Nikon 80-400mm f/4.5-5.6 lens: This is to anyone who owns and has had significant amount of experience with it. What is your opinion of it, especially with IQ? Any positive and/or...

Tiny Tim Loc: Forest of the Pacific Northwest

This is to anyone who owns and has had significant amount of experience with it. What is your opinion of it, especially with IQ? Any positive and/or negative comments with regard to any aspect of this lens is appreciated.

CO

I have the newer AF-S version of that lens. I got it soon after it was released in 2013. Don't get the original version that was released in 2000. The newer version is big improvement over the original. It's very sharp and focuses very quickly. I have tracked birds as small as terns in flight and it had no problem keeping up. It's one of only two Nikon lenses with a super ED glass element along with four ED elements. It also has Nikon's nano crystal coating on the glass.

Tiny Tim Loc: Forest of the Pacific Northwest

CO wrote:

I have the newer AF-S version of that lens. I got it soon after it was released in 2013. Don't get the original version that was released in 2000. The newer version is big improvement over the original. It's very sharp and focuses very quickly. I have tracked birds as small as terns in flight and it had no problem keeping up. It's one of only two Nikon lenses with a super ED glass element along with four ED elements.

Thanks for your input. Very helpful.

CO

I recently took this photo of the butterfly with it on my D7500. The photo of the egrets was on my D7000.

(Download)

Tiny Tim Loc: Forest of the Pacific Northwest

CO wrote:

I recently took this photo with it on my D7500

What photo?

CO

Tiny Tim wrote:

What photo?

Slow internet. It took a while to load.

Tiny Tim Loc: Forest of the Pacific Northwest

CO wrote:

Slow internet. It took a while to load.

WOW! Now that's sharp. Great detail.

Tiny Tim Loc: Forest of the Pacific Northwest

CO wrote:

Slow internet. It took a while to load.

Was the second photo taken at 400mm, if you remember? Doesn't seem to be quite as sharp. But then, one can only enlarge so much until any photo will look a bit blurry.

Drip Dry McFleye

I have the newer version of the 80-400. I also have the f2.8 70-200 and the 500PF to compare with. My camera is the D500. My observation is that the 80-400 is certainly a good lens. I have taken bird photos with it that are very sharp and they have excellent color. I have no regrets. The 80-400 gets more use than the other two simply because of the versatility of the zoom range for what I like to photograph. Certainly there are better lenses in that range of focal length to be had but they're beyond my budget.

Tiny Tim Loc: Forest of the Pacific Northwest

Drip Dry McFleye wrote:

I have the newer version of the 80-400. I also hav... (show quote)

I have the other two lenses you mentioned also. Just got the 500PF today. In light of that fact, your response is very helpful as I was considering purchasing the 80-400mm.

Grahame Loc: Fiji

Tiny Tim wrote:

This is to anyone who owns and has had significant amount of experience with it. What is your opinion of it, especially with IQ? Any positive and/or negative comments with regard to any aspect of this lens is appreciated.

I originally purchased the AFS 80-400mm G ED for bird photography but got bored with that and used it for sport and love it. AF I find adequate for all my work and the IQ I believe is comparable to the 70-200 I also use for this genre.

Here's a couple of examples, slight crops, downsized to 2000 px wide saved at quality 11 in PS;

310mm, 1/2000, f/5.6, ISO 800
400mm, 1/2000, f/5.6, ISO 800

(Download)

Tiny Tim Loc: Forest of the Pacific Northwest

Grahame wrote:

I originally purchased the AFS 80-400mm G ED for bird photography but got bored with that and used it for sport and love it. AF I find adequate for all my work and the IQ I believe is comparable to the 70-200 I also use for this genre.

Here's a couple of examples, slight crops, downsized to 2000 px wide saved at quality 11 in PS;

310mm, 1/2000, f/5.6, ISO 800
400mm, 1/2000, f/5.6, ISO 800

Thanks for your response.

CO

Tiny Tim wrote:

Was the second photo taken at 400mm, if you remember? Doesn't seem to be quite as sharp. But then, one can only enlarge so much until any photo will look a bit blurry.

They were both taken at 400mm.

martinfisherphoto Loc: Lake Placid Florida

It's my go to lens for wildlife. Here's a small sample of BIF captured with the lens taken in June this year. Check my back post for Hundreds more. https://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-649363-1.html

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

Tiny Tim wrote:

This is to anyone who owns and has had significant amount of experience with it. What is your opinion of it, especially with IQ? Any positive and/or negative comments with regard to any aspect of this lens is appreciated.

I have had both versions of this lens, the first version was TERRIBLE. Do not buy it, lossy lens.
The second version still cannot match the IQ I get with my Nikon 200-500, especially when comparing the 80-400 at 400 to the 200-500 at 500.
Do yourself a favor and buy the 200-500, the 200-500 is also a E lens, the 80-400 is not. The E means the lens has an electric aperture, so when your shooting at a high frames per second, all of your exposures will be the same, this is not true for a non E lens like the 80-400.
Yes, the 80-400 is weather sealed but since I NEVER shoot in the rain it makes no difference to me.