

Silverrails

Yes, maybe for a Week rental to give it an opportunity to show you what it will do or Not do, then a logical decision can be made, to buy or not but that lens.

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

The Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 80-400mm f/4.5-5.6G ED VR lens is now considered out dated for action shots because it does not have an electronic aperture. The newer, sharper, Nikon 200-500 5.6 has a electronic aperture.
The big advantage of an electronic aperture is that when shooting at say 10 frames a second every exposure will be exactly the same. this is great for any moving subject.
The 200-500 has a proven track record and will deliver quality sharp images, and it is currently on sale. Below is a grab shot taken with this lens.

saxman71 Loc: Wenatchee, WA

I own one. It's actually the most expensive lens I have ever purchased. But it has not come out of the camera bag since I bought my Tamron 150X600MM G2 lens. In my opinion, the Tamron is better in every possible way. If you're strictly a Nikon shooter, I would opt for the Nikon 200x500MM lens.

warrenvon Loc: Ellicott City, MD

I've owned and used mine for several years. I bought mine just as the 200-500 came out. I opted g=fro the 80-400 because of the 80mm lower end. I wanted more zoom range.
If I had it to do over again, I would have saved many$ and have gotten the better performance of the 200-500mm zoom or even considered the Tamron.
My copy of the 80-400 seems to love to collect "stuff" as a function of zoom activations over time. It simply sucks it in and out as if it had no filters to limit the ingestions of same. So what ever you use restrict your use of zoom to only when needed!
I'm not all that happy with sharpness vs. $ invested . . it's not really a world beater! Good but not excellent.
I love to use it with extension tubes and find that it will then produce excellent images with crisp sharpness and great bokeh!

Good luck making your decision.

Dalek Loc: Detroit, Miami, Goffstown

I still shoot the 80-400 even though it is old and dated relative to newer technology. Wait a minute so am I, old that is. I guess the older lens matches me better. (PSSST, I did buy a Nikon 180-400 with the 1X built-in tele converter and love it and I told the supreme commander I borrowed it from a friend. Don't divulge my secret, Hoggers!)

jhud202 Loc: Prineville, OR

In all the shooting I have done, and I do a ton of Wild Horses, have I ever considered using any other lens than the 80-400mm. An excellent lens that will focus as fast as those wild ponies can move. Newer version's focus is a little better than the older one. I use mine with a D610 and won't part with this gem!