28-300 Vs 80-400 Sports (Page 3): I have the 80-400g. Fast AF and in good light it’s a sharp lens. My partner has just bought a Tamron 100-400. It’s lighter than the 80-400 and...

TonyBrown

I have the 80-400g. Fast AF and in good light it’s a sharp lens. My partner has just bought a Tamron 100-400. It’s lighter than the 80-400 and comparing images we just shot in Costa Rica it’s every bit as good, if not better than the Nikon.

woodyH

If you think you need the reach of the 400 to improve your sports action photos then you are working too far from the action. The images will tend to be flattened in their perspective, the billboards or spectators at field edge too conspicuous. The 70-200 will force you to be more aggressive in getting close to the action; the 70 will help cover action close at hand. The press boys with their 500/600s are externally financed, and they are seeking the drop of sweat on the nose of the ball carrier. The f2.8 is a chunk of glass— and cash— but makes for great separation of subject from background. The comment about 28-300 as a convenience strikes very true to me, but even as a tourist I prefer the greater quality that comes with 2 bodies and 2 lenses to cover that lenses' range.

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

Bruce121 wrote:

I recently purchased a D850. I have a 28-300mm f/3... (show quote)

The better lens for sports is the 70-200 F2.8 FL - it has blindingly fast AF, very bright viewfinder, and just a joy to handle. It even plays nicely with a 1.4X TC to make it a 98-280mm F4, which will still be sharper and crisper than either of your two lenses under consideration, though the 80-400 is close.

ta5567

I have both lenses, purchased originally for a d300 and d7000. In the Dx format they are very good.

I also have the 70-200 2.8. This is what I use on my d850.

I still use the other two for their original purchase. Presently when I use these lenses on the d850, I use Dx mode. In this manner they are very good

TREBOR77 Loc: Winchester Kentucky

I use the Nikon 200/500 5.6 and just love it !

CO

par4fore wrote:

IMO For D850
Nikon 28-300 No
Nikon 80-400 No
Nikon 70-200 YES
Nikon 300PF YES
Nikon 200-500 Maybe

Why no for the 80-400? The original screw drive version had slow autofocus and was not a great lens. The newer AF-S version is outstanding. I have one that I use on a D500. Very sharp and fast autofocus.

Brucej67 Loc: Cary, NC

Bruce121 wrote:

I recently purchased a D850. I have a 28-300mm f/3... (show quote)

The 80-400mm is a better lens by far than the 28-300mm and especially on the D850. I like to use the 80-400mm on my D500 for the crop factor. The 80-400mm cost is more than the 28-300mm and for a good reason.

FTn

CO wrote:

Why no for the 80-400? The original screw drive version had slow autofocus and was not a great lens. The newer AF-S version is outstanding. I have one that I use on a D500. Very sharp and fast autofocus.

I agree. The newer version of the 80-400mm is on the official Nikon list of lenses for the D850 and it is a gold series lens.

- FTn

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

Brucej67 wrote:

The 80-400mm is a better lens by far than the 28-300mm and especially on the D850. I like to use the 80-400mm on my D500 for the crop factor. The 80-400mm cost is more than the 28-300mm and for a good reason.

It does not necessary mean the 80-400 will deliver better images than the 28-300 can. It is MOSTLY in the hands of the photographer to produce quality images. Anyone who knows anything about photography knows that knowledge trumps equipment most of the time.

Jules Karney Loc: Las Vegas, Nevada

billnikon wrote:

It does not necessary mean the 80-400 will deliver better images than the 28-300 can. It is MOSTLY in the hands of the photographer to produce quality images. Anyone who knows anything about photography knows that knowledge trumps equipment most of the time.

I agree Bill. You can get wonderful shots using a 18-55 3.5 vr kit lens.

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

Jules Karney wrote:

I agree Bill. You can get wonderful shots using a 18-55 3.5 vr kit lens.

Agreed, so many here equate cost of equipment (or the newest gear) to quality images, and it just ain't so.

Jules Karney Loc: Las Vegas, Nevada

billnikon wrote:

Agreed, so many here equate cost of equipment (or the newest gear) to quality images, and it just ain't so.

Say it ain't so Joe...

TonyBrown

Totally agree. Just got back from using it on a trip to Costa Rica. Bif AF was fast and shots are sharp. Great lens for sports and wildlife.

LWW Loc: Banana Republic of America

billnikon wrote:

Agreed, so many here equate cost of equipment (or the newest gear) to quality images, and it just ain't so.

Amen.

Brucej67 Loc: Cary, NC

billnikon wrote:

It does not necessary mean the 80-400 will deliver better images than the 28-300 can. It is MOSTLY in the hands of the photographer to produce quality images. Anyone who knows anything about photography knows that knowledge trumps equipment most of the time.

I agree with you, however when discussing the difference between two lenses (or any other piece of similar equipment) the discussion is different. You could spend a small fortune on the best equipment on the market, but fail to use it correctly it is no better than a cheap product. All I am saying is that the 80-400mm is superior to the 28-300mm in build and optical resolution (I have both lenses), I would not hesitate to put the 80-400mm on my D850, but not the 28-300mm which I use on my D800 and D7200.