I know there’s two versions of the 80-400mm, I believe an E and G Version? I’ve read reviews that the first version isn’t great. Can anyone offer advice or a review? Thank you in advance
There's an AF-D and AF-S (G) version. Neither version, from my personal use, are great at 400mm. The AF-S version has wonderful autofocus speed, but if you're looking for image quality the 200-500 is the clear winner in that regard. If you're looking for a smaller package or better AF speed, the 80-400 AF-S is probably the best choice.
I've had both versions of the 80-400, and currently have the 200-500. If IQ at a good price is the goal, the 200-500 bests either version of the 80-400. If size is key, than the second version of the 80-400 is definitely the way to go.
Surgtech wrote:
I know there’s two versions of the 80-400mm, I believe an E and G Version? I’ve read reviews that the first version isn’t great. Can anyone offer advice or a review? Thank you in advance
I've used both a fair amount. The first one (shaft drive D lens) is optically not so good, not to mention that it won't AF with the cheaper bodies. During AF you can feel the torque from the bulky drive mechanism and it is noisy. I doubt that lens is serviceable either. The current G model has an S motor, better VR and better IQ, but is not up to par with newer lenses such as the Canon 100-400 II or the Sony G Master 100-400.
If you would consider alternative lenses, Sigma and Tamron offer compact and lighter 100-400/6.3 lenses that would be better than the original lens and better than the G at some focal lengths. The Sigma has no tripod mount option and the Tamron tripod collar is a separate purchase.
Thank you everyone. I appreciate the replies. I’m just going to keep my 200-500mm and Tamron 70-200(first version). I thought a 80-400 would be more versatile. I have a vacation planned in October, maybe I’ll rent a 80-400 and try it.
The 80-400 is a highly versatile lens. I had the 1st version (AF-D) and few minutes ago I posted a couple of pictures in the specific thread here (see link above). The 'old' AF-D version was more compact than the current AF-S version, and I travelled with it, 18-35 AF-D & Micro-Nikkor 60/2.8 AF-D. I even used it with the Canon 500D close-up attachment lens for macro work. I strongly recommend you to rent the 80-400 for your travel, unless you know you'll need 500 mm.
I really enjoyed my 80-400G. Even though I own a 400mm f/2.8 I am strongly tempted to get another one if the cash makes itself available.
I sold mine a couple years back when I needed some money. Been missing it ever since. Is it perfect? Of course not, but for as versatile as it is, it still gets sharp enough images to make me happy.
It's not easy to count the feathers on these little guys...but that lens can do it.
Photozack81 wrote:
I really enjoyed my 80-400G. Even though I own a 400mm f/2.8 I am strongly tempted to get another one if the cash makes itself available.
I sold mine a couple years back when I needed some money. Been missing it ever since. Is it perfect? Of course not, but for as versatile as it is, it still gets sharp enough images to make me happy.
It's not easy to count the feathers on these little guys...but that lens can do it.
Great photo! I’m sure you miss the 80-400 for versatility, but can’t compete with that 400 prime. Gotta love a long prime. A guy in my camera club has the 600mm on a Canon 1DII, his bird photos are amazing. I’m going to rent a 80-400 for my trip in October, unless I can pick up a good used one at a steal.
I have the 80-400 f4.5-5.6G VR and I think it is very underrated. I also have the 400 f2.8E FL VR and the 500 f5.6 PF. I did have the 200-500 f5.6 for a time but sold it when I got the 500 pf. There is no doubt that the primes are superb and have no peer in their respective focal lengths and are better than the 80-400, that's a given. The 80-400 is super sharp up to about 350mm then sharpness drops off to a minor degree at 400mm. The 200-500 f5.6 is a tad sharper at 400mm than the 80-400 but it is minor, but the biggest difference is AF speed, the 80-400 is much faster to focus. If you can fully frame your subject at 400mm you won't see an advantage using the 200-500 @ 400mm over the 80-400. If you need to crop the 80-400 you might see an advantage of the 200-500, but then you may be at 500mm anyway which means that advantage is lost to some degree. I use the 80-400 for travel as it is the same size and weight as my 70-200 f2.8E FL VR. The 80-400 also works well on my Z7. I also use the 80-400 for my Sea Eagle shooting due to its AF speed and versatility, better than the 200-500 for this sort of thing. I would use it for sequence shooting for when they swoop for fish in the water and the 80-400 never misses a beat. It has the perfect zoom range for this sort of thing as well as zoo shooting.
This is just one of a 6 shot sequence that were all perfect for sharpness and AF accuracy:
D500 + 80-400 f4.5-5.6G VR, 1/2500s f/8.0 at 220.0mm iso800
D850 + 80-400 f4.5-5.6G VR, 1/4000s f/8.0 at 330.0mm iso640
D500 + 80-400 f4.5-5.6G VR, 1/2500s f/8.0 at 200.0mm iso450
D500 + 80-400 f4.5-5.6G VR, 1/2500s f/5.6 at 400.0mm iso140
Z7 + 80-400 f4.5-5.6G VR, 1/800s f/6.3 at 400.0mm iso125
Lance B, excellent photos! I’m going to rent the lens and use it on vacation. I’ll probably be selling my 70-200 and 200-500. In the meantime I’m going to keep a lookout for a good used one, maybe I can snag a deal
I received today a copy of this lens I purchased from a member of this forum. All is well, although the zoom ring feels a bit snug -- much tighter that my 70-200. Is that the nature of the beast, or might mine need some lubrication? Thanks much.
Ripolini wrote:
The 80-400 is a highly versatile lens. I had the 1st version (AF-D) and few minutes ago I posted a couple of pictures in the specific thread here (see link above). The 'old' AF-D version was more compact than the current AF-S version, and I travelled with it, 18-35 AF-D & Micro-Nikkor 60/2.8 AF-D. I even used it with the Canon 500D close-up attachment lens for macro work. I strongly recommend you to rent the 80-400 for your travel, unless you know you'll need 500 mm.
The G (S) lens replacement foot is better than putting a plate on the weak collar of the D model. We had the Kirk collar/A-S for the D, which greatly improved stability and low shutter speeds. Unfortunately then the hood doesn't fit in the reversed position.
EB-1 wrote:
The G (S) lens replacement foot is better than putting a plate on the weak collar of the D model. We had the Kirk collar/A-S for the D, which greatly improved stability and low shutter speeds...
Yes, the bad quality of 80-400D and AF-S 300/4D collars is well known since almost 20 years http://www.naturfotograf.com/index2.html
I used the 80-400 mostly hand held.
I see some used G/AF-S versions for sale without the tripod collar, I haven’t looked at new lenses, but I would think this lens would come with it. I usually buy my equipment used or refurbished.
Surgtech wrote:
I see some used G/AF-S versions for sale without the tripod collar, I haven’t looked at new lenses, but I would think this lens would come with it. I usually buy my equipment used or refurbished.
It should come with one but you're going to want to replace it with a third party (kirk etc) most likely to get a good solid arca foot on there. If I remember correctly on the 80-400G the whole foot and ring assembly comes off and is replaced.
I say if the price is right go for it foot or no, buy a kirk foot.
I had the first lens and I believe it was the first Nikon lens to provide VR. The VR was terrible and greatly interferred with the autofocusing of the lens. I quickly sold mine. The newer version is one of my favorite lenses. I will take it and a 500mm or 600mm prime lens and I have a very wide range of view angles.
90% of my wildlife photography now is with this lens accompanied by the 500mm PF lens. I can put both lenses and two D850 bodies and a flash into a 18 liter backpack which with a FX kit is pretty amazing.
I have some crisp decent images shooting the 80-400 G on a D850 and Z7, and soon it will be on the D780. It needs careful AFFT @400mm on a DSLR. One should not overlook that the 80-400 G is one of the only 2 Nikkors using a Super ED element (200 f2G is the other)
A couple of caveats:
(1) I only turn on VR when vital because images tend to be slightly sharper with VR-Off,
(2) Get a decent 3rd tripod collar with an integral arc-swiss plate. I have the Kirk, with a peak design coupling to carry the rig off a sling.
(3) This zoom loses sharpness at distances beyond 20m, but this is a manageable constraint for wildlife usually the exception being landscapes and some sports too
good point about using a third party lens collar. It is only with the 80-400mm lens that I bought a lens collar and the Kirk provides support for the end of the lens to keep it steady. Kirk is redesigning the collar and at this point in time it is not in production and not availble to purchase.
VR significantly slows autofocus as the VR function has to finish before autofocus begins. Nikon does not recommend VR in general when using shutter speeds of 1/500s or faster.
elkhornsun wrote:
good point about using a third party lens collar. It is only with the 80-400mm lens that I bought a lens collar and the Kirk provides support for the end of the lens to keep it steady. Kirk is redesigning the collar and at this point in time it is not in production and not availble to purchase.
VR significantly slows autofocus as the VR function has to finish before autofocus begins. Nikon does not recommend VR in general when using shutter speeds of 1/500s or faster.
VR depends on the lens. For about a year following its release, there was considerable discussion about the flaky VR on earlier copies of the 300 f4E PF. Apparently Serial # < 205101. But erratic results continued to be reported...
Quite a few of us shoot the lens in VR-Sport mode all the time. And VR-On does not appear to interfere with the performance of the 400 f2.8E, either.
Interesting to hear about redesign of the Kirk collar. Tripod collars are one of Nikon's irritating design glitches. For one it does not make any sense to put out telephotos without integral lugs machined into the foot conforming to the arca-swiss specification. While the 80-400 foot is a design failure, the legendary 70-180 AFD Micro-Nikkor is worse. Being integral to the chassis, this collar cannot be replaced in its entirety. I carefully drilled 2 holes and tapped them to take a pair of SS capscrews [ie "allen-key bolts"] which secure an A-S plate with liberal epoxy. These 3mm stainless steel bolts help to stiffen the collar
Nikon have no excuses for persisting with these inadequate tripod collars, especially considering the high prices on these telephotos.
