Nikon 80-400mm f/4.5-5.6 lens (Page 3): I have both versions of this lens. The original was "OK", but slow to focus, lots of "hunting". The newer version is infinitely better. Quick...

torchman310 Loc: Santa Clarita, Ca.

I have both versions of this lens. The original was "OK", but slow to focus, lots of "hunting". The newer version is infinitely better. Quick auto focusing, faster response all over and Clarity, Bokeh, IQ, etc This lens is a dream come true !

Macumazahn Loc: Kansas

I have the AF version it takes nice pictures but wasn't satisfied with the sharpness at 400mm, 300mm and lower was very good

CO

The Tamron is a 100-400mm. I rented it not long ago because I was curious how good it is. It's really an excellent lens. It's remarkable what Tamron was able to do for $799. It's lighter (1115 grams) than the Nikon 80-400mm (1570 grams). It's a slower lens though - f/4.5-6.3 and 67mm filter diameter. The Nikon 80-400mm is f/4.5-5.6 and uses 77mm filters. I checked the Tamron for front and back focusing tendencies. It focused accurately around the 100mm and 400mm ends. Focusing accuracy was off in the middle focal lengths. If I purchased the lens, I would get the Tamron TAP-in console to make fine AF adjustements. My Nikon 80-400mm AF-S focuses very accurately throughout the entire zoom range.

I did this shot with the Tamron 100-400mm f/4.5-6.3 on my Nikon D7500

(Download)

Tiny Tim Loc: Forest of the Pacific Northwest

CO wrote:

The Tamron is a 100-400mm. I rented it not long ag... (show quote)

From what you said, it sounds like the Nikon is a better lens than the Tamron considering it "focuses very accurately throughout the entire zoom range." While the Tamron may be cheaper, that doesn't always mean better.

Tiny Tim Loc: Forest of the Pacific Northwest

torchman310 wrote:

I have both versions of this lens. The original was "OK", but slow to focus, lots of "hunting". The newer version is infinitely better. Quick auto focusing, faster response all over and Clarity, Bokeh, IQ, etc This lens is a dream come true !

Very helpful response. Thank you.

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

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.

There are better options for that amount of money. I borrowed the first version from NPS, was not at all impressed. Then I borrowed the current version, and though it was a considerable improvement, it was still lacking for me. Build quality, handling AF performance were all very good and typical for Nikon's pro lenses, but the optical quality was not quite what I was accustomed to with my 600mm F4, and the focal length a bit too short.

I did come across this review of another lens I was considering and it explained my experience. It has a great series of comparisons.

https://photographylife.com/reviews/nikon-200-500mm-f5-6e-vr

I ended up buying the Sigma Sport 150-600.

TonyBrown

For the money I think the Tamron is a cracking good lens. It’s much lighter too. In all honesty I cannot say the pics I took with the 80-400 are any better and if you are thinking about the older version of the 80-400 then I would definitely say the Tamron. The calibration my partner had done calibrated the lens at all focal lengths. Worth the cost.

Tiny Tim Loc: Forest of the Pacific Northwest

Gene51 wrote:

There are better options for that amount of money.... (show quote)

Very informative article. Thanks for the link.

Tiny Tim Loc: Forest of the Pacific Northwest

TonyBrown wrote:

For the money I think the Tamron is a cracking good lens. It’s much lighter too. In all honesty I cannot say the pics I took with the 80-400 are any better and if you are thinking about the older version of the 80-400 then I would definitely say the Tamron. The calibration my partner had done calibrated the lens at all focal lengths. Worth the cost.

Thanks for your input.

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

CO wrote:

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

CO

Tiny Tim wrote:

From what you said, it sounds like the Nikon is a better lens than the Tamron considering it "focuses very accurately throughout the entire zoom range." While the Tamron may be cheaper, that doesn't always mean better.

I think the Nikon 80-400mm AF-S is a little better overall but the Tamron 100-400mm is very impressive. Its lower weight is good if hand holding it for long periods. You might want to rent the lenses to try out. LensRentals.com is very good. They include a pre-paid return shipping label in the box to make returns easy. They also clean all items that come back to them after being rented. They even clean the camera's sensor after each rental.

CO

Gene51 wrote:

Thank you for the thumbs up on the photos.

Tiny Tim Loc: Forest of the Pacific Northwest

CO wrote:

I think the Nikon 80-400mm AF-S is a little better overall but the Tamron 100-400mm is very impressive. Its lower weight is good if hand holding it for long periods. You might want to rent the lenses to try out. LensRentals.com is very good. They include a pre-paid return shipping label in the box to make returns easy. They also clean all items that come back to them after being rented. They even clean the camera's sensor after each rental.

Thanks for the tip.