Nikon 80-400mm (Page 3): I went back & checked the date...the other variable I deal with is haze & salt air as the pad is basically a few hundred yards off the ocean...

GLSmith Loc: Tampa, Fl

EJMcD wrote:

Yeah, the rocket is a little fuzzy. I suppose any long lens might be a problem on a very windy day but surprising since it was tripod mounted. I've taken many "hand held" images with mine and haven't had an issue.

I went back & checked the date...the other variable I deal with is haze & salt air as the pad is basically a few hundred yards off the ocean

EJMcD

btbg wrote:

Then you want the 200-500. It is a much better lense and you already have the other focal lengths covered with your 70-200.

I used a Sigma 150-600 sport for shooting sports for the local newspaper for years. Had the 200-500 been available when I purchased the Sigma lense that would have been my choice.

The 80-400 is not a sports lense.

Not a sports lens? That might be a question of what sport and who's opinion.

EJMcD

GLSmith wrote:

I went back & checked the date...the other variable I deal with is haze & salt air as the pad is basically a few hundred yards off the ocean

I've never encountered salt air at a softball, basketball, or baseball event so I don't think that should affect Groye's decision. Of course, basketball is usually an indoor event and other events I attend are a minimum of 70 miles from the ocean.

Retired CPO Loc: Travel full time in an RV

I agree with BillNikon. 200~500 all the way! I'm almost exclusively a wildlife photographer and own two D850s and two 200~500 lenses. Never a problem with either lens. Good reach and very good IQ at a reasonable weight and a very reasonable price. Especially these days! I also use them on my D500. 750mm equivalent and still very good IQ. It's a no-brainer for me!!

EJMcD

Retired CPO wrote:

I agree with BillNikon. 200~500 all the way! I'm almost exclusively a wildlife photographer and own two D850s and two 200~500 lenses. Never a problem with either lens. Good reach and very good IQ at a reasonable weight and a very reasonable price. Especially these days! I also use them on my D500. 750mm equivalent and still very good IQ. It's a no-brainer for me!!

Forgive my curiosity but why two?

larryepage Loc: North Texas area

Groye wrote:

I want to purchase Telephoto lens, I have a 70-200 2.8 just need something a little longer. Looking for some feed back on the Nikon 200-500 and the Nikon 80-400. Thanks

I do not have any experience with the 80-400 telephoto. I do have a couple of other Nikkor 5:1 zooms that perform just fine. Not like the premium lenses, but completely acceptable.

I have had and used a 200-500mm f/5.6 Nikkor for about 6 years. I don't use it particularly frequently, but it works fine when I do. It is sharp, has really good color rendition, and is f/5.6 from end to end.

Neither of these lenses is a top-tier lens, but the 200-500 is very usable, except for being heavy. My other complaints are with the hood and the foot & collar. They all work fine for me, but they are not designed and built to the standards of higher-tier lenses. Oh...and (at least when I got mine) they come with a "dust bag" instead of a more proper case.

The 200-500 is on sale right now for less than $1100 brand new from Nikon, but you would need to act pretty fast.

Retired CPO Loc: Travel full time in an RV

EJMcD wrote:

Forgive my curiosity but why two?

Not a problem, curiosity is a good thing!
My wife and I shoot side by side out either side of the vehicle on the wildlife drives. We missed so many opportunities handing the camera back and forth across the car, that we finally committed to a pair of them. Expensive, you say? YES! But we always have a back-up that way! That came in very handy at Bosque del Apache a couple weeks ago! The only thing we don't have two of is the D500, and looking to fix that while they are still available. Love the D500!

EJMcD

Retired CPO wrote:

Not a problem, curiosity is a good thing! br My w... (show quote)

Thanks much for satisfying my curiosity. I never gave thought to a companion photographer.

I've never commented on the expense but what's not expensive today? And when you want the good stuff... ya gotta pay!

Retired CPO Loc: Travel full time in an RV

EJMcD wrote:

Thanks much for satisfying my curiosity. I never gave thought to a companion photographer.

I've never commented on the expense but what's not expensive today? And when you want the good stuff... ya gotta pay!

There ya go!!

The second kit has saved us un-countable misses on good stuff in the last three years! We aren't professionals, but still, I hate to miss a really good opportunity. And, who knows, we might start selling some of our images some day.

btbg

EJMcD wrote:

Not a sports lens? That might be a question of what sport and who's opinion.

Under no definition is it a sports lens. You will not find any professional sports photographers using it.

EJMcD

btbg wrote:

Under no definition is it a sports lens. You will not find any professional sports photographers using it.

Your OPINION has been made a part of the record but not everyone cares about what paid "professionals" use. I've seen many an outstanding photo made by Photo Enthusiasts. As compared to the 25 paid professionals each of whom are locked focus on a different base of a ball game and shoot thousands of images per game to publish 6 of them. Volume is their secret not just lenses.

If your shooting from the sidelines but the 80-400 still doesn't have enough reach for you, cropping in post processing is always an option. While you may not get the bokeh from using a faster, more expensive prime lens, my OPINION is that it's suitable for sports.

btbg

EJMcD wrote:

Your OPINION has been made a part of the record bu... (show quote)

It's suitable for sports if it's all you've got, but the op already has a 70-200 f2.8, so he does not need the 80-400. It makes no sense to purchase that lens with what he already has the 80-200 portion covered and can get more reach with the 200-500, which is a superior lens.

As to volume being the secret of professionals, that's bull. I may shoot a few more shots at a game than you do, but that is because I am being paid to shoot everything, not because I shoot in volume. I generally shoot in bursts of three, and I'm selective what I shoot because the more you shoot the more you have to sort through in a limited time period.

For example today I shot a wrestling tournament. I got home at 5:30 and had to have 10 photos turned in by 5:45. So, do you really think that I'm going to shoot volume. I don't have time to shoot volume. I have to get the shots the paper needs with the fewest shots possible to tell the story.

You are welcome to your opinion, but you don't know what you are talking about.

EJMcD

btbg wrote:

It's suitable for sports if it's all you've got, b... (show quote)

Thanks much but I do know what I'm talking about. Since the OP is asking for recommendations from UHH and wants something a "little longer" than the 70-200, I doubt he/she is a professional as they certainly would or should do their own research to determine what lens they need (or should already know). My bet is that the 80-400 would suffice as a SPORTS lens.

What's right for you may not be right for everyone else but you also are welcome to your OPINION. After all, that's what we do here.

Merry Christmas to you and yours

Delderby Loc: Derby UK

EJMcD wrote:

Thanks much but I do know what I'm talking about. ... (show quote)

Hi EJ
I'm no expert - but over the years i learned to avoid long range lenses.. In fact anything other than a prime will reduce IQ. So a compromise is necessary. I believe that when a photog starting, say, with a 24 needs, e.g, 10x zoom, they should look for a 3x (24 x3) =72, and a further 4x, say (70x4) =280. The two lens route might well fit better in the bag without too much extra weight

EJMcD

Delderby wrote:

Hi EJ
I'm no expert - but over the years i learned to avoid long range lenses.. In fact anything other than a prime will reduce IQ. So a compromise is necessary. I believe that when a photog starting, say, with a 24 needs, e.g, 10x zoom, they should look for a 3x (24 x3) =72, and a further 4x, say (70x4) =280. The two lens route might well fit better in the bag without too much extra weight

Hi Delderby:

As you can see from my previous posts, I already have firm opinions on the stated topic. You probably should have addressed yours to the OP.