p.4 #1 · UPDATE: Tested - 80-400 Vs 300 + TC Vs 70-200 + TC
Kerry Pierce wrote:
Guy, thanks for posting those comparison photos. For sure, I'll have to check my shots from my 80-400 AF-D before I make a purchase decision on the new lens. Like you, I also have the 70-300vr and I wouldn't be happy with that either.
I'm now starting to think that I should just sell off all of my long zooms, buy the 200 f/2 and then use TC's when I need to "zoom".
thanks
Kerry
200mm is too short imo. Better off with a 300mm F2.8 This is an interesting thread though and I thank Steve for posting all the shots.
p.4 #4 · UPDATE: Tested - 80-400 Vs 300 + TC Vs 70-200 + TC
Does anyone have any backfocusing issues with this lens? It may be because of the focal length which makes it more obvious but I find the AF system on my D800 can't quite nail it like I can zoomed in on liveview using MF, despite using the Focal system to calibrate it at an apparent -10. Even at -20 I find MF is the way to really nail the focus with this lens (+TC, I have the 20e-III).
As an aside, I mounted this lens + the 2x TC on a Nikon 1 V1 using MF and it's pretty ridiculous
p.4 #5 · UPDATE: Tested - 80-400 Vs 300 + TC Vs 70-200 + TC
I haven't noticed any so far; was out yesterday shooting small birds and I didn't have any focus issues. I will be doing objective testing this weekend.
Yikes, using the 2.0x on a complex zoom that's already f/5.6? How's that working for you - is the IQ okay?
p.4 #6 · UPDATE: Tested - 80-400 Vs 300 + TC Vs 70-200 + TC
Good field review, at the end of the day it's how it performs in live situations for me over the lab tests, which technically will confirm resolution. When your'e chasing birds, or planes at an air show and it nails your shots and you return with a high percentage of "keepers" that's encouraging. I have been semi satisfied with the 80-400 D series, slow focusing with the D600, but now it appears much quicker snapping into focus following the firmware upgrade, shooting static gimbal & hand held shots around home. So re-shooting Gannets tomorrow will confirm the expected improvement or the need to trade & move to the G series zoom.
p.4 #7 · UPDATE: Tested - 80-400 Vs 300 + TC Vs 70-200 + TC
Thanks again to everybody who read the review. Also, I haven't noticed any backfocus issues with mine.
I had a chance to go out to the marsh the other day and pop off a sample (I was mostly using my 600mm, but this guy was close to the car and I thought he might make a good "real world" example).
Pretty much my worst egret photo ever (I'm actually a little embarrassed to post it), but the lens seems good!
p.4 #8 · UPDATE: Tested - 80-400 Vs 300 + TC Vs 70-200 + TC
Hope you don't mind me adding a couple samples since this thread seems to have become a general discussion of the lens
Not great photos, just a little walk at lunch yesterday, but the lens is pretty sharp and I haven't seen any of the nervous bokeh that some people were commenting on for the original samples of this lens.
p.4 #9 · UPDATE: Tested - 80-400 Vs 300 + TC Vs 70-200 + TC
Got mine two days ago. First day I did not like it. In my head I kept comparing to my 300mm f/4. Then yesterday all along the river it really came into it's own. I had the old "D" version and it was really rare it could capture much action successfully. The new version behaves very similar to the 70-300mm VR, except it's much higher quality. I'd say the keeper ratio with the new 80-400mm "G" is about 80/20 where the "D" was more like 20/80,,,
The weakness on fast moving action shots is not the lens, it is however the buffer, both on the D7100 & D800e. It might grind to a halt right when things get good. If I was a nature photographer I'd have a D4.
p.4 #10 · UPDATE: Tested - 80-400 Vs 300 + TC Vs 70-200 + TC
binary visions wrote:
Yikes, using the 2.0x on a complex zoom that's already f/5.6? How's that working for you - is the IQ okay?
Not as bad as you'd think - these are uncropped, LR-auto sharpened. Note: EXIF data isn't showing up for some reason with the Nikon 1 (and some D800 images) but in LR it says 800mm focal length. Most were taken w/o the TC.
I'm finding that the lens is optically sharp, but my D800 is causing AF accuracy issues and it's quite frustrating. I can see the clarity this lens produces with MF, just that small objects (more or less filling the focus point in the viewfinder) are causing difficulty. In nested areas like shown below, it can be forgivable. BIF however, I suppose it could be a combination of AF and human error/technique. Most of my images are heavily cropped so the imperfections are exacerbated. See more of my Flickr steam for 80-400 images.
Also to comment on the buffer, I noticed this as well. Even in Cont.-High, my D800 doesn't fire as fast as my D300s (well doesn't seem like it to me anyways). It could be my cards aren't writing fast enough for these significantly larger files.
p.4 #11 · UPDATE: Tested - 80-400 Vs 300 + TC Vs 70-200 + TC
edit: oops, misread your post. Removed irrelevant paragraph.
The eagle in the nest is kind of where I expected the sharpness of the 2x converter to land. Okay if you want <1024px wide web images, but degrades pretty rapidly as you start blowing it up from there.
I borrowed a 1.4x converter that I'll be testing out on birds this weekend, see if it provides usable results.
p.4 #12 · UPDATE: Tested - 80-400 Vs 300 + TC Vs 70-200 + TC
m.sommers00 wrote:
Also to comment on the buffer, I noticed this as well. Even in Cont.-High, my D800 doesn't fire as fast as my D300s (well doesn't seem like it to me anyways). It could be my cards aren't writing fast enough for these significantly larger files.
p.4 #13 · UPDATE: Tested - 80-400 Vs 300 + TC Vs 70-200 + TC
Bokeh sample for those fretting about it. VR was on. I thought this might be a good one to show since there are a few layers of increasing distance, and nothing is particularly far from the subject.
It doesn't obliterate backgrounds like the exotic telephotos, of course, nor is it quite as magical as some of the Zeiss lenses, but I'd say there is nothing bothersome about it and it's reasonably pleasant.
p.4 #14 · UPDATE: Tested - 80-400 Vs 300 + TC Vs 70-200 + TC
I found bokeh fairly good as well, however the subject had to be quite close for it to be very creamy. What would you say was your subject distance there (interesting it's on a DX and f/8 too).
p.4 #15 · UPDATE: Tested - 80-400 Vs 300 + TC Vs 70-200 + TC
ckcarr wrote:
......
The weakness on fast moving action shots is not the lens, it is however the buffer, both on the D7100 & D800e. It might grind to a halt right when things get good. If I was a nature photographer I'd have a D4.
......
For me the buffer of the D800(E) is enough, although there's always improvement possible.
FF - 17fps
1.2 - 23fps
1.5 - 29fps
With fast cards you can get a few more. For JPG there're almost no limitations
The buffer of the D7100 is holding me back for purchasing.
The lens is a winner and number one on my shopping list.
And yes, a D4 would be much nicer. But it comes at a higher price than a D800E + D7100
p.4 #16 · UPDATE: Tested - 80-400 Vs 300 + TC Vs 70-200 + TC
m.sommers00 wrote:
I found bokeh fairly good as well, however the subject had to be quite close for it to be very creamy. What would you say was your subject distance there (interesting it's on a DX and f/8 too).
p.4 #19 · UPDATE: Tested - 80-400 Vs 300 + TC Vs 70-200 + TC
Waiting for Godot...
In the meantime, I have use of my D7100 & D800e ... If Godot ever arrives, I can accept a $200 loss to upgrade the body. People spend more than that on steaks, beer and movies... After all, that's really only $33 per month - assuming a 6-month wait. Could be a year... Or never...
p.4 #20 · UPDATE: Tested - 80-400 Vs 300 + TC Vs 70-200 + TC
I picked up a 1.4TC and tried it on this lens today. AF speed decreased as expected but not overly so. Moreover it hunts a little more in low light, which again isn't surprising.
I did find that wide-open at f/8 w/ the TC on and comparing it zoomed in without the TC to the same view, the advantage actually goes to the image with the TC on. Without the TC, the image does appear a bit more pixelated.
For me in decently lit areas, the advantage of a 1.4x extended zoom is welcoming and I'm quite happy to keep the TC on unless light capture is of utter importance.
I suppose none of this is new news to anyone. Personally, I was skeptical the TC would be this good but I'm happy to report if you have this lens, you should add this TC to your kit.
This is an interesting thread though and I thank Steve for posting all the shots. 
