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
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 exampleof tack-sharp results on my current copy of the 80-400 @400mm
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 exampleof tack-sharp results on my current copy of the 80-400 @400mm (D810 f5.6 1/320 ISO 1400)
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 exampleof tack-sharp results on my current copy of the 80-400 @400mm (D810 f5.6 1/320 ISO 1400)
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.
Dec 30, 2018 at 10:09 AM
Previous versions of diablo2112's message #14709096 « 80-400mm lens? »
