Nikon 70-300 VR or 80-400 VR for Alaska vacation

I am planning Alaska vacation next summer. I need a good teleport lens for animals and whales shooting.

Currently I have an old Nikon 70-300 (no VR), which has very disappointing color and sharpness.

I think I have 2 options for lens, Nikon 70-300 VR and 80-400 VR

From Bjorn Rorslett who is a well known Nikon reviewer, 70-300 VR is much worse than 80-400 VR. Here is the link:
http://www.naturfotograf.com/lens_surv.html#top1

But 80-400 VR is much more expensive. I want to know whether it's really worth the money.

I currently have Nikon D300 and D70 with Nikon 18-200 DX VR, 18-70 DX, Tokina 12-24 DX II. And I am going to use a monopot for vacation shootings.

Which lens is better for me?

Thanks.

Bruce2000 said:

I am planning Alaska vacation next summer. I need a good teleport lens for animals and whales shooting.

Currently I have an old Nikon 70-300 (no VR), which has very disappointing color and sharpness.

I think I have 2 options for lens, Nikon 70-300 VR and 80-400 VR

From Bjorn Rorslett who is a well known Nikon reviewer, 70-300 VR is much worse than 80-400 VR. Here is the link:
http://www.naturfotograf.com/lens_surv.html#top1

But 80-400 VR is much more expensive. I want to know whether it's really worth the money.

I currently have Nikon D300 and D70 with Nikon 18-200 DX VR, 18-70 DX, Tokina 12-24 DX II. And I am going to use a monopot for vacation shootings.

Which lens is better for me?

Thanks.

Click to expand...

The 70-300 VR is a very good lense for the money, works on DX to. Not sure why Bjorn is so down on what is really a very good value. I owned this lens and liked it a lot on DX. Wish I still had it for FX.

For Alaska I don't think you can have too many MM. If I was going to shoot to capture the best wildlife Alaska or elswhere, I'd spring for or rent the 80-400 or possible a offbrand long/stablized lense. Yes they are expensive but the alternative is to not have enough zoom.

What you spend for really depends on are you going to print it at 11x17 or just 4x6 and view on a monitor. I'm for spending for what works for my viewing not measurabator or pixel peeping ( I do that but only to learn from it )

I like both lenses very much. For your scenario I would certainly choose the 80-400 VR but it's less forgiving of user technique than its shorter sibling.

You want to get in plenty of pre-trip practice with this lens to maximise your success with the long zoom. This is very important in my opinion.
--
-Holmes
http://holmes.zenfolio.com/

Not even close... go for the 80-400mm.

And while you're near, drop by Barrow for a visit!

Seriously... people spend a lot of money to get to Alaska and then drive around the highway system looking at the Alaska that is most similar to home. A waste of money! Spend a few days in Barrow and you'll see something unlike anything in the Lower-48!

Ap'a

Thanks for the suggestion. I think I will go for 80-400 VR. The next thing I need to think of is that whether I buy or rent this lens.

My vacation plan is to take a cruise vacation from Seward to Vancouver. Before the cruise, I will stay in Anchorage and Seward for totally 3 days. So I don't have time to go to Barrow this time. Hopefully, I can go there in the future if I have time and money.

I went to Banff national park in Alberta this summer. It's amazing. That's why I decided to go to Alaska next summer. But from photos posted on the internet, I think pictures from Banff national park is better than the pictures taken in Alaska. But in Banff, they don't have whales for sure

I will see it myself next summer.

You know, by next summer when you take your trip, many of us are hoping Nikon comes out with the replacement for the venerable 80-400 VR. One that focuses faster and doesn't need to be stopped down as much at the tele end.

I wouldn't buy it just yet...

I have the 80-400 and had a fabulous time with it in August 2008 in Alaska. It certainly did everything I asked it to.

But the idea that this is an old design and maybe up for replacement is valid. My question is, what are the odds that Nikon will produce something at this focal length with modernized VR for less money than the current lens? IMHO, that's not likely at all, which makes the competition a viable option.

I suggest you look into the Sigma 120-400 and 150-500, both stabilized lenses, and distinctly cheaper than the Nikon. That's what I'd be doing if I was in the market right now. Do some searching in this and other forums for user reviews and samples from these lenses. If you have access to a well-stocked camera store, the best bet would be to put one on your 300 and see for yourself.

I agree with the statement that you can't have too many mm's - never heard anyone come back from Alaska saying I didn't need that long lens at all!

You have the luxury of time - your schedule allows you plenty of time to look around. And follow the advice about practicing with whatever you buy - you don't want to try to learn a brand new lens in the middle of the trip of a lifetime.

Some searches here and other forums on places to go while in Alaska will also yield a wealth of information from people who've done what you're going to do.

very interested in the opinions regarding the 80-400 for Alaska. this is a trip I hope to be taking 2011.

while I'd luv to bring the 400/2.8, something much more portable like the 80-400 may make more sense doing the cruise ship thing.

bflood said:

I suggest you look into the Sigma 120-400 and 150-500, both stabilized lenses, and distinctly cheaper than the Nikon. That's what I'd be doing if I was in the market right now. Do some searching in this and other forums for user reviews and samples from these lenses. If you have access to a well-stocked camera store, the best bet would be to put one on your 300 and see for yourself.

Click to expand...

Sorry for asking a simple question, but are Sigma 120-400 and 150-500 both full frame lenses?

Thanks.

The 80-400 sounds like a good idea. Have you considered buying a used one? Just checked KEH Camera in Atlanta. They have a couple used ones in the $1200s. Buying used would allow youto purchase the lens, use it awhile, and sell it after your trip without losing much at all on the deal.

Alan
--
http://arclark.smugmug.com/

Bruce2000 said:

From Bjorn Rorslett who is a well known Nikon reviewer, 70-300 VR is much worse than 80-400 VR. Here is the link:
http://www.naturfotograf.com/lens_surv.html#top1

Click to expand...

The 70-300mm VR is an outstanding lens, I own one, especially if you are gonna shoot outdoor, f-stop wouldn't be an issue. So I am really surprised if someone say that 70-300 VR is much worse than "blah blah blah". Worse - yes; but much worse? Give me a break. Under sunny day 70-300 VR can even compete 70-200 f/2.8.

Bruce2000 said:

I think I have 2 options for lens, Nikon 70-300 VR and 80-400 VR

From Bjorn Rorslett who is a well known Nikon reviewer, 70-300 VR is much worse than 80-400 VR. Here is the link:
http://www.naturfotograf.com/lens_surv.html#top1

Click to expand...

Actually, I don't think you've properly characterized Bjorn's remarks. He gives the 70-300 a 4- rating and the 80-400 a 4 rating. His main concern with the 70-300 is the CA at longer focal lengths. Otherwise he says the "70-300 delivers crisp and sharp images all along its zooming range" and that it's a good value for the money. Keep in mind that when he lauded the tack sharp images he could get with the 80-400 at 1/15 second, this was an early experience with VR. The 70-300 came along later, so he didn't place the same emphasis on that feature.

Looking at Photozone ratings, the 70-300 provides better sharpness than the 80-400 within their common range.

The main advantage of the 80-400 is its reach.

Alan
--
http://arclark.smugmug.com/

Don't know how much you care about IQ, but renting 400/2.8 + TC1.4 or the 200-400, it would be what I'd prefer to take with me. Also some sort of WA zoom/prime and 80-200 or 70-200. AK is huge and beautiful, and it takes long time to cover. I know a little about it, since I worked there 3 seasons in early 90's.

Leswick

ARClark said:

Actually, I don't think you've properly characterized Bjorn's remarks. He gives the 70-300 a 4- rating and the 80-400 a 4 rating. His main concern with the 70-300 is the CA at longer focal lengths. Otherwise he says the "70-300 delivers crisp and sharp images all along its zooming range" and that it's a good value for the money. Keep in mind that when he lauded the tack sharp images he could get with the 80-400 at 1/15 second, this was an early experience with VR. The 70-300 came along later, so he didn't place the same emphasis on that feature.

Looking at Photozone ratings, the 70-300 provides better sharpness than the 80-400 within their common range.

The main advantage of the 80-400 is its reach.

Click to expand...

+1 Astute observations. You have to fully read a review and consider when it was written relative to other comparisons. I would have thought Bjorn was panning the 70-300VR and that doesn't make much sense...
--
Lora

I've been on Dpreview since June 2006. Unfortunately, some posting history has been lost along the way...

what about a 300mmf4 +a Tc.More reach, better IQ, reasonable weight, reasonable price and at least here it is possible to find it second hand.But you will need a tripod as well, which would be less necessary with the 70-300VR

lac111 said:

ARClark said:

Actually, I don't think you've properly characterized Bjorn's remarks. He gives the 70-300 a 4- rating and the 80-400 a 4 rating. His main concern with the 70-300 is the CA at longer focal lengths. Otherwise he says the "70-300 delivers crisp and sharp images all along its zooming range" and that it's a good value for the money. Keep in mind that when he lauded the tack sharp images he could get with the 80-400 at 1/15 second, this was an early experience with VR. The 70-300 came along later, so he didn't place the same emphasis on that feature.

Looking at Photozone ratings, the 70-300 provides better sharpness than the 80-400 within their common range.

The main advantage of the 80-400 is its reach.

Click to expand...

+1 Astute observations. You have to fully read a review and consider when it was written relative to other comparisons. I would have thought Bjorn was panning the 70-300VR and that doesn't make much sense...
--
Lora

Click to expand...

Bruce,

if you re-read the Bjorn Rorslett reviews, you'll note that the ratings were assessed using quite different cameras: D1 (80-400) and D2X/D3 (70-300 VR). Therefore, these ratings are not comparable, IMO. And if we insist to do a sort of comparison, well I'd say that a 4- rating on D2x is "higher" than 4 on D1 ...

Anyway, I use my 80-400 on D300 and I really like it for its versatility and FL range.

Consider that using VR at 400 mm FL is not easy. Sometimes people say that the performance of the 80-400 at the long end is not so good. It depends probably on the fact that people pretend to use it @ 400 mm & 1/60 s and to take 100% of sharp pictures. Real life is more complicated ... Therefore, I'd suggest you to experiment with the lens (at different FLs and using different shutter speeds at each FL) before using it in the field. This will allow you taking a lower number of blurred hand-held shots, particularly at FLs > 300 mm.
Have a nice trip to Alaska!

Regards,

Riccardo

--I frequently shoot shore birds from a bass boat and its been my experience that VR is ineffective under these circumstances. A cruise ship might be more forgiving, but maybe not.

I'd go for a fast lens instead. A Sigma 100-300 F4 might just be the ticket.

Photozone conclusion:

"The Sigma AF 100-300mm f/4 EX HSM DG is one of the most impressive Sigma lenses tested to date. It is able to deliver a near-flawless performance with great resolution figures, low vignetting, low distortions, low CAs and a very decent bokeh (albeit slightly underdeveloped regarding the moderate max. aperture unless your main subject is fairly close). It works reasonably well with the Sigma AF 1.4x DG EX converter but there's no free lunch here for obvious reasons. The Sigma is quite a monster of a lens but the combination of speed and focal length range simply takes its toll regarding size and weight requirements. The build quality is exceptionally high and combined with the snappy AF it was a joy to use the lens in the field."

joer56
http://www.pbase.com/joer

Took land tour\ cruise in Alaska in June. You want the 80-400mm and at times that is not long enough ( I also took a 1.4TC Kenko auto extender). Even on the bus ride through Denali needed the 400mm. But there are times you can crank back to 80mm. I would keep the 18-200mm on second camera and have ready for quick shots.

While on the ship there is opportunity for scenary shots but most if any wildlife if spotted is at a distance. In some cases when they spot a whale and announce it you are immediately past it. You might be luckier and get whale shots from the cruise ship but ours came from the side trip.

You can take the monopod but its not much use on ship. The ship is moving and bobbing all the time. I got my 80-400mm 2 months before the trip and went to the zoo in Cincinnati 4-6 times just practicing holding and shooting with the lens.

You could buy the lens and then sell. This was my attitude. But, I kept the lens and later bought a used 300mm AF F/4 on ebay for $525.

The two lenses off the ship I used the most was the 18-200mm for town and rain forest and the 80-400mm for every thing else. Used a 35mm while on ship for interior shots.

Ronald

I don't know where you read a negative review on the 70-300VR from Bjorn, here is a partial quote from his review of the 70-300VR :

"This lens is a further development of an affordable all-in-one zoom lens for the keen amateurs, and they get good value for their money too. The 70-300 delivers crisp and sharp images all along its zooming range, and the VR adds further practical usefulness to it (so would of course a faster speed, but then the lens would not be this compact, nor affordable). There is mild barrel distortion on the short end that quickly changes into the pincushion type, and this is manifestedly visible beyond 200 mm."

Myself, I have both the 70-300VR and the 80-400. Since I got the 70-300 I never use the 80-400.

Alaska is a land of many faces and generally speaking you can never have a lens that is too long or too wide and many times 400mm is not long enough while other times it is too long. I would take the 70-300 and a wider lens, something like the 18-105. If you go on a whale watching boat ride the 70-300 would be ideal while for a glacier watching boat ride the 18-105 would be ideal. The 70-300 is easier to handle on a small moving boat than the larger 80-400.

--
John

Recommend you use a beanbag instead of the monopod. Also, I found on my trip that high shutter speed, and therefore both high ISO and wide aperture (especially on the many cloudy days), is needed to get sharp images.
--
Howard