Reading mode: Light Dark

Photographylife's 80-400 af-s review up

Go to last post
ralphcramdon said:
ralphcramdon wrote:

that's why I never read reviews:-)

his comments about the 1st 80-400 are completely wrong, I wonder if he ever owned one
Click to expand...
FYI - he owned two. The first one went back and the replacement was better.

Giving him a hard time without reading the whole review seems a little bit cavalier. However, his main issues - AF chattering under some circumstances, abysmal tripod foot, value.

The sharpness comparisons were done using Imatest rather than just looking at test charts - similar to photozone.de tests.

Some of the comparisons were against: 300f4, 300f4 + 1.4, 200-400f4, Sigma 50-500

One of the things that he was also looking at was value. Most of us want to use the 400 at 400 so quality at that range is important.

There are lots of reviews on the 'net of this lens but not a lot of images taken at 400mm f5.6, lots and lots at f8 but far fewer can be found at 5.6. There are many folks who don't want to spend $$$ on the lens if the value is not there, so a review with comparisons like this one are actually useful to many of us.

For instance I have the 70-200 f2.8, the 300 f4 and the latest TC1.4 (II?). So will spending $2700 on the 80-400 give me better quality (sharpness, contrast, colour)?

The review says that the contrast and colour are marginally better on the new nano-coated lens but the tests show the sharpness is just a little lower (marginally) when comparing against 300f4 +1.4C.

So what will you get for the $2700 if you already have the combination 300f4 +1.4C? Slightly better IQ, slightly faster AF (although there may be chattering to give one something to think about) and VR. But is the difference worth $2700, possibly, but most likely not.

If you have the pockets, he suggests the 200-400 is clearly better (not a big suprise of course).

If you have the 300f4 +1.4C, you probably won't see any great improvements at 400mm with the 80-400 based on his tests.

If a great, reasonably light zoom in this range is what you are looking for then this is possibly the one to get. But he also suggests looking at the 50-500 for 1/2 the price.

PROS - best zoom in the range after the 200-400, VRII, great versatility, light for the range, good colour/contrast

CONS - AF chatter, slower lens with 5.6@400, sharpness may be lower depending upon your mileage, need to get a new collar, price.

I find the review helpful myself, and no I have never used the 80-400. I am considering it, I am considering the 200-400 as well. I am also considering just sticking with my 300f4 +1.4 and spending the money on a trip somewhere.

Jon

ralphcramdon said:
The 80-400 AFs noticeably faster than the 300/4 + TC and produces better IQ.

AF on the 80-400 is amazingly fast and accurate.

My non DG 50-500 was not too good but I will assume the new one is a lot better, hell it has to be.

Anyway for anyone reading reviews and using them as a guide as to what to buy, consider reading comments from pros who use the gear and look at the output.
Click to expand...
 
Sold my 300F4 and 70-200f4 you fund the 80-400 2 weeks ago..no sellers remorse.I love this lens.Most impressive AF speed.The IQ is very good and the Bokeh is better than I expected..Together with the 17-55 on my D7100 Im preset much set for my shooting needs.
 
Thanks for putting up the link.

What I found interesting was that he gives sharpness MTF results for 80-400 with TC.

I'm not sure about the validity of my methodology, maybe someone else could chime in, but to offer a benefit of using a TC over cropping, the sharpness MTF value with the TC 14 would seem to have to be significantly higher than the sharpness MTF value without TC / 1.4.

My guess is that shooting the 80-400 at 400mm f/8 and cropping/enlarging 1.4x will lead to sharpness somewhere around 2703 / 1.4 = 1931. The results with the TC are 1792 (f/8) and 2085 (f/11). To me this suggests that cropping is better to shooting with the TC at f/8, and not significantly different at f/11.

Whether you're using a D4 or a D7100 will affect this - with more advantage for usage of TC's with lower resolution cameras like the D4 and less with the D7100. I'd bet that if the MTF tests were done with a D7100, the results would be clearly in favor of the bare lens and cropping...
 
David Gore said:
David Gore wrote:

Sold my 300F4 and 70-200f4 you fund the 80-400 2 weeks ago..no sellers remorse.I love this lens.Most impressive AF speed.The IQ is very good and the Bokeh is better than I expected..Together with the 17-55 on my D7100 Im preset much set for my shooting needs.

--
Dave
http://www.pbase.com/dsg2/daves_pictures
http://www.pbase.com/image/22632338/original.small jpg
Click to expand...
Sweet. Two lenses and almost the full range from 17 - 400 (or something like 30-600 equiv. on your 7100 - nice camera too). Great for travel and very versatile.

Jon
 
Corner shaprness seems better with the 300mm 2.8. Even at 8.0.
 
Hmmm... definitely not in line with other reviews I have read but Mansurov's reviews didn't steer me wrong for either the 24-120 or 16-35 so I put a lot of stock in what he says. I think he may have gotten a bad copy of the 80-400 though since everywhere else I have read seem to suggest the 80-400 f/5.6 is noticeably sharper at 400 f/5.6 than the 300 f/4 + 1.4 TC.

I also am wondering if he has a bad copy of the 1.7x TC. The one I just bought autofocuses just fine with the 300 f/4 mounted on a D600 and I do not really notice any loss of AF speed or accuracy and only a very slight loss in IQ, which more than made up by being able to shoot from longer distances.
 
Interesting to read the lens review especially the piece on AF “chattering”. I'd like to know how much he used the lens to come to this conclusion or was it just a one off.

Reason being that I have had a similar experience on my 80-400 this week – but it was definitely a one off. I am now over 5,000 shots and the AF has been absolutely brilliant. Yesterday I was out shooting Red Kites and out of 500 shots (all in flight) 90% were pin sharp and the other 10% were focussed on the background (my poor aim).

Earlier in the week though I went out birding and struggled a bit with the AF performing strange. It did quite a bit of “chattering” and also on 3 occasions after focussing short (using FULL), I had to manually turn the focus ring to get a long shot. No changes to normal shooting conditions. The weather was very very bright (unusually) – and the review mentioned this. Could it be the AF (AFc – 9 point) was being fooled by very high contrast, brown bird to background and then very low contrast, within the brown bird for the "chattering"? ….or was it a power problem? The battery was fully charged but I had changed the lens just before the shoot – could it have been bad connections – it certainly felt unusual but not to the point where I would complain or worry. I just raise it now as it seems to fit what was in the review. The following day (and after another lens change) it was back to normal – stunning AF.

I think others reporting problems with AF may not be seeing the same thing as this as I have not heard this specific chattering issue mentioned before.

Andy
 
rinjani said:
rinjani wrote:
rinjani said:
ralphcramdon wrote:

that's why I never read reviews:-)

his comments about the 1st 80-400 are completely wrong, I wonder if he ever owned one
Click to expand...
FYI - he owned two. The first one went back and the replacement was better.

Giving him a hard time without reading the whole review seems a little bit cavalier. However, his main issues - AF chattering under some circumstances, abysmal tripod foot, value.

The sharpness comparisons were done using Imatest rather than just looking at test charts - similar to photozone.de tests.

Some of the comparisons were against: 300f4, 300f4 + 1.4, 200-400f4, Sigma 50-500

One of the things that he was also looking at was value. Most of us want to use the 400 at 400 so quality at that range is important.

There are lots of reviews on the 'net of this lens but not a lot of images taken at 400mm f5.6, lots and lots at f8 but far fewer can be found at 5.6. There are many folks who don't want to spend $$$ on the lens if the value is not there, so a review with comparisons like this one are actually useful to many of us.

For instance I have the 70-200 f2.8, the 300 f4 and the latest TC1.4 (II?). So will spending $2700 on the 80-400 give me better quality (sharpness, contrast, colour)?

The review says that the contrast and colour are marginally better on the new nano-coated lens but the tests show the sharpness is just a little lower (marginally) when comparing against 300f4 +1.4C.

So what will you get for the $2700 if you already have the combination 300f4 +1.4C? Slightly better IQ, slightly faster AF (although there may be chattering to give one something to think about) and VR. But is the difference worth $2700, possibly, but most likely not.

If you have the pockets, he suggests the 200-400 is clearly better (not a big suprise of course).

If you have the 300f4 +1.4C, you probably won't see any great improvements at 400mm with the 80-400 based on his tests.

If a great, reasonably light zoom in this range is what you are looking for then this is possibly the one to get. But he also suggests looking at the 50-500 for 1/2 the price.

PROS - best zoom in the range after the 200-400, VRII, great versatility, light for the range, good colour/contrast

CONS - AF chatter, slower lens with 5.6@400, sharpness may be lower depending upon your mileage, need to get a new collar, price.

I find the review helpful myself, and no I have never used the 80-400. I am considering it, I am considering the 200-400 as well. I am also considering just sticking with my 300f4 +1.4 and spending the money on a trip somewhere.

Jon
Click to expand...
I think his article was mostly quite good, but I thought just a little overly critical in some areas. I have used the 300 f4 + 1.4x TCII and I think that the 80-400 is just as sharp, however much more versatile due to zoom range and VR. If I had both, I would always opt for the 80-400.

The 200-400 suggestion is a little bit of a silly one. Obviously if you could afford it, yes you'd probably buy it, but then that's not the point, the 200-400 is very heavy, large and combersome in comparison and should not be thought of in the same light as the 80-400. I have the 300 f2.8 VRII and use the TC's with it, and also the 500 f4 VR, however, I still purchased the 80-400 for a lightweight zoom option, especially for travel when a large zoom or prime just won't do due to the weight and size.

I found the lens performed brilliantly at f5.6 and 400mm. Never witnessed any "AF chattering" and I was shooting in some very dim light at the zoo when I was giving it a trial run yesterday.

So far, I think the 80-400 is brilliant, even for the AU$3,000 price tag.

Whilst these are not definitive, all these are at f5.6 and the ISO is between ISO2500 and 6400, so there is some loss of detail due to that:

original.jpg


original.jpg


Crop of above:

original.jpg


original.jpg


--
Lance B
http://www.pbase.com/lance_b
http://i.pbase.com/o4/21/489821/1/53232844.SydneyPanoVertSmall.jpg
 
Last edited:
They say choice is good.... but every 'test' on this lens seems to come to a slightly different conclusion.

Weakest at 400mm, weakest at 300mm. Better than 300f4 with tc, worse than 300f4 with tc. Better than Sigma, worse than Sigma. Rock solid AF, Focus chattering.

Either the testing is very poor (probable) or there is significant sample variation (possible). Either way I wouldn't take reviews too seriously. If you're interested then give it a try. I'm assuming my lens must be a good copy, but if I'd read through some of these 'factual' reviews before making my mind up I might not have bought one of the most remarkable lenses on the market.
--
Have Fun
Photo Pete
 
Reading a review for a lens is somewhat like reading a review of a movie. It depends on how you approach it and what you like (okay, that's too simplistic) -- but I read all the reviews and decided to take a chance and buy it anyway.

Overpriced? In my opinion everything is overpriced. But I don't like mixing metaphors any more than I like mixing manufacturers, so I stick with Nikon (for better or worse).

In this case, the 80-400 was a complete surprise. IMHO this lens is as good as my 70-200 2.8 and now sits on my D800E full time. When I need longer range I put it on my D7100 and leave my Nikon 600mm f4 in the box saving it only for serious shoots.

I have a technical background, but IMHO cameras and lenses are much like stereo (surround sound?) systems. You can pick apart all the specs all day long, but in the end, its all in how it sounds.
 
My experience with the lens, which I had for 2 months, was disappointing and I sold it, at a great loss, and went back to my tried and tested 300mm f4 plus converters. As I enjoy bird photography, I was nearly always at 400mm and I found that I was rarely getting the real sharpness and feather detail that I was normally getting with the prime and 1x4 and 1x7. Results were just not consistent. Other people's views are very different to mine and perhaps, like the reviewer's first version, my copy wasn't representative.

http://s981.photobucket.com/user/JonTaverner/library/?sort=6&page=1
 
I never had a chance to try the new 80-400 but I had in my possession for a short period both the 300 afsf4 and the 200-400 f4. The results in the article by Nasim Mansurov for the 300mmf4 and 200-400f4 are the very same that I experienced during my non-scientific tests. I actually sold my 300mm and kept the 200-400 and so far I'm very happy with that lens. The only reason I sold the 300mm was to help pay the 200-400 a bit. The 300mm is a great portable lens and served me well for several years.
 
I've experienced the sporadic chattering problem with my 70-300 VR. It will drive you nuts! This is the 2nd luke-warm review of this lens I have read (the other one was on Camera Lab's site). It would seem that its a decent lens but not great and simply not worth the price Nikon is charging for it.
 
Perhaps I just got a stellar copy but thid lens has exceeded my expectations...Thr color,contrast,sharpness are all top notch even with the tc 1.4....Im really amazed at just how good it is on my D7100.Im not a pro by any means but a very happy hobbyist with this combo.
 
I'm way more than pleased with my 80-400. The sharpness looks nearly identical to my 70-200VRII, maybe even better at times. It's better for close-ups too, and works great with my Kenko extension tube set. Speaking of the AF chattering, my 70-200VRII was chattering yesterday while on the tripod and using AF-C focusig with the back button. The chattering did remind to to check the VR (which should not have been used while on the tripod) and switch it off. The chattering stopped so it might be when VR and C focus is being used at the same time ..? Anyway, a good reminder for me to turn the VR off!
 
still waiting said:
I've experienced the sporadic chattering problem with my 70-300 VR. It will drive you nuts! This is the 2nd luke-warm review of this lens I have read (the other one was on Camera Lab's site). It would seem that its a decent lens but not great and simply not worth the price Nikon is charging for it.
Click to expand...
That's not my experience with it. Superb lens.

Must be sample variation.
--
Have Fun
Photo Pete
 
still waiting said:
still waiting wrote:

I've experienced the sporadic chattering problem with my 70-300 VR. It will drive you nuts! This is the 2nd luke-warm review of this lens I have read (the other one was on Camera Lab's site).
Click to expand...
Luke warm? It gave it a "highly recommended" recommendation. Hardly "luke warm". From Camera Labs:

Good points
Excellent image quality across a 36Mp full-frame sensor even wide open.
Excellent image stabilization up to 200mm.
Weather sealing.
Quiet, fast, and precise AF operation.
Maximum magnification of 1:5.1.
Relatively light weight.

Bad points
Very expensive.
Flimsy tripod collar.
Image stabilization at 400mm reduces to only 2 stops.
Up to 50% 'shrinkage' at 400mm and minimum focus distance.

The bad points are a non issue for me and I bet most others.
still waiting said:
It would seem that its a decent lens but not great and simply not worth the price Nikon is charging for it.
Click to expand...
That's subjective. What is there in that price range that is as good or as compact?
 
Lance B said:
Lance B said:
still waiting wrote:

I've experienced the sporadic chattering problem with my 70-300 VR. It will drive you nuts! This is the 2nd luke-warm review of this lens I have read (the other one was on Camera Lab's site).
Click to expand...
Luke warm? It gave it a "highly recommended" recommendation. Hardly "luke warm". From Camera Labs:

Good points
Excellent image quality across a 36Mp full-frame sensor even wide open.
Excellent image stabilization up to 200mm.
Weather sealing.
Quiet, fast, and precise AF operation.
Maximum magnification of 1:5.1.
Relatively light weight.

Bad points
Very expensive.
Flimsy tripod collar.
Image stabilization at 400mm reduces to only 2 stops.
Up to 50% 'shrinkage' at 400mm and minimum focus distance.

The bad points are a non issue for me and I bet most others.
Lance B said:
It would seem that its a decent lens but not great and simply not worth the price Nikon is charging for it.
Click to expand...
That's subjective. What is there in that price range that is as good or as compact?
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top