HRBIEL Loc: Rapid City, SD

I’m considering adding the Nikon 80-400mm lens to my kit. I shoot mainly birds and other animals here in the Black Hills of South Dakota. I have both the D500 and D850 and the Nikon 70-300 f4.5-5.6E as well as the Nikon 200-500 f5.6E. However, the Nikon 300mm sometimes doesn’t reach far enough on either camera while the Nikon 200-500mm is too heavy to carry in the field so it generally gets used from inside the car. So the Nikon 80-400mm sounds like a potential alternative as an all-day carry lens; not too heavy and a little more reach. But I’ve read several reports indicating the 80-400mm was Nikon’s biggest “turd” of a lens and other reports saying it had a tendency to focus hunt at max focus range. So I would be interested in hearing from anyone who has experience with this lens.

Horatio

I just bought the latest Nikon 500mm prime lens. It is light in weight, inexpensive, the image quality is terrific and my 80 - 400mm lens is gathering dust.

What I recommend is to rent the 80 - 400mm lens for a few days and try it out. But, I would also rent the new 500mm. I think you will come to the best conclusion after trying them out.

SuperflyTNT Loc: Manassas VA

$3600 is inexpensive?

Quixdraw Loc: x

I bought the first model AF VR Nikkor 80- 400 4.5 5.6 D used based on a rationale similar to yours, and for similar usage. It was a mixed bag - relatively compact but too large to fit my favorite camera bag and heavy for its size. I didn't find a lot of focus hunting, but though I got some very good shots, many were insufficiently sharp. I still have the lens and will be giving it some more testing. I am told by reliable sources that the current model is quite good. I bought the 200 - 500 yes, it is comparatively large and heavy (considerably less so than my old ED 600 5.6) but superb in every way. I do not hike with cameras nor wear backpacks, but do work from the car and walk fair distances with it in hand mounted on one or another of my Nikons often the D7200 for extra reach. I use it primarily hand held. It delivers remarkably sharp performance and has gotten me photos I would otherwise never have captured. I have fitted a Tundra hard case to take the lens with camera mounted, and a lesser zoom, usually 24-85, and a few small essentials. Superb for the car, dustproof, waterproof, virtually indestructible. Personally with any budget, though I have heard very good things about the new 500, I wouldn't do anything else. Best of luck as you move forward.

Drip Dry McFleye

I have both the 500 PF and the newest version of the 80-400. My camera is the D500 and I shoot a lot of birds. I'm 74 but get in a lot of walking and some cycling. I have not experienced the focus hunting with the 80-400 that some have mentioned. I too didn't want the size and weight of the 200-500. Over all I have been quite satisfied with the 80-400 and can't see where it gets the bad rap that seems to be out there. Maybe I just got one of the good copies? The 500 PF seems a bit sharper than the 80-400 @ 400mm. The 500 is noticeably lighter and physically smaller than the 80-400. In the end though, it's pretty hard to ignore the extreme versatility of a zoom lens and I still use my 80-400 regularly. Some times I still yearn for a 200-500. LOL!

Another thought: Consider getting a Cotton Carrier Vest before giving up on your 200-500. I've had one for three or four years and just love the thing. It takes all the weight off your arms while leaving your hands/arms free for support and balance while out on the trails. It's also way less expensive than a new lens. I think you'll miss that extra 100mm your 200-500 has over the 80-400.

CO

I have the newer version of the Nikon 80-400mm lens. It's an outstanding lens. It's very sharp and has very fast autofocus. It has four ED glass elements and one super ED glass element. I read somewhere that only two of Nikon's lenses have a super ED glass element. I don't know if that's true. It also has Nikon's nano-crystal coating on the front element. I can hand hold it for about one-half hour after which it's getting heavy.

CO

Entered twice by mistake.

DaveO Loc: Northeast CT

I had the later 80-400, no complaints, but the extra 100mm of the 200-500 was preferable. I'll pick up the well priced and reviewed 500pf when B&H gets them. (Right after my wife buys something foolish.)

CO

You do get the extra 100mm at the long end but it's great to get the extra 120mm at the short end with the 80-400mm. If there's a flock of birds taking off or a landscape scene you want to photograph, the 80-400mm will probably cover the wider shot.

DaveO Loc: Northeast CT

Agree and that's why I use a 200-500 on the D500 and a 70-200 on the D850, but that's mainly for the Florida opportunities. For Yellowstone I replace the 200-500 with a 600 and a 1.7, LOL!

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

According to this review - the 200-500 is sharper than the 80-400 G - my experience goes back to when the lens was first released, and I contemplated getting one for the "lighter" days when I didn't want to deal with the tripod/gimbal/bag/setup/breakdown hassles associated with a 600mmF4. I borrowed one from NPS and was hoping it would deliver better image quality than the old 80-400 D and was disappointed that it was not in the same league. That is how I ended up with a Sigma Sport 150-600.

https://photographylife.com/reviews/nikon-200-500mm-f5-6e-vr/4

But it does perform a little better than the 200-500 with a 1.4 TC. Go figure.

On the other hand - the 80-400 does save you 1.5 lbs - only you can determine whether it's worth getting a better built but not quite as sharp lens that only goes to 400mm and costs $2100.

jwreed50 Loc: Manassas, VA

I've got both the new version of the 80-400mm and the 500mm PF, and I use them both on my D850 and D500. I find the 80-400mm to be more versatile simply because of the variable focal length, but the 500mm PF seems just a tad sharper to me. I rarely take both with me, but it can be a tough choice to decide which one to leave at home.

Horatio

Compared to the other 500mm prime, yes it was well worth it. I cannot hold that larger, heavier 500mm all day long, photographing. This one was so much lighter and easier to use, that I figured out a way to make the price work.

Do what I did, tell your wife that you would give up your birthday, anniversary and Christmas presents if she would indulge you on this purchase. Or, you could always try this other tactic... buy her a piece of jewellery and that way she would overlook this purchase.

SuperflyTNT Loc: Manassas VA

I’ve got no wife, but I also have to split my disposable income between photography, kayaking and biking. Luckily I don’t mind the weight of the 200-500 yet. And if I’m on longer hikes I take my Panasonic G9 with the Leica 100-400, which gives me 800 equivalent.

HRBIEL Loc: Rapid City, SD

I certainly appreciate all the information. Presently, although I had considered it, the 500mm f5.6 PF is a little out of my price range and except for the difference in weight that range is already covered by my 200-500 f5.6. Seems that Nikon has no lens on par with the Canon 100-400 L is ii @ $2200. Nikon’s next closest is the 200-400 VR ii @ $7000 and it just gets more expensive from there. I think I’ll borrow an 80-400 Nikon and see how well it works for me. Thanks everyone!