Previous news story Next news story

Editor's opinion: Nikon's AF-S Nikkor 80-400mm F4.5-5.6G ED VR

Mar 5, 2013 at 04:01:00 GMT

Print view

Nikon's AF-S Nikkor 80-400mm F4.5-5.6 G ED VR will be eagerly welcomed by many enthusiast and professional Nikon photographers who've been waiting for a replacement for its 12 year-old predecessor. The original 80-400mm was Nikon's first lens to offer vibration reduction but the intervening years have left it looking rather long in the tooth. The latest version boasts a new optical design, built-in SWM focus motor and much improved vibration reduction. In this short article, Barnaby Britton gives his opinion.

Click here to read 'Editor's opinion: Nikon AF-S Nikkor 80-400mm F4.5-5.6 G ED VR'

COMMENT NIKKOR NIKON

Nikon AF-S Nikkor 80-400mm f/4.5-5.6G ED VR

Add to: Login to add this item to your gear lists.

GearShop

Nikon AF-S 80-400mm f/4.5-5.6 G ED VR Lens●

$2,696.95

Buy on GearShop

Nikon 80-400mm f/4.5-5.6G ED VR AF-S NIKKOR Lens for Nikon Digital SLRs	$2,696.95
Nikon 80-400mm f/4.5-5.6G ED VR AF-S NIKKOR Lens for Nikon Digital SLRs	$2,696.95
Nikon 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6G ED IF AF-S VR Nikkor Zoom Lens for Nikon Digital SLR Cameras	$586.95
Nikon 80-400mm f/4.5-5.6D ED Autofocus VR Zoom Nikkor Lens	$1,555.00
Nikon 80-400mm f/4.5-5.6D ED VR AF Zoom-Nikkor Lens (Vibration Reduction) with Hood & Soft Case - Gray Market	$1,499.00
Nikon 70-300mm f/4-5.6D ED AF Nikkor SLR Camera Lens	$450.00
Nikon Telephoto Zoom Lens Af-s Nikkor　80-400mm F/4.5-5.6g Ed Vr Full Size...	$2,719.95

Show all listings (7) ...

Get more prices from Amazon

Comments

Total comments: 69

I have owned the original 80-400mm since 2006 and have literally made 10s of thousands of dollars by using it in regatta photography. It has been my go to lens on everything from a D100 up to my new D4. I have waited for this update for a long time. I will spend the extra money and be glad to do it. There are enough changes to the body of the lens, its technology, and optics to make the price increase worth it to me. I have read all the comments complaining about price. So What? If you are making money from the lens it will pay for itself. Frankly with the AF-S and no barrel movement it is going to make my life much better. Combined with the D4 and its stronger focus motor even the older 80-400 hunts less during focus so I expect this lens to be way more stable in that area. I do not need an exotic 400, the variable aperture is fine for what I do. 2013 dollars are not 2006 dollars so buy it or not it is your choice.

1 upvote

Great lookig lens. But someone could say using KR terminology, "It's the perfect model for gear masturbators".

0 upvotes

For 1,500 dollars what is the performance difference of buying a 70-300 mm and sticking a 2 or 3 times teleconverter to extend the lens? Do you think you will notice a big difference in the performance?

0 upvotes

70-300 is no good lens. people have to use it because there is little choice the 80-400D was too bad.

0 upvotes

if the IQ of the new 80~400mm VR ii comes close to that of the 700~200mm f2.8 VR ii — the price point seems more than fair.

0 upvotes

in theory, 80-400/5.6 should be no cheaper than 70-200/2.8 if the performaces are comparable through the (different) zoom range.

but the current 70-200/2.8's from Canon and Nikon are almost twice as expensive as non-stabilized ones. Canon asked for a high premium for their infamous stagger and Nikon followed with virtual random, neither should cost more than 100 US.

0 upvotes

After what seems an interminable wait for an AFS equivalent to Canon's well regarded 100-400 IS, Nikon users are now expected to pay more than twice the price of that lens, or more than 3 times the price of Sigma's 150-500 which in its latest incarnation is a very good lens at a very fair price. Come on Nikon, this price is just adding insult to injury!

0 upvotes

Any bets how long before the first complaints of bad QA come in?...

0 upvotes

A real photographer blames "Self" first. And then the Grump, and if no one else is around the Equipment.
That's what a real "Pro" told me.

0 upvotes

Why ? You crab about the latest, and greatest, it can't get here quick enough for most of you. ? And when the "New Wiz-Bang" gets here, it's too much of this and not enough of that. ?
Let me be the first to say, "Pay up sucker!"
My first camera 1940, was a Eastman Kodak box, #2A Brownie 116 film. 1965, I started as a 'Pro', whatever the hell that means, at a Chemical Company. My Portfolio was from walk around
Blk & Wh prints.
It's 'Luck' and hard work to get ahead in this field. Having the top of the line is a small thing in this game.
Thank God for the amateur. God must have love them, he made so many. And if he hadn't, I couldn't have afforded the gear I've work with all these years.
And 'Why' do we need the best thing-a-ma-BoB that comes down the pike.
Maybe it will help and maybe will just collect dust. I still work with a Nikon body from 1965 and a 85/250 f4 for walk around.
My cameras and work have taken we all over the globe. For that I'm very thankful.
"Keep shooting" 30

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 5 minutes after posting

0 upvotes

I think camera and lens manufacturers live either on another planet or in the past. Things went wild with incomes after the crisis, in general people have less money for at least same amount of work.

Yet they keep showing more and more expensive products. Maybe professionals will buy these, but amateurs who do not earn (or very limited income) from photography will think twice....wrong in fact, at these prices there's nothing to think about, will just look on the second market or forget about it.

But in the end what do i know, maybe these are the fair prices...and they are if the market is willing to pay. If not...what can they do...increase even more? :)

1 upvote

So the Elephant in the room right now must be the aging AF-S 300 F4 right? I bought mine a few months ago and I expect the bad news will arrive any day now of a 300 F4 VR.

2 upvotes

Would love to pair this with the D7100. Saves my feminine hands from carrying heavy lenses, but dunno how good the tracking is .... agonizing wait!!

0 upvotes

anybody wonder why it just says VR and not VR2

0 upvotes

Because Nikon's generational naming scheme is related to the lens as an overall package and not the individual component technologies. Nikon's primary distinguishers are the lens type. This is the first 80-400 to include AF-S and VR but more importantly it is a G-type whereas the older lens is a D-type. The next lens that will eventually replace this one will be named something like "AF-S NIKKOR 80-400mm f/4.5-5.6G ED VR II" even though internally it may have VR-III technology or even VR-IV. The main factour as part of the naming scheme will be the fact that it will be the second generation version of the 80-400/4.5-5.6 G-type lens.

Comment edited 60 seconds after posting

1 upvote

Khuon is correct. I don't believe Nikon ever includes the VR version in the official lens name, or on the markings on the lens.
As an example, the name of newer version of the 18-200mm ends in "...VR II", indicating the 2nd version of the lens, but both the 1st & current versions have VR2.

0 upvotes

there is no standard scale. each lens has its own design and performance though they may share some technologies.

0 upvotes

Well at least the new Nikon makes the new Sony 70-400 f/4-5.6 G2 look like a comparable bargain at only $2198.

5 upvotes

Lol, sad but true..

0 upvotes

Yes that is true and if the new Sony is as good or even better as the old one (maybe the best of all till now), then the new Sony 70-400 stays maybe even unbeaten.

0 upvotes

I don't see any surprises here, pretty much every new Nikon Pro lens that comes out is twice the price of its predecessor. People always seem to be wishing for improvements in pre-2000 prices.

Hopefully it's better than the old model, but while the 80-400 was much maligned it was usually by people that didn't have one or didn't know how to use it. Mine has give me excellent service for close to a decade and I'll only replace it if there are real benefits from this. The old one packed a lot of firepower into a small (relatively speaking) package.

2 upvotes

Canon should be blamed, too, that Nikon cannot set unreasonable high prices without the cooperation from the competitor.

0 upvotes

Well, I was waiting for this lens since I bought my D200 when it was first released. I finally got tired of waiting and six months ago bought a Sigma 50-500 VR and I love it (plus it's about $1000 cheaper).

I'm sure I'm not the only sale Nikon has lost because they've been too slow, not only with this but in other areas as well (e..g. a direct D300s upgrade). Also, this would have been an ideal lens to target for Dx so they could make it smaller and lighter.

This type of thing is making it clear why I see about four Canons for every Nikon DSLR.

1 upvote

I am sure it will be nice but the price is just ludicrous. The pre-order price at Adorama is full MSRP of $2700. I doubt they will move many at that price point.

0 upvotes

Welcome, baby!

I bought my Nikkor 80-400 f/4.5-5.6 on 2002 to use with my (then) new Nikon D100 and today it is my oldest lens in my collection as previous lenses were replaced years back (the Sigma 15-30 by Nikkor 12-24, the Nikkor 24-120 AFD by Nikkor 24-120 f/4).

I am very happy with my older 80-400 even after so long years - of course improvements are always welcome. Let us see if in the field practice it worths so long waiting. Anyway I will not board at the first ship. I am not in a hurry.

0 upvotes

This lens has much in common with the Pentax DA* 60-200 F/4 ED (90-380 F/6 equivalent) which is tack-sharp at the long end even outperforming most fixed focal lengths.

This is one particular lens which makes the Pentax APS-C system quite attractive.

The new Nikkor 80-400 could do the same for Nikon FX if the optical performance is similiarly top notch and if the price comes down a bit.

1 upvote

This lens has nothing in common with that Pentax 60-200 f/4. Nothing at all. The Pentax is half the focal length on the long side. If you want to apply crop factor, you have to apply that to both. Oh and it's a 60-250 f/4, if you check. It's about half the price and built for crop cameras only. The only thing it's equvalent to in this Full Frame lens is the angle of view. That's not a lot in common by my views.

That all said, that 60-250 f/4 is a superb lens for what it is. Also, it's unfortunate that Pentax doesn't yet make a full frame camera. Maybe soon in the future. I wish they'd catch up. I know they will, but when.

As for doing the same for Nikon, they aren't the same thing and Nikon has a plethora of lenses all around it, already top notch. I too hope it's excellent, but it won't make or break them. It just fits in a small nitch amongst all the others, some like the 200-400 f/4 being world class.

2 upvotes

It has a lot in common, they serve the same function if you shoot full frame vs APS-C. Both are medium to good light telephotos.

If I were to buy a Pentax K-5IIs I would get some standard range primes and the 60-250mm f/4. If I were to buy the D600, I would get this lens instead. If I had a D7000 and was getting the 80-400, well, Pentax has nothing similar (Sigma does).

Edit: I would never buy an 80-400mm on DX when what I really wanted was a 60-250mm. They are very different focal lengths at the wider end. Again, I see advantages to using an 80-400mm on DX, but it is a different lens altogether.

Comment edited 7 minutes after posting

1 upvote

"It has a lot in common, they serve the same function if you shoot full frame vs APS-C. " - and that's pretty much ALL.
Sorry, but these two lenses are completely different beasts.

1 upvote

Incorrect, if I am coming from say Pentax K-5IIs to a Nikon D600, and I owned the 60-250mm on Pentax, I would want to get the 80-400mm to be fairly similar to what I had on Pentax. What are you failing to comprehend here?

The Pentax is a 1.5x crop, so the 60-250mm f/4 is equivalent to a 90-380mm f/6 lens. So the 80-400mm will have a bit shallower depth of field, etc, but these are very close in function if the 60-250 is used on APS-C and the 80-400mm on full frame.

Comment edited 9 minutes after posting

1 upvote

viking79, +1.

Such mistakes as Plastek is making here are unfortunately very typical when people compare lenses on different size sensors :(.

1 upvote

Ok, if you folks consider angle of view at one end of a zoom lens makes them common, that's fine. We're not talking equivalent focal length or reach, just angle of view here on one side of a zoom.

And you're right. Pentax doesn't really make anything really like it, do they? The fact you might want the 60-250 if you had a Pentax because Pentax doesn't make a full frame or this 80-400 is irrelavent. Field of view will never be the same as reach or focal length no matter how you slice the loaf. One is 400mm and one is 250mm on the long side regardless of how you wish to crop it.

1 upvote

I think original author meant more "similar sharpness at desired focal length of equiv. crop".

Can 80-400 deliver that? For that price it should..

Otherwise Sigma has nice 120-300mm f2.8 with VR for same price. And it works pretty good even with 1.4x TC. Worth thinking, eh?

0 upvotes

60-250 f/4 on APS-C and 90-375 f/6 on the same generation FF sensor will produce very similar images in terms of AoV, DoF, image noise, and diffraction. Nikon's 80-400 f/4.5-5.6 is indeed a bit brighter and more versatile than the above hypothetical 90-375 f/6, but close enough for people to compare and cross-shop Pentax 60-250 f/4 + K5II vs Nikon 80-400 + Nikon FF camera. It especially makes sense taking into account that Pentax 60-250 is a very good lens optically as well as mechanically and is lighter and, in combination with the corresponding camera, much-much cheaper than the Nikon's version.

1 upvote

Sorry, wrong comparison. One 20-200 at f/6 would be muuuch easier to design and manufacture than a 80-400 lens. It is Physics: 200mm is not the same focal length than 400.

You can use that lens with a FX camera but also the same lens can be used mounted on DX or even System 1 with adapter - but it is another story.

0 upvotes

Attractive lens maybe, but way too expensive for that slow aperture. It seems to be relying on-

A) The increased reach that newer crop cameras/ high MP sensors cropped offer, to give a really long reach (plus it's compatibility with tele-convertors) and

B) The better performance at high ISOs on today's sensors, along with the better VR. Presumably, this will only improve, making brighter lenses less important for capture speed.

... yet other lenses will share these benefits, including brighter ones presumably having better bokeh and faster AF due to letting in more light. It seems to me yet another opening for third parties like Sigma to offer similar ranges at a radically better price-point with only slightly worse optics, though that 'slightly worse' factor may push many to the Nikon.

2 upvotes

title is wrong, is 4.5-5.6 aperture not 4-5.6 aperture, I think you got it confused with a Sony

2 upvotes

Thanks.

0 upvotes

For the money, I'd rather have the new Sigma 120-300mm 2.8 that's coming out in a few weeks and use a teleconverter if needed on that.

Comment edited 48 seconds after posting

1 upvote

almost totally forgot about the Sigma.
$2700 for a 80-400 f/4.5-5.6 VR,
versus:
$3600 for a 120-300 f/2.8 OS
Given the recent improvement in quality from Sigma, the only downside is the size and weight.

0 upvotes

Original "old" 120-300/2.8 costs same as this.. And if you take a look on reviews, its actually really good lens.

0 upvotes

Yes but the new Sigma 120-300 F2.8 has the same optical formula as the old one and according to Lens Rentals repair stat's the 'current' version of that lens degrades physically quite quickly (focus mechanism). I'd want to be sure of a few things before considering that lens.

Comment edited 39 seconds after posting

0 upvotes

Nearly double the cost of the outgoing lens? Fantasy pricing for this slow lens - unless, that is, build and optical quality are beyond reproach. We'll have to see.

7 upvotes

Lets wait and see what Canon charges when they upgrade their version, probably soon.

0 upvotes

you can think the outgoing one as non-existence, nothing compared with Canon 100-400mm, while this lens looks much better on MTF at least.

would pay more for an EF100-500/4.5-5.6LIS.

0 upvotes

For the price it should be much better than the mediocre 70-300 VR!

Comment edited 54 seconds after posting

2 upvotes

You're comparing apples to oranges. This 80-400mm lens is a pro lens while the 70-300mm VR is a mass market lens.

Birders: MANY do use an 80-400mm or 100-400mm. That was the most common lens I saw last week at the Venice Rookery in Florida.

Comment edited 1 minute after posting

0 upvotes

apparently you've never used a 70-300 vr or you're not using it properly. It's a great lens regardless of the price and produces amazing pictures. I've shown my photos to pro's who say don't bother with a 70-200 when the 70-300 produces results like I'm getting.

0 upvotes

Odd focal length.
Nikon has already 2 very good 70-200 lenses. The 80-400 has some massive overlap to both of them. Additionally there is the quite good 70-300 consumer lens which is inexpensive and delivers a lot for the money.
I'm not confident if this is really the lens photogs are after except "birders".

1 upvote

Well yeah, that's who this lens is for, it's not a walking around/cover everything lens. It's not "odd" at all. The 70-300 is OK, but is very unlikely to match the performance of this lens. Nanocoat FTW.

0 upvotes

No - I don't think birders will be that interested - usually with this kind of optic the sharpness really suffers at the long end of the zoom the 70-300 certainly shows signs of this. I think most birders would be better of with the 300mm f/4 and a 1.4 tc, that combo should cost about the same too.

Comment edited 43 seconds after posting

2 upvotes

I think this is a much-favored general purpose (not professional) daylight sports range. It will be quite popular.

0 upvotes

The "overlap" is not a bad thing. For sports / action shooting, I really like the 80-400 range (at least on DX).

0 upvotes

Birders: Yes, MANY do use an 80-400mm or 100-400mm. That was the most common lens I saw last week at the Venice Rookery in Florida.

This lens should be dramatically better than the 70-300mm VR which is really only so-so. The 70-200mm f/4 VR is SO much better even with the Nikon 1.4x converter. (I own both.)

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 28 seconds after posting

0 upvotes

Peter and the rest are right. If this lens performs, it will be your number one budget birder for Nikon cameras. As good as the 300 f/4 with converter is, most budget birders will buy a zoom.

The various Sigmas are not bad lenses but they just aren't quite good enough to show that fine detail we all want. This new lens will have to be able to do that. Feather and beak detail, eye glint and skin texture have to be there. i think it will be.

Canon's good 100-400 is probably the best budget birder for them. The problem is it's an old design and it push pull. I do not like push pull telephoto zooms and I think most others agree. When Canon updates, I bet the replacement will not be push pull.

If you can't figure out who'll buy it, just look how many Sigmas, Tanrons, Nikons and Canon lenses that zoom to 400 and 500 that are out there selling pretty well. This will sell off the shelves regardless of price if the optics are good.

0 upvotes

> I think most birders would be better of with the 300mm f/4 and a
> 1.4 tc, that combo should cost about the same too.

I believe the Nikon AF-S 300mm f/4 and a TC-14EII would be quite a bit cheaper... by almost $1000.

0 upvotes

70-300 is "so-so". Wrong - it's a great lens whether it cost 600.00 or 1800.00.

0 upvotes

Eagerly awaiting Canon's response!

0 upvotes

eagerly awaiting canon's response to their 100-400 push pull zoom for the last 7 years!

1 upvote

Rumoured for 2013 announcement along with the 400 F5.6 L, expect upto date USM, IS and revamp optics and also employing Nikon's pricing strategy as well.

Will wait few months for this lens bit pricey at £2500 for few more ££/$$ could pick up a 200-400 second hand.

0 upvotes

Well Canon will be making the EF 200-400mm f/4L IS USM (with built-in 1.4x Extender) and apparently it will become available this summer. I'll bet it will cost $3500+. (Apparently one rumour says $13,000 ... I hope that is a crazy guess!)

http://www.cameraegg.org/video-ef-200-400mm-f4l-is-usm-extender-1-4x-hands-on-review/

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 2 minutes after posting

0 upvotes

regarding the Canon, a friend of mine, down at CES, said that Canon didn't know when the 200-400 would be out as they were having problems so I wouldn't bet the farm. And the $13k ballpark price, not a guess.

Comment edited 1 minute after posting

0 upvotes

Hopefully the new higher price means it comes with a decent tripod bracket this time.

0 upvotes

Well, yea, "shame about the price." I offer $1400. Want more? Nope, not from me, you keep the lens. I am endlessly patient. I will rather take my old 80-200 F/2.8 with extender.

3 upvotes

That's what I'm using, with beautiful results. The VR and fast AF are attractive, but not this price.

0 upvotes

Agree quite good quality with my 70-200 f2.8 mk 2 and TC 2 III.

0 upvotes

My main problem is birds in flight. I'd like something with much faster AF and also the VR for this. The 5x zoom is attractive, too- with the 2x TC my 80-200 is always long. It's too bad this costs so much for the time being, but at least the IQ should be astounding.

0 upvotes

Finally! Shame about the price, but at least everything else looks great!

1 upvote

Considering they recommend TCs, the detail you can capture with this should be astounding.

0 upvotes

Total comments: 69

Editorial content

Product database

Community


Lens reviews update: DxOMark data for 400mm telezooms compared May 29, 2013	Nikon unveils AF-S Nikkor 80-400mm f/4.5-5.6G ED VR telezoom Mar 5, 2013	Nikon creates Nikkor 1 AW 10mm f/2.8 and 11-27.5mm f/3.5-5.6 lenses Sep 19, 2013	Nikkor 18-140mm F3.5-5.6G ED VR hints at mid-range DSLR Aug 6, 2013

	Nikon 1 AW1 Sep 19, 2013
	Fujifilm X-A1 Sep 17, 2013
	Olympus OM-D E-M1 Sep 10, 2013
	Leica C (Typ112) Sep 8, 2013
	Nikon Coolpix P7800 Sep 5, 2013
	Nikon Coolpix S02 Sep 5, 2013
	Sony Cyber-shot DSC-QX10 Sep 4, 2013
	Sony Cyber-shot DSC-QX100 Sep 4, 2013
	Sony Alpha A3000 Aug 27, 2013
	Sony Alpha NEX-5T Aug 27, 2013

##### WHAT HAVE YOU DONE IN M43 THIS WEEK? #####	150
Okay Fuji, so now that the experiment is over....	107
>>> Street Photography eXchange #65 <<<	90
How many shots do you take to get a shot?	83
While everyone ooohs and aaaahs over the ...	78
D610 to be announced within 48 hours (as of 10/5)	78
More leaks about K3 specifications	72
Anyone for Sunday Scapes (2013-10-06) ?	66
E-M1 Trouble focusing on moving objects	55
7D inconsistent focusing	49
After 3 weeks & thousands of shots: NEX-6 + ...	49
The Sunday BIRD Volume 9, Issue 15 October 6, 2013	47
Counterfeit lens caps from Amazon	42
GX7: Extended ISO125 Image Degradation?	38
Help deciding between Sony NEX-6 or Olympus ...	36
E-M1 as E-5 successor - first week experience	35
Weekend Catch : 5-6 October 2013	34
X-pro1 vs x-a1 (or is it X-A1 vs X-pro1) using ...	32
I'm going broke buying E-M5 Eyecups!	32
Sensor Technology (The Software Engineer Way)	31

Your email address:
Your name: