Nikon 80-400 v Nikon 200-400

Started Aug 4, 2007 | Discussions thread
raymond j barlow Veteran Member • Posts: 3,389
Re: Nikon 80-400 v Nikon 200-400

Finalshot wrote:

I missed the point of that golf analogy, I bought the 200-400 because
I needed better images than could possibly be achieved with the
80-400 - which I shot for three years - so my $6,000 dollar lens gets
me to the superbowel while the 80-400 leaves me at training camp.

Are you saying that because you dont know how to use a 5,000 set of
clubs that you wont play better, or are you saying that you dont
think you could improve your photographs with a $6000 lens? I
confused by the analogy. . .

-- hide signature --

Ok, well what I am saying that if you don't have good technique, and photography skills, It won;t matter if you have a 80-400, or a 200-400...

No doubt there are differences in the 2 lenses, but both are very good.

I went up to the 200-400 because I want the best possible quality in my images, I thought I kinda knew what I was doing when I had the 80-400, and my time with it helped me get started with the 200-400, but as we all know, the learning never stops.

I liked the 80-400, but I was never happy with the detail, but I am now learning that the detail issue had a lot to do with my technique., something that a lot of good photogs were telling me, but stubborn me, I never listen.

The 200-400 does give crisper images, better blokem, faster focusing, a great VR system, f4 when you need it, and 200-400 is a nice flexible range at a 1/4 turn of the zoom barrel.

The 80-400 will give you very good IQ, and the VR works nicely. I guess I went up to the 200-400 because I wanted to have nothing to blame.. if an image was junk, it sure is not the equipments fault.

Also, in nature photography, once in a while, your out there, and something amazing happens., having good equipment is cool, so you can do the best you can to get it recorded.

so, back to the golf analogy.. if I had a 500$ set of clubs, and went out and played my best possible round, I might shoot +8, if I had a 5000$ set, maybe a +7., there would not be a ton of difference, last night I was on a Screech owl, for about 10 minutes.. If I had both these lenses, side by side , same tripod kit on D200s, shooting the same exposure at the same time, doing my best, and printing 13x19s on my printer, I am sure there would be some difference, but nothing dramatic.

The 200-400 is great, the 80-400 is awesome too, it all depends on your budget, and needs.

sorry if I came accross in a confusing manner, this is just a hobby photogs opinion.

best regards, and here is the Owl shot if anyone is interested...

http://www.pbase.com/raymondjbarlow/image/83612246

my website ... http://www.rayswildlife.com

Post (hide subjects) Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow