Anyone used a Nikon 80-400 4.5-5.6 D ED VR?
Jan 2, 2024 21:32:10 #
bikinkawboy
Loc: north central Missouri
This spring or early summer my daughter is taking me along with her family to Alaska. I’ve never been there and this is probably a one time deal for me. I plan on taking my Nikon D800 and 28-75 lens. I admire the wildlife photos I see here, which is what I want to do while there. I have a Nikon 80-200 2.8, which is very heavy and bulky but with great optics. I’m not stove up so the weight doesn’t bother me. I have a cheap Nikon 70-300 4-5.6 D, which is considerably smaller and lighter but it just doesn’t seem to have the contrast and clarity of the 80-200. Has anyone used the 80-400 and what is your opinion of it? Thanks!
Jan 2, 2024 22:12:13 #
The AF VR-Nikkor 80-400 1:4.5-5.6D ED was my longest lens for many years, but I have the original version that relies on the screw drive for autofocus. It was terribly slow to focus and it's been on a shelf alongside the D2X since I went to Mirrorless a couple of years ago. I can't really give you an opinion of how it performed for sharpness, et al, I only know that I used it all the time, but hated the slow autofocus. If I use it now, it's manual focus only or I have to dust off the D2X...
Sorry; I know that's not much help. I did get some good shots with this at the Raptor Free Flight Show in Tucson for several years.
Sorry; I know that's not much help. I did get some good shots with this at the Raptor Free Flight Show in Tucson for several years.
Jan 2, 2024 22:54:24 #
Jan 3, 2024 00:31:15 #
I don't know about your financial situation, but I've been to Alaska several times and 400mm is the very minimum I would take there. The Nikon 200~500 f/5.6 is my go to lens for wildlife. A good used one can be had for considerably less than $1000 and is a great wildlife lens! I have seen them for sale here on the UHH for $700 to $800 and close to that from B&H and Adorama. I agree, the 80~200 is a clunky, slow focusing lens and I wouldn't take one to Alaska. I don't have and have never used the 80~400, so I can't speak to that but the extra 100mm with the 200~500 f/5.6 could make all the difference. It does for me!
Jan 3, 2024 06:56:17 #
Please tell us your budget.
At any rate, I would stay away from the 80-400 D version. It was Nikon’s first in this focal range, and focused slowly, as terryMc mentioned. The « newer » version is the -G model, introduced in 2013 and still in the Nikon lineup. I have it, and have used it with both mirrored and mirrorless Nikons. It produces good images but is a bit heavy for my handheld shooting style. As an old lens, it is heavily discounted used.
For many years, I used the F-mount version of the Tamron 100-400 f4.5-6.3 Di VC USD, which was very satisfactory for needs. This is still in the current Tamron line.
Many people love the Nikon 200-500. I owned this for many years and tried to love it, but it was too large and awkward for my style. Given the choice between it and the 80-400, I preferred the 80-400.
Ken Rockwell, and I am sure many others, have reviewed these lens.
I’m headed to Alaska this summer, and will be making my own traveling choices in a few months. Have fun, and report back - with pics!
At any rate, I would stay away from the 80-400 D version. It was Nikon’s first in this focal range, and focused slowly, as terryMc mentioned. The « newer » version is the -G model, introduced in 2013 and still in the Nikon lineup. I have it, and have used it with both mirrored and mirrorless Nikons. It produces good images but is a bit heavy for my handheld shooting style. As an old lens, it is heavily discounted used.
For many years, I used the F-mount version of the Tamron 100-400 f4.5-6.3 Di VC USD, which was very satisfactory for needs. This is still in the current Tamron line.
Many people love the Nikon 200-500. I owned this for many years and tried to love it, but it was too large and awkward for my style. Given the choice between it and the 80-400, I preferred the 80-400.
Ken Rockwell, and I am sure many others, have reviewed these lens.
I’m headed to Alaska this summer, and will be making my own traveling choices in a few months. Have fun, and report back - with pics!
Jan 3, 2024 07:43:57 #
billnikon
Loc: Pennsylvania/Ohio/Florida/Maui/Oregon/Vermont
bikinkawboy wrote:
This spring or early summer my daughter is taking ... (show quote)
The Nikon 200-500 f5.6 is a much better choice especially since weight is not a problem.
This lens is not only sharper, cheaper, and faster, it also has more reach.
Unfortunately you missed the over $300.00 off this lens offered at Christmas. But if you watch this lens Nikon will surely have it on sale again this spring.
https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1175034-REG/nikon_af_s_nikkor_200_500mm_f_5_6e.html
Jan 3, 2024 08:59:36 #
I do not have much to add to what has already been said. I still own the 80-400 VR-D lens which is not the fastest AF of this world but it has served me well and I am not what you could call a wildlife photographer. The lens is sharp and has given me beautiful enlargements.
Today you have a new version of the lens that is faster although I cannot comment on its sharpness because I have not used one. More and more people have bought the 200-500 that I know from what I have seen that has also excellent sharpness. I have seen users complaining of its size and weight.
Perhaps it could be a great idea to rent the new 80-400 or the 200-500 for your trip before you decide to buy it.
Today you have a new version of the lens that is faster although I cannot comment on its sharpness because I have not used one. More and more people have bought the 200-500 that I know from what I have seen that has also excellent sharpness. I have seen users complaining of its size and weight.
Perhaps it could be a great idea to rent the new 80-400 or the 200-500 for your trip before you decide to buy it.
Jan 3, 2024 09:04:11 #
I love my 80-400 af-d. yes it is a bit slow to focus, but for what I paid, it’s a great lens. If money were no object I would be most tempted on the G version, the 200-500 is a long honker too long for me, but a great lens, however the range on the 80-400 is pretty ideal.
If you have the money then get the G version, but you’ll be happy with the D. Most of the guys who pop-poo lenses do so because of others, and not their own experience.
If you have the money then get the G version, but you’ll be happy with the D. Most of the guys who pop-poo lenses do so because of others, and not their own experience.
Jan 3, 2024 10:40:44 #
Longlens24
Loc: Cedar Park, Texas
After 5 Alaska cuises (we lived near the cruise port and took inexpensive 10 day cruises when they were on sale): we saw minimal wildlife on shore excursions (including all-day Denali land), helicopter trip to glacier, Skagway train, etc. did see bears on beach areas at Glacier Bay, whales when at sea. Most of the beauty was the land, mountains, glaciers, fjords, seals on small ice floes, waterfalls, general scenery. I used my 24-120 VFR Nikon lens most, used my 400 mm AF lens only for the seals on ice and whales. Bears on land were too distant for any lens. Polarizer was invaluable to intensify colors, cut reflections. I kept ISO at 800 which worked perfectly, used plastic raincover often because of freequent rain, drizzle. Being on dedck, in bow area if possible , gives greatest opportunity.
Jan 3, 2024 10:46:45 #
In addition to some of the other posts, I would suggest the following lenses for you to think about:
Nikon 70-200mm f4--sharp and light in weight, available used.
Nikon 300mm f4 pf
Nikon 500mm f5.6 pf
Nikon teleconverter, AF-S TELECONVERTER TC-14E III. It is compatible with your camera and all of the lenses mentioned above.
Nikon 70-200mm f4--sharp and light in weight, available used.
Nikon 300mm f4 pf
Nikon 500mm f5.6 pf
Nikon teleconverter, AF-S TELECONVERTER TC-14E III. It is compatible with your camera and all of the lenses mentioned above.
Jan 3, 2024 11:47:06 #
bikinkawboy
Loc: north central Missouri
Thank you very much to everyone! You folks have certainly given me a lot to think about besides just the lens, such as rain protection. My gratitude to all! John
Jan 3, 2024 15:46:54 #
I have a D800E and a 200-500, on my camera I've changed from 12 bit to 14bit. This gives you larger files. So when you engage DX mode and using the 200 - 500 the effective long end of the zoom would be an effective 750mm, you'll end up with 19 to 21MB files which can give you stunning 8.5-11 color prints.
Jan 4, 2024 08:31:24 #
I have the original Nikon 20-400 lens. I have used on multiple Nikon bodies, including a D850.
This lens is sharp on all the Nikon cameras I have used it on.
It is my number 1 choice when I go to the Zoo. I have many great shots using this lens.
As for focus speed, the speed has never bothered me. Thinking back, yes it is not the fasted focusing lens, but it has not crimped my ability to get great shots.
This lens is sharp on all the Nikon cameras I have used it on.
It is my number 1 choice when I go to the Zoo. I have many great shots using this lens.
As for focus speed, the speed has never bothered me. Thinking back, yes it is not the fasted focusing lens, but it has not crimped my ability to get great shots.
Jan 4, 2024 09:18:41 #
I have had one for years. Took it to Alaska on our trip. I think it would be a good selection for you from a weight and quality stand point.
Jan 4, 2024 20:17:23 #
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.