Quixdraw Loc: x

Several years ago I picked up a used AF VR Nikkor 80-400 4.5 5.6D. Got enough of a deal, that based on an influential review, and in the face of some expert advice against, I bought it. Was supposed to be a problem solver, small enough with reasonable reach. From the beginning, it wasn't, because I'm all in on sharpness. Sometimes I would achieve very acceptable results (probably Luck & perfect conditions), others, just a bit fuzzy. Been on my To Do list - fix or unload. A bit overcast this afternoon, but had time so put it on the D750 and walked outside to wring it out a bit. The only bird I saw was one of my resident Flycatchers #1 - low end acceptable. Then a beat up butterfly #2-4 - I had half again as many outtakes as usual, but considering the overcast, low end, nearly o.k. . Finally, a little bee wrestling, #5. My question - I have not had to adjust AF on a Nikon lens, seems like a bit of a PITA. Based on lens tuning you have experienced, Do you think the process might improve sharpness enough to make the lens a keeper?

tramsey Loc: Texas

I think it's a keeper.

CO

It seems like the focusing is off. There's a great test you can do. Take photos using the viewfinder and with the camera in live view mode. When using the viewfinder, the camera is using its phase detection autofocus. Phase detection autofocus is error prone. When in live view mode, the camera is using its contrast detection autofocus. The are no focusing errors when using contrast detection. The camera adjusts the focus until it achieves the highest contrast at the sensor. Compare the images side by side.

I use the DataColor SpyderLensCal to check for back or front focusing tendencies. I was just recently checking my Nikon 80-400mm AF-S f/4.5-5.6 on my D7500. I was using the viewfinder for this shot so the camera was using phase detection autofocus.

This my Nikon 80-400mm AF-S lens at 400mm using the viewfinder. No AF fine tuning needed

(Download)

This is the lens at 200mm. It's focusing very accurately.

(Download)

Quixdraw Loc: x

Thanks very much for the suggestion! I have probably used live view 20 times across all my cameras, would never have thought of it, and will give it a try.

TriX Loc: Raleigh, NC

Examining the photos, it doesn’t appear to me that the lens is either front or back focusing - Where an image is fuzzy, I don’t see it as being sharper either in front or behind the center of the image. Certainly worth doing a test, but I don’t think microfocus adjustment is the answer from what I see, but I am not an expert.

Quixdraw Loc: x

Thank you very much for your input! A great deal of my photo experience is from the days when the Photographer got the focus right or he didn't. Can't say I don't enjoy AF, but on occasion, frustrating!

robertjerl Loc: Corona, California

No downloads so we have no exif to go on. What SS are you using and are these hand held or with a monopod or tripod?

400 mm is getting to be in the "hard to hand hold" except at high SS territory. You may think you are rock steady but really aren't. And esp with small subjects even your heartbeat/pulse can add movement, also breathing etc.
At 74 I am finally admitting I cannot be a "rock" so I will either lug a tripod, learn to use a monopod or when light doesn't permit high SS I now find that anything I can brace against, rest the camera on etc becomes one of my best buddies. The other solution is use high speed burst and look for the shots that happened just as the camera was still.

And yes, the AF may be a tad off and need calibrating.

But in the end you have to remember that any lenses that tries to be all things can only do some of them well - Jack of all trades, master of none.
Even my Canon 100-400L mk2, though great for a zoom is not as good as a good big prime. The same goes for my Tamron 150-600 G2.
But unless I win the lottery or cut back on books and toys and save $ I really don't see one of the long, high speed primes in my future.

Quixdraw Loc: x

Thanks! Got about a year and a half on you and I hand hold most things - still good off hand well past 200 yards. I shoot photos with the same disciplines I learned for other things. That is the issue with zooms - the short / shorter ones are marvelously and extraordinarily convenient. The broad range long ones seem to be the issue - 200-500 is super. May have to dig out the old 50-300 from film days and see if it still walks and talks. I have as well a 600 5.6 ED from back in the day, but that is really a Honker - sharp, though. Can't hold that for long, but have done BIF hand held when the Adrenalin kicks in.

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

I don't think so, especially if your lens is behaving as this MTF test suggests it would. Your lens seems completely consistent with other reviews and personal experience.

https://www.opticallimits.com/nikon_ff/552-nikkorafd80400vrff

The updated one is much better, but still not as good as the 200-500 or the Sigma Sport/Tamron G2 150-600.

Quixdraw Loc: x

Many thanks for taking the trouble to add a link, I much appreciate it! I read a variety of reviews before hand, but should have listened to the expert advice. I think for some, this lens would be very satisfactory, if the individual wasn't doing sports. I'll likely trade it off to one of the on line dealers I do regular business with. Works as it is supposed to, but doesn't meet my needs.

Quixdraw Loc: x

Did a test off a rest, light not great - preliminary outcome, I did better through the finder. Light S/B good tomorrow, will try with a tripod, and possibly a print of your target, or another. Again, thanks!

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

No problem. This review compares the new 80-400 to yours, as well as a few other lenses. It should help inform your expectations and future course.

https://photographylife.com/reviews/nikon-80-400mm-vr

Grahame Loc: Fiji

I would not use the images you have posted for me to make any judgement on your lens performance with respect to 'sharpness'/'possible AF tuning'. They are too small, we have no idea where you 'actually' focused, whether they have been cropped or the speed/aperture/ISO you used.

I have the 80-400 and found I had to AF fine tune significantly 'only' for when used with a 1.4TX at 400mm because I needed to shoot specific subjects at max aperture. But that is likely only specific to my own lens.

With respect to perceived sharpness I wonder how you 'measure' this? For myself, I expect my lenses to produce stunning sharp animal hair when the image is un-cropped, sized at 1920 px wide and viewed on my monitor.

If I were you I would find a static 'hairy subject', put your lens on tripod with timed release and firstly confirm that it can produce 'sharp' results that you are happy with using your own measurement method.

If you find that the lens can produce consistent acceptable results then for anything not acceptable there has to be a reason, or a combination of reasons.

The next thing to do if it does produce acceptable sharpness is to check that the plane of acceptable sharpness is where you expect it to be.

Quixdraw Loc: x

Thanks, appreciate voice of experience! I basically require sharp detail in moderate to extreme crops. I'll be posting more Dragonflies in the morning that show what I am after. I will post a downloadable and an
uncropped. They will not, of course be taken with the 80-400, my shots with it this afternoon proved it is not adequate for that task.

Grahame Loc: Fiji

Partially off topic, yesterday I was lucky enough to have a large 2 inch long hairy moth fast asleep that I was able to stage in a scene indoors in a reasonably lit room. Gee, what a subject for playing with tripod and lens and proving outright that anything I produced 'less' sharp with the lens when used in the future would be totally due to my method.