Kudzupatch wrote:
Well that just muddied the water some more!
Some of my images are in the D version thread mentioned. I still use this lens for airshows and now mated with my D500 its more than adequate. They can be found at bargain prices since the G version came out.
I owned the 80-400G and I had zero complaints. I also had the 70-200G + 2x and found the 80-400 to beat it at all comparable focal lengths, even if stopping down slightly.
I shot both side by side, sold the 70-200.
I now own a 400 f/2.8, so a 70-200 or similar may well find its way back into my camera bag as soon as I have a lil extra lens money. Truth is on the D500, a 70-300 G VR would serve my purposes just as well but another 80-400 might just be the ticket. They are great lenses.
I might even consider one of the older screw drive models since the D500 has the power and AF brain to focus them quickly and accurately.
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. .
I am not a big fan of Lenstip, but their resolution tests for the 80-400, 200-500 and the 500 f5.6 PF (just throwing it in for comparative purposes as it shows about that much better resolution than the 200-500 and 80-400) are quite accurate when compared *against each other*. In other words, their hierarchy is spot on.
80-400 f4.5-5.6G
200-500 f5.6G
500 f5.6PF
I have owned or do own all of the above lenses and can talk from experience - I own the 80-400 and 500 PF, sold my 200-500. The Lenstip results mirror mine almost perfectly. Looking at the above results, it looks like the 80-400 is sharper than the 200-500 wide open but is about as sharp at f8 when both are at 400mm. In fact, the 80-400 is as sharp or slightly sharper than the 200-500 at any focal length where they correspond. The 500 f5.6 PF would be about this much sharper than the 200-500 @ 500mm. The 200-500 is highly regarded here and rightly so, it is an excellent and sharp lens as has been demonstrated by the many outstanding shots displayed here. However, the 80-400 is *at least as sharp* at the long end and is generally sharper at the shorter focal lengths.
80-400 @ 400mm and f5.6 = 37 lpmm
80-400 @ 400mm and f8 = 37 lpmm
200-500 @ 400mm f5.6 = about 35 lpmm
200-500 @ 400mm f8 = about 37/38 lpmm
Lance B wrote:
I am not a big fan of Lenstip, but their resolution tests for the 80-400, 200-500 and the 500 f5.6 PF (just throwing it in for comparative purposes as it shows about that much better resolution than the 200-500 and 80-400) are quite accurate when compared *against each other*. In other words, their hierarchy is spot on.
I have owned or do own all of the above lenses and can talk from experience - I own the 80-400 and 500 PF, sold my 200-500. The Lenstip results mirror mine almost perfectly. Looking at the above results, it looks like the 80-400 is sharper than the 200-500 wide open but is about as sharp at f8 when both are at 400mm. In fact, the 80-400 is as sharp or slightly sharper than the 200-500 at any focal length where they correspond. The 500 f5.6 PF would be about this much sharper than the 200-500 @ 500mm. The 200-500 is highly regarded here and rightly so, it is an excellent and sharp lens as has been demonstrated by the many outstanding shots displayed here. However, the 80-400 is *at least as sharp* at the long end and is generally sharper at the shorter focal lengths.
80-400 @ 400mm and f5.6 = 37 lpmm
80-400 @ 400mm and f8 = 37 lpmm
200-500 @ 400mm f5.6 = about 35 lpmm
200-500 @ 400mm f8 = about 37/38 lpmm
I said earlier in this thread, that I *may* have had a softer copy of the 80-400 AFS. You had to have read that. Second, you already know that lens models vary between copies. So, there was no need for you to push this forward. But, since you insist, I will make one last comment.
Then, if you want to argue, you will be arguing with someone else. I happen to know better. And I am not a gear head. After my following comments, I am done with this thread:
Point: Graphs and data plots are worthless *against* field testing, as manifested by actual images. In fact, if the truth be told, most people probably cannot even interpret those graphs. The proof is in the images. After all, is that not what the lenses are for; i.e. rendering images? So, the quality of the images supersedes any graphs.
Fact: There is no way in hell that my 80-400 AFS was close to being as sharp as the 200-500 I have. It is just that simple. I also stand by the statement I made earlier about the sharpness of the 200-500 compared to Nikon primes. Re-read it. My 200-500 copy is very sharp. There is just one thing I do not like about my 200-500 and we all know that this has to do with AF acquisition.
Again, you already know that the ability of any lens to resolve varies from copy to copy. My 200-500 copy is much sharper than my 80-400 AFS copy and your 80-400 AFS copy was sharper than your 200-500 copy.
I should agree on this : My 80-400 *is* very sharp at the shorter focal lengths. And yes, I guess it *may* be sharper than my 200-500 at the short end.
In fact, don’t tell anyone, but I do put the Canon 500D close up lens on the front of my 80-400 and use it for a close up lens.
I got in the habit this last summer of using the short end of the 200-500/D850 and cropping, that I forgot how much I liked using the 80-400 with the Canon 500D for my close-ups.
Anyway, you may have the last word and I will read it.
No, not wanting to argue the point, Robert. Never my intention. I respect your opinion on most things but thought that some here may get the wrong impression that the 80-400 was a poor or mediocre lens. I think that there are many who think it is actually a very good lens, especially compared to the likes of the 200-500 and the other super zooms and as a one lens solution for that focal range it delivers great results. It is not my "go to lens" in most situations, but as a travel and hiking zoom and it is a real winner for that, especially when you consider its reasonably small size and weight - the same size and weight as the 70-200 f2.8 zooms.
I think much of a lens's worth is whether it suits a person's requirements and if it doesn't suit their requirements then I think people sometimes then don't value it as much and then that can lead to negative thoughts and maybe even negative opinions. Unfortunately, the 80-400 is looked on as a sort of "general purpose lens" and thus is good at most things and master of none. It unfortunately sits in a range that is not so good for birding and isn't fast for many subject isolation requirements and this can also lead to a "meh" attitude to it. Where I counter is that it is master of a good zoom range and relatively small size and weight which suits travel and hiking etc. It has excellent overall IQ, generally very sharp, good colour, good bokeh, weather sealed, pro build and has Nano coat. It is also unfortunately quite expensive for what it is. I will say mine doesn't get used as much as it's price should suggest, but it always delivers.
My 80-400 AFS’s zoom ring has become far too tight. It sat in the case unused, all last year. But now, based on what I have read on this thread, I am going to have Nikon repair it. It should be back in my hands shortly.
I want to use it again, next spring, *at least* for its former work in my wildflower garden.
I'm constantly going back and forth using my 70-200 VRII when light is fading and the 80-400 when I have good light for shooting moving targets. I've never noticed much / any difference between these two lenses in AF speed or image quality. I wouldn't be able to tell which lens took which images without opening them up in LR and looking.
I have looked at a lot of options and I think I am leaning toward either the 80-200 2.8 and acquiring a teleconverter latter on. Or the 80-400 earlier model because of the prices.
I can find the early 80-400 at really great prices. If slow focus is the biggest drawback I can live with that. I am going to eventually replace my two D300s with a D500 and what I read 80-400 focuses much faster on them.
I lean very slightly toward the 80-200 (today). That seems like it might be a more versatile combo. Prices are not as good and adding a converter going to cost more. But I can buy the convertor latter.
Kudzupatch wrote:
I have looked at a lot of options and I think I am leaning toward either the 80-200 2.8 and acquiring a teleconverter latter on. Or the 80-400 earlier model because of the prices.
I can find the early 80-400 at really great prices. If slow focus is the biggest drawback I can live with that. I am going to eventually replace my two D300s with a D500 and what I read 80-400 focuses much faster on them.
I lean very slightly toward the 80-200 (today). That seems like it might be a more versatile combo. Prices are not as good and adding a converter going to cost more. But I can buy the convertor latter. ...Show more →
i essentially repeated an earlier post so I am removing this one..
Well, if price is an issue, place a "Want to Buy" ad on the buy and sell for this particular lens and you will most likely get many responses, and be able to pick one up very cheap. Probably a lot of these just sitting in peoples closets.. The market is about as good as the market for the 300mm f/4 AF-S (non vr). In other words, there is no market.
Kudzupatch wrote:
I have looked at a lot of options and I think I am leaning toward either the 80-200 2.8 and acquiring a teleconverter latter on. Or the 80-400 earlier model because of the prices.
I can find the early 80-400 at really great prices. If slow focus is the biggest drawback I can live with that. I am going to eventually replace my two D300s with a D500 and what I read 80-400 focuses much faster on them.
I lean very slightly toward the 80-200 (today). That seems like it might be a more versatile combo. Prices are not as good and adding a converter going to cost more. But I can buy the convertor latter. ...Show more →
Unless you plan on buying the AFS 80-200 f/2.8, you will not be able to add a Nikon teleconverter to the lens and retain autofocus. The 80-200mm f/2.8 AF-D lens is a "screw-drive" old style AF. While reasonably sharp and still considered current, it is not designed for tele converter use.
For what’s its worth I had an 80-200 2.8 AF-S that was a great lens and sharper than the 70-200 vr1 I had (probably on par with the vr2). Great lens. However, I tried it several times with a 1.7 tc (yah I know—it’s not nearly as forgiving as the 1.4) and didn’t like the resulting IQ or the slower AF. This was on an older dx body (d7000) so take that with a grain of salt.
OwlsEyes wrote:
Unless you plan on buying the AFS 80-200 f/2.8, you will not be able to add a Nikon teleconverter to the lens and retain autofocus. The 80-200mm f/2.8 AF-D lens is a "screw-drive" old style AF. While reasonably sharp and still considered current, it is not designed for tele converter use.
ckcarr wrote:
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.
Is this the D version or the G version? Gotta friend who is looking at this lens but the difference in price between the old version and new version is at least $1K on the used market.
Kudzupatch wrote:
I have looked at a lot of options and I think I am leaning toward either the 80-200 2.8 and acquiring a teleconverter latter on. Or the 80-400 earlier model because of the prices.
I can find the early 80-400 at really great prices. If slow focus is the biggest drawback I can live with that. I am going to eventually replace my two D300s with a D500 and what I read 80-400 focuses much faster on them.
I lean very slightly toward the 80-200 (today). That seems like it might be a more versatile combo. Prices are not as good and adding a converter going to cost more. But I can buy the convertor latter. ...Show more →
I think we tell ourselves that we can live with slow focus until we have to put up with it. I worry about recommending that D version of the 80-400 to a friend who wants to shoot wildlife but I fear she will become frustrated with the focus not keeping up. Yet, the newer G version is an additional $1K.
pasblues wrote:
Is this the D version or the G version? Gotta friend who is looking at this lens but the difference in price between the old version and new version is at least $1K on the used market.
Is the D even worth it? The body would be a D500.
It's the G. I had the D in the beginning and always hated it. As soon as the G was available I was very happy it had finally come out and bought it that day.
https://www.lenstip.com/upload2/218717_roz1.png