I am looking to replace my 55-200mm zoom. I listend to bad advice and bought it, now I rarely use it mainly because of the quality is not up to my standards. I don't use a telephoto much but when I do I find I am always shooting on the long end and 200mm is often shorter than I want. I have a 300mm f4 which I like but rarely carry around with me.
I have looked at a lot of lens and have been mostly interested in the 80-200 f4. But I now I want something longer and recently got interested in the 80-400. Been reading a lot about it and I think it would suit my needs. I shot from a tripod most of the time so weight and size isn't an issue, but carrying it around might be. Just wanted to hear some first hand accounts if anyone has one.
Which 300f4 do you have? If the newer pf version I would get the 1.4 tele converter instead and have a 420 f5.6. I’m not sure how prior versions of the 300 f4 worked with the 1.4
I have the 80-400 and it’s a good lens but a 300pf and 1.4 would be much lighter
I’ve had the 80-400 for years. It is no problem carrying it around, but I do not consider it sharp enough anymore.
Honestly, I would take the advice of the poster above me. The 300pf with a 1.4 TC would be very light, agile and very sharp (bare or with the TC). It also makes a super close-up lens because it is so light (easy on the back), its MFD is already close-focusing (without tubes or any other close-up accessory), but it still keeps you away from your close-up subject. That is most desirable, because it allows an abundance of ambient light to flood your subject, and you are not adversely effecting some critters that are sensitive to you being too close. It takes a 77mm filter, so, if you need to get even closer, you can just pop on the Canon 500D close up filter. Down the road, I can see myself getting a 300pf for my D850.
And with a DX body, I believe you have effectively upped the reach to something like 510mm....that’s with the TC 1.4 on there.
All this, and you have a lens that is tack sharp (even with the TC).. I really don’t think you can beat it.
What's your camera body and what's your realistic budget?
Which 300mm f/4 do you have?
Check out the Nikon 80-400mm VR thread here https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1220559 and see if it's sharp enough for you. There are great used deals on the buy and sell that will save you hundreds over the 300mm + a TC, even when comparing used to used.
I personally really like the NEW 80-400mm VR G lens, having used it for years, which I assume you are speaking about. I don't think I will ever sell it, simply because of it's versatility. I also immediately added the Really Right Stuff collar on my lens since I do use it 95% of the time on a tripod. Kirk's version is much cheaper however and probably just as good.
I have a 300mm f4 which I like but rarely carry around with me.
Which one and why not?
I have looked at a lot of lens and have been mostly interested in the 80-200 f4. But I now I want something longer and recently got interested in the 80-400. Been reading a lot about it and I think it would suit my needs. I shot from a tripod most of the time so weight and size isn't an issue, but carrying it around might be. Just wanted to hear some first hand accounts if anyone has one.
Again which one? there's a horrible 80-400 screwdriver version and a more modern AF-s version.
The latter beats the first version in every way but suffers allso from some focus breathing.
Now assuming you have the 300 F/4 AFD version, reading about your needs and frequency of shooting tele and the fact you're shooting from a tripod I wouldn't recommend to buy anything else but a 1.4 and/or 1.7 TC
The old lens was named the poor mans tele with a reason.
Its performance was, still is, quite good and in capable hands it yields impressive results.
The newer PF version is a bit better regarding some props (but not all) but I wouldn't recommend to spend money for incidental use.
Long story short if you ONLY shoot a zoom on the long end you're better of with a prime and the prime you allready own outperforms the two 80-400 offerings. (but versatility)!
I have the 80-400 f4.5-5.6G VR and it is a very good lens, excellent sharpness from 80-300 and very good at 400. On the new high res bodies it still delivers an excellent image, overall IQ is of a very high standard. It does not great reports from some people, but I think it is a very good lens, underrated.
An option is to consider the 70-200 f2.8E FL VR which is just stupid sharp and use a 2x TC as you will get probably just as sharp results at 400. A good review here at Photography Life:
Nasim (the reviewer) suggest that the old 70-200 f2.8G VRII + 2x TCIII is just as sharp as the 80-400 f4.5-5.6G VR at 400mm and tested it in the review above. Look on the lens comparison page near the end of that page. The new 70-200 f2.8E FL VR + 2x TCIII would be better than that. The beauty of this system is that you have the excellence of the 70-200 f2.8E FL VR bare with f2.8, but can then add TC's to add length, like the 1.4x TCIII which basically doesn't affect image quality for a 98-280 f4 lens. Add the 2x TCIII and you have a 140 400 f5.6 lens. Quite a versatile set up. Prices at B&H are the 80-400 = $2300 and the 70-200 f2.8E FL VR = $2800. Of course, you will need to add TC's to this.
Lance B wrote:
I have the 80-400 f4.5-5.6G VR and it is a very good lens, excellent sharpness from 80-300 and very good at 400. On the new high res bodies it still delivers an excellent image, overall IQ is of a very high standard. It does not great reports from some people, but I think it is a very good lens, underrated.
An option is to consider the 70-200 f2.8E FL VR which is just stupid sharp and use a 2x TC as you will get probably just as sharp results at 400. A good review here at Photography Life:
Nasim (the reviewer) suggest that the old 70-200 f2.8G VRII + 2x TCIII is just as sharp as the 80-400 f4.5-5.6G VR at 400mm and tested it in the review above. Look on the lens comparison page near the end of that page. The new 70-200 f2.8E FL VR + 2x TCIII would be better than that. The beauty of this system is that you have the excellence of the 70-200 f2.8E FL VR bare with f2.8, but can then add TC's to add length, like the 1.4x TCIII which basically doesn't affect image quality for a 98-280 f4 lens. Add the 2x TCIII and you have a 140 400 f5.6 lens. Quite a versatile set up. Prices at B&H are the 80-400 = $2300 and the 70-200 f2.8E FL VR = $2800. Of course, you will need to add TC's to this....Show more →
Agree - the new 80-400 is way underrated. I love mine. I love mine for the versatility and IQ. I've found it much more versatile than the 200-500 for the kinds of things I do.
I allow that I *may* have a slightly soft copy of the 80-400 AFS. Then again, I do not know either way because I do not have others’ 80-400s to compare mine to.
And I allow that there are some who *do* love their 80-400 AFS. I am happy for you. But I do not like mine especially.
But to say that this lens is underrated is simply not true. People (*some*, not all) “downrated” this lens for a reason.
I have one. I am rating it and it is not nearly as sharp as say....even my old 200-500 was....not close.
There again, there are those who turn their noses up at the 200-500. But, in any given shoot, the 200-500 may be just as sharp as *any* of the Nikon supertelephoto primes (that is right!), except maybe the 400 2.8.
And human-bias is the very reason I started the following thread:
Anyway, I do not want to get off the subject of this thread.
My copy of the 80-400 does need some other work now and after I send it in for repairs, I may sell it on this forum at a very reasonable price to one of those who think so highly of it. .
My opinion of the 80-400G is more in line with Lance and ckcarr than it is with those who do not find their lens to be sharp. In fact, I was shooting with a 70-200 f/2.8FLE + 1.4x iii as a way to bridge the gap to between 100mm and 500mm. Having used a 200-400VR for years, I missed the flexibility of the range, as many of my subjects will move towards and away from me, and zoom reduces spooking the animal. Between 70mm and 200mm, the 70-200FLE was as sharp as any lens I have owned, but with a converter... not so much. I spent hours trying to lock in the focus via MFA, but as soon as I got 290mm sharp, 180mm was soft... this defeats the purpose of shooting with a zoom.
On a whim, I brought my lens to store and compared it with a mint- 80-400G and was surprised by how nice the lens focused and the sharpness at 400mm f/5.6. In fact, it was definitely sharper than my 200-400mm f/4 @ f4 to f/4.5. By f/5.6, the 200-400 was sharper, but not be as much as you might think.
In the end, I decided to trade my 70-200FLE for the 80-400G + a D500... no money added. I needed an extra body, and this just seemed to be the type of deal I could not refuse.
Thus far, the 80-400G has surpassed my expectation... paired with a 500PF and a pair of D500 bodies, I have the equivalence of 120 to 700mm that can be easily transported on my back and abroad.
If you are looking at the original 80-400... keep what you have and add converters, if you are looking at an 80-400G, shoot it against your current lens paired with a TC14e ii and see which you like better.
cheers,
bruce
ps... the tripod collar on the 80-400G absolutely sucks!... it is the worst collar that Nikon has integrated in a lens and definitely degrades the image. If you plan on using the lens with a tripod, you will need to replace the collar. I have purchased the RRS replacement collar with foot and this is just fine.
... ok, i think that's it.
I have the AF-S f4 300mm. Focus motor died in it but. I still use it though manual focus is annoying at times. Not worth the repair cost to me.
I much prefer a zoom over primes for the versatility and I shot for fun, not money.
Shooting with a couple of D300 bodies.
I will buy used. I haven't set a budget, I am still looking and trying decide what I want and then I will just have to save for it.
With that out of way.... I have looked at and 80-200 f2.8 but decided against it because I would probably never use the f2.8 and I would have to carry around the extra weight. So I was looking at the f4 versions. But as i said I know I have often wanted more than the 200mm when out around the lake shooting. So that has made me hesitate on buying.
Never occured to me to use a teleconverter. I will have to look at that option again.
I started to read about the 80-400 and idea of the large range is really appealing. I like having it all in one, no teleconverter to mess with. Minimal lens changes. Just chuck in on and you have a nice large range. That is the big appeal of this lens over say a 200-400 zoom or using the 300 with a teleconverter.
Have you considered either the Sigma or Tamron 100-400mm lenses? They are substantially cheaper than the 80-400mm ($700/800 compared to $2,300), get out to 400mm, have excellent reports on IQ and have similar maximum aperture (f6.3 vs f5.6 at 400mm). They weigh about 1lb less than the 80-400mm. Not pushing these but, they might be an option to consider depending on your needs.
Hmmm.. The OP says he wants to replace a 55-200 zoom and he already owns a 300 prime that he doesn't like to carry around. Why then do people suggest he buy a different 300 prime ? All the 300 f4's have excellent IQ. The 2 older models lack VR but the OP also says he shoots tripod mounted. My guess is the prime is too limiting for his uses and forces him to carry other lenses to cover shorter and maybe even longer focal lengths. This is where the 80-400 comes in and is exactly the reason I've resisted the temptation to swap mine out for the 300 PF even though I've considered it numerous times. Sure, the 300 PF is excellent at 300mm but sucks at 80-290 and talk of the Nikon 80-400 G not being "sharp enough" and "soft" is just that, talk.
Having said that, I wouldn't and didn't pay $2300 for mine but excellent copies can be found on the used market for $1200-$1500 which is much more in line.
As others have mentionned, the 80-400 AF-S G VR (the new version) is an excellent lens. My lack of discipline and addiction to photography have lead me to own 3 copies of this lens over the last 4 years. One of my copies was a bit soft, one was pretty good, and my current version is tack-sharp on my D500. This particular lens seems to suffer more sample-to-sample variation than other Nikon lens I've owned, and I've always used Lens Align and a good tripod to fine tune my autofocus on the D810 and D500.
In fact, I just sold my 300mm f4 PF lens, which was absolutely outstanding BTW, as I found I was using the 80-400 more often. The 80-400 is the perfect lens for the zoo and local nature walks. It takes the 1.4 tele ok, but not as well as the 300mm PF. I had intended to use the proceeds of the 300mm PF sale to pickup a 500mm PF, but that lens is still hard to get and there are some super deals on the 500mm f4 VR, which I ended up purchasing. That lens is a different class, not portable, but with a 1.4x tele and my D500, I have 1000mm+ of effective reach for the tiny songbirds we love to find and photograph. (BTW, verification of all my ownership and sales claims are easily seen in my feedback. You'll see most of these lenses both bought and sold here on FM).
One last comment. You mentionned you discounted the 70-200 f2.8 lens because you "never use f2.8". I think the 2.8 lens are really misunderstood. It's not just the 2.8, but the fact that you get outstanding build quality, Nikon's best sharpness, and perhaps most-significantly, the bright lenses allow autofocus to work so much better on modern bodies like the D500, D850, or Z series. Finally, 2.8 lenses take teleconverters better than any other Nikon zoom, up to and including the 2.0x. All that said, I still recommend the new version of the 80-400. Just be sure you have a good return policy and ability to check your particular copy. Some are so-so, some are tack-sharp.
Here's an example of results on my current copy of the 80-400 @400mm
A few more examples...
Various camera bodies.
Maybe the new 500mm f/5.6 pf might be sharper, but the utility of the 80-400mm is hard to beat. So many of these shots I never would have been able to take without this lens.
Nick Birkett wrote:
Have you considered either the Sigma or Tamron 100-400mm lenses? They are substantially cheaper than the 80-400mm ($700/800 compared to $2,300), ....
Have not but I am not loyal to Nikon brand either. The answers here have made me think a bit more about other options. Pretty sure I would use this range of lens a lot more than the one I currently have because I don't like it. But for that sort of money I would have need to use it lot more too. Will look into those too.
diablo2112 wrote:
One last comment. You mentionned you discounted the 70-200 f2.8 lens because you "never use f2.8". I think the 2.8 lens are really misunderstood. It's not just the 2.8, but the fact that you get outstanding build quality, Nikon's best sharpness, and perhaps most-significantly, the bright lenses allow autofocus to work so much better on modern bodies like the D500, D850, or Z series.
While I have not had one in my hands I have heard a lot of comments about how heavy they are to wear around your neck.Arms get tired with extended shooting. My impressions have always been that the f4 version was a very good comprise over the 2.8. Of course if you are going to use a teleconverter that is changes. Mine would spend most of it's time in my backpack but would replace a couple of other lenses. Otherwise I have never read anything but good about them. I have not written it off, still just weighing options.
