Nikon 80-400mm f/4.5-5.6 lens (Page 2): I have had all versions. I liked original, but focus was slow and sometimes had trouble making up its’ mind, busily hunting. I use this lens for...

CWGordon

I have had all versions. I liked original, but focus was slow and sometimes had trouble making up its’ mind, busily hunting. I use this lens for virtually everything except when photographing birds. I found it surprisingly sharp and have always been please with results. I was thrilled with results of an event of antique boat races in Clayton, NY. This was taken with the original lens. Some of the best sports shots I ever got. As well, when going to zoos and Wild King dom, this is great range. Baseball can be done well with this range. Again, I have the 500 pf and the Tamron G2. I use all 3, but still love the 80-400.

APSHEPPARD

I second what CO wrote of getting later version. I have early one, and it does have limitations.

camerapapi Loc: Miami, Fl.

I have the old version. It has served me well for my needs. The new version is faster because it is not using the screw to focus, rather a motor (AF-S) I cannot discuss if there is any difference in resolution because I have never used the new version.
The lens I own has enough resolution for my needs. I use it handheld.

By the way, in spite of been a slower lens I have never had issues using it even for birds in flight. Enlargements from my lens have been awesome.
The new version in my humble opinion is overpriced for a lens that is typically slow.

Flickwet Loc: NEOhio

First version here, it may be a dog, but if it is it’s a golden retriever! This old hound of a lens lives on my old D2X, and loves to go kayaking, isn’t afraid of a little splash and bump, Use it all the time and love it, yeah she’s slow, yeah she’s big, so am I!

jefflane

I like my 80-400 just fine and it makes a great complement to my 500PF.

Tiny Tim Loc: Forest of the Pacific Northwest

billnikon wrote:

I have had both versions of this lens, the first v... (show quote)

Thanks for your insightful response.

Tiny Tim Loc: Forest of the Pacific Northwest

CWGordon wrote:

I have had all versions. I liked original, but foc... (show quote)

Thanks for your response.

Tiny Tim Loc: Forest of the Pacific Northwest

APSHEPPARD wrote:

I second what CO wrote of getting later version. I have early one, and it does have limitations.

Thanks for your input.

Tiny Tim Loc: Forest of the Pacific Northwest

camerapapi wrote:

I have the old version. It has served me well for ... (show quote)

Thanks for your input.

Tiny Tim Loc: Forest of the Pacific Northwest

Flickwet wrote:

First version here, it may be a dog, but if it is it’s a golden retriever! This old hound of a lens lives on my old D2X, and loves to go kayaking, isn’t afraid of a little splash and bump, Use it all the time and love it, yeah she’s slow, yeah she’s big, so am I!

Thanks for your response.

Tiny Tim Loc: Forest of the Pacific Northwest

jefflane wrote:

I like my 80-400 just fine and it makes a great complement to my 500PF.

Thanks Jeff for your response.

picsman Loc: Scotland

I use the lens primarily for amateur sports and it gets heavy as the day progresses. So sometimes I use a gimbal on a tripod or just a monopod. For bif I have hand held from a hide. I like it and find the AF good enough. Sometimes I think the image has more contrast than the 70-200.

TonyBrown

I used the newer version of the lens on a trip to Costa Rica and was really impressed with the results. However, I would add that my partner used a Tamron 80-400 on a D7200 and the results were very impressive. Birds in flight, hummingbirds etc. were no problem in terms of locking focus and getting sharp pics. The lens was calibrated to the camera so not sure how much difference this made to the results in terms of sharpness.

Tiny Tim Loc: Forest of the Pacific Northwest

TonyBrown wrote:

I used the newer version of the lens on a trip to Costa Rica and was really impressed with the results. However, I would add that my partner used a Tamron 80-400 on a D7200 and the results were very impressive. Birds in flight, hummingbirds etc. were no problem in terms of locking focus and getting sharp pics. The lens was calibrated to the camera so not sure how much difference this made to the results in terms of sharpness.

Which did you think was better, the Nikon 80-400mm or the Tamron?

Tiny Tim Loc: Forest of the Pacific Northwest

picsman wrote:

I use the lens primarily for amateur sports and it gets heavy as the day progresses. So sometimes I use a gimbal on a tripod or just a monopod. For bif I have hand held from a hide. I like it and find the AF good enough. Sometimes I think the image has more contrast than the 70-200.

Thanks for your input.