Reading mode: Light Dark

80/400VR

Go to last post
M

Mike Delaney

Senior Member
Messages
2,147
Reaction score
0
Location
Greenwood, IN, US
I hope someone out there has been using this lens with the D-1, it would make my decision a lot easier! I have been waiting for a year for the 80-400 VR lens, anyone who has looked into this knows how SLOW they have been getting into the retailers. Last week, I thought I'd forget the thing and go with the new 300/4 AFS, I got it, and I think it is a great lens for wildlife shooting, especially large birds on the wing. Today, I got a call, and the 80/400 will be in tomorrow. I can take the 300 back, and pay the difference, or keep both. I already have the 80/200 AFS, which I use for football and racing. Question is, to anyone already familiar with the VR lens, do I need the 300?? I have read all of the info that is out there on the VR, but I need to get a reaction from someone USING this lens in the field. Any help would be appreciated!
Mike
 
Hi Mike: Use the search function in dpreview, ie: show Nikon 80-400vr in the search field and use 'all forums' for the search database. You'll get plenty of info on the Nikon 80-400vr.
Mike said:
I hope someone out there has been using this lens with the D-1, it
would make my decision a lot easier! I have been waiting for a
year for the 80-400 VR lens, anyone who has looked into this knows
how SLOW they have been getting into the retailers. Last week, I
thought I'd forget the thing and go with the new 300/4 AFS, I got
it, and I think it is a great lens for wildlife shooting,
especially large birds on the wing. Today, I got a call, and the
80/400 will be in tomorrow. I can take the 300 back, and pay the
difference, or keep both. I already have the 80/200 AFS, which I
use for football and racing. Question is, to anyone already
familiar with the VR lens, do I need the 300?? I have read all of
the info that is out there on the VR, but I need to get a reaction
from someone USING this lens in the field. Any help would be
appreciated!
Mike
Click to expand...
 
I've used this lens for about 3 days since I got it. All I can say is that it's pretty amazing on the AF speed on the D1 outdoor but pretty slow indoor. Different lighting situation does effect the performance of this lens. Instead, I'm lugging my 80-200 AFS more for low light shooting.

The speed is not as fast as the AFS but does do the job if you need the lenght and the VR.
 
My wife and I picked up this lens just last week, so we don't have a lot of experience with it yet. However we certainly have very much liked our few hours so far! The lens itself is well finished and easy to handle. The images are sharp, contrasty and we haven't detected any centre "hot spotting". The close focus distance is short enough to be barely tolerable for song birds (any closer and they fly away) but it still gives good subject size on 35mm. It should be even better with the D1 (we're waiting for a D1x, are impressions are with the lens on an F5).

Last Saturday we went out to test the lens at a nearby bird sanctuary. My results were not so good - I put it down to overenthusiasm. Most of my attempts with Red-winged Blackbirds and Tohees were fuzzy because of the extremely shallow depth of field - and even though the VR was working, the birds keep moving! Irmgard, I must admit, pulled in a number of good pictures of Northern Shoveller Ducks. She has a photo of a Great Blue Heron taken at 400mm with only 1/80 sec that's very sharp throughout. I will post it on our website ( http://homepage.mac.com/gcarter ) this weekend, probably late Saturday night.

We have a 300mm f4, but it is the older camera-focused lens, not the new one with the silent-wave motor. So we haven't a basis for comparing focusing speed.

Gerald
Mike said:
I hope someone out there has been using this lens with the D-1, it
would make my decision a lot easier! I have been waiting for a
year for the 80-400 VR lens, anyone who has looked into this knows
how SLOW they have been getting into the retailers. Last week, I
thought I'd forget the thing and go with the new 300/4 AFS, I got
it, and I think it is a great lens for wildlife shooting,
especially large birds on the wing. Today, I got a call, and the
80/400 will be in tomorrow. I can take the 300 back, and pay the
difference, or keep both. I already have the 80/200 AFS, which I
use for football and racing. Question is, to anyone already
familiar with the VR lens, do I need the 300?? I have read all of
the info that is out there on the VR, but I need to get a reaction
from someone USING this lens in the field. Any help would be
appreciated!
Mike
Click to expand...
 
Mike, I own and love the lens on a D1 however I am not as qualified as a couple of people. Go to http://www.outbackphotot.com both Uwe S. the author and Ron Resnick have articles on lenses they use. Ron has an excellent write up on the 80-400 vs the 300 F4. He owns both and uses both on a regular basis and in his write up he gives likes and dislikes of each lens in each application. Uwe the author of outbackphoto.com also has a excellent recent photoreview of the 80-400 with the TC-14A. Either or both of these sources will give you what you need to help make a choice.

Paul C.
Mike said:
I hope someone out there has been using this lens with the D-1, it
would make my decision a lot easier! I have been waiting for a
year for the 80-400 VR lens, anyone who has looked into this knows
how SLOW they have been getting into the retailers. Last week, I
thought I'd forget the thing and go with the new 300/4 AFS, I got
it, and I think it is a great lens for wildlife shooting,
especially large birds on the wing. Today, I got a call, and the
80/400 will be in tomorrow. I can take the 300 back, and pay the
difference, or keep both. I already have the 80/200 AFS, which I
use for football and racing. Question is, to anyone already
familiar with the VR lens, do I need the 300?? I have read all of
the info that is out there on the VR, but I need to get a reaction
from someone USING this lens in the field. Any help would be
appreciated!
Mike
Click to expand...
 
You should read Bjørn Rørsletts write up to at http://www.foto.no/nikon/VR80_400_review.html
Paul Caldwell said:
Paul C.
Mike said:
I hope someone out there has been using this lens with the D-1, it
would make my decision a lot easier! I have been waiting for a
year for the 80-400 VR lens, anyone who has looked into this knows
how SLOW they have been getting into the retailers. Last week, I
thought I'd forget the thing and go with the new 300/4 AFS, I got
it, and I think it is a great lens for wildlife shooting,
especially large birds on the wing. Today, I got a call, and the
80/400 will be in tomorrow. I can take the 300 back, and pay the
difference, or keep both. I already have the 80/200 AFS, which I
use for football and racing. Question is, to anyone already
familiar with the VR lens, do I need the 300?? I have read all of
the info that is out there on the VR, but I need to get a reaction
from someone USING this lens in the field. Any help would be
appreciated!
Mike
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Here is my take:

Precondition you own the AF-S 80-200

1. You need 300 and no more and speed

Get TC-14E and with some restrictions the TC-20E with the 80-200

2. You shoot still objects a lot

Get 80-400 VR

3. You need longer than 300 for moving birds/Sports

Get AF-S 300 f/4 + TC-14E + TC-20E

The bennefit of the 80-200mm zoom and the 80-400 VR is the flexibility you get a you are able to zoom out.

For speedy situations the VR is not the right lens. We are fortunately two (Bettina and me) with 2 D1s and so we need two long lenses. That is why having both is a no brainer.

Uwe
Paul Caldwell said:
Paul C.
Mike said:
I hope someone out there has been using this lens with the D-1, it
would make my decision a lot easier! I have been waiting for a
year for the 80-400 VR lens, anyone who has looked into this knows
how SLOW they have been getting into the retailers. Last week, I
thought I'd forget the thing and go with the new 300/4 AFS, I got
it, and I think it is a great lens for wildlife shooting,
especially large birds on the wing. Today, I got a call, and the
80/400 will be in tomorrow. I can take the 300 back, and pay the
difference, or keep both. I already have the 80/200 AFS, which I
use for football and racing. Question is, to anyone already
familiar with the VR lens, do I need the 300?? I have read all of
the info that is out there on the VR, but I need to get a reaction
from someone USING this lens in the field. Any help would be
appreciated!
Mike
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
THANKS TO ALL WHO RESPONDED SO QUICKLY! I think I have enough amo to take care of this battle of wants and wallet tomorrow . For now, I'll keep the 80/200 AFS, return the 300-4 AFS, and pick up the 80/400.
Thanks again
Mike
Mike said:
I hope someone out there has been using this lens with the D-1, it
would make my decision a lot easier! I have been waiting for a
year for the 80-400 VR lens, anyone who has looked into this knows
how SLOW they have been getting into the retailers. Last week, I
thought I'd forget the thing and go with the new 300/4 AFS, I got
it, and I think it is a great lens for wildlife shooting,
especially large birds on the wing. Today, I got a call, and the
80/400 will be in tomorrow. I can take the 300 back, and pay the
difference, or keep both. I already have the 80/200 AFS, which I
use for football and racing. Question is, to anyone already
familiar with the VR lens, do I need the 300?? I have read all of
the info that is out there on the VR, but I need to get a reaction
from someone USING this lens in the field. Any help would be
appreciated!
Mike
Click to expand...
 
Mike, I have both lenses. Here is the situation:

As you know from your 80-200 AFS, the high-speed focusing allows you to acquire and track subjects that are moving rapidly. The VR, even when setting the focus-range limiter, is very, very slow to focus in comparison to an AFS lens. For action, you'd want to use your 80-200 AFS or 300 AFS. The only sure way to get an action shot with the VR is the same as you used with a manual-focus tele -- prefocus to the range, and use the manual focus ring. The lens does have an M/F ring similar to the one on the 105mm Micro, so switching to MF is pretty rapid (doesn't require switching the camera).

The contrast on the VR is a bit less than the 300/4 AFS. It's a teeny bit softer as well, and a little more subject to flare.

With that said, not only is the range of the lens exceptional, but the VR itself allows you to quite often get an impossible shot. I've taken usable shots at 1/20-1/30 at 400mm of static subjects. Hand-held. This isn't guaranteed to work of course -- you need a solid handholding technique for certain if you want to hold more than about a stop under the reciprocal of the focal length. It's very easy to get a 1/100 sec. shot at 400mm though. This is nearly impossible with the 300mm hand-held.

Ron Reznick
http://digital-images.net
http://trapagon.com
Mike said:
I hope someone out there has been using this lens with the D-1, it
would make my decision a lot easier! I have been waiting for a
year for the 80-400 VR lens, anyone who has looked into this knows
how SLOW they have been getting into the retailers. Last week, I
thought I'd forget the thing and go with the new 300/4 AFS, I got
it, and I think it is a great lens for wildlife shooting,
especially large birds on the wing. Today, I got a call, and the
80/400 will be in tomorrow. I can take the 300 back, and pay the
difference, or keep both. I already have the 80/200 AFS, which I
use for football and racing. Question is, to anyone already
familiar with the VR lens, do I need the 300?? I have read all of
the info that is out there on the VR, but I need to get a reaction
from someone USING this lens in the field. Any help would be
appreciated!
Mike
Click to expand...
 
Ron,

I picked up the 80/400 this morning. I took it out this afternoon, put it on the D-1 and shot about a hundred frames with it. MOST of these were bird shots, which, for the most part are pretty incredible. I was worried about some of the replies, and other posts I have read on this lens, but then some of the shots that you have posted kept telling me that it could not be as bad as some people think it is. Another factor was that out of the very few lens that have come in, my dealer has not had any returned. I had been using the older model 300/4, and got used to it, you have to admit, the VR lens is a least as fast or faster than that one. The range is THE selling point for me though. 120/600, and at the very least, moderately hand holdable with publishable results. I have to do swimming and diving championships tomorrow, I am definitly using the 80/200 AFS, but I bet the ranch that I'll get useable stuff with the VR also. Thanks for the input, and by the way, great site.
Mike
Ron Reznick said:
As you know from your 80-200 AFS, the high-speed focusing allows
you to acquire and track subjects that are moving rapidly. The VR,
even when setting the focus-range limiter, is very, very slow to
focus in comparison to an AFS lens. For action, you'd want to use
your 80-200 AFS or 300 AFS. The only sure way to get an action shot
with the VR is the same as you used with a manual-focus tele --
prefocus to the range, and use the manual focus ring. The lens does
have an M/F ring similar to the one on the 105mm Micro, so
switching to MF is pretty rapid (doesn't require switching the
camera).

The contrast on the VR is a bit less than the 300/4 AFS. It's a
teeny bit softer as well, and a little more subject to flare.

With that said, not only is the range of the lens exceptional, but
the VR itself allows you to quite often get an impossible shot.
I've taken usable shots at 1/20-1/30 at 400mm of static subjects.
Hand-held. This isn't guaranteed to work of course -- you need a
solid handholding technique for certain if you want to hold more
than about a stop under the reciprocal of the focal length. It's
very easy to get a 1/100 sec. shot at 400mm though. This is nearly
impossible with the 300mm hand-held.

Ron Reznick
http://digital-images.net
http://trapagon.com
Mike said:
I hope someone out there has been using this lens with the D-1, it
would make my decision a lot easier! I have been waiting for a
year for the 80-400 VR lens, anyone who has looked into this knows
how SLOW they have been getting into the retailers. Last week, I
thought I'd forget the thing and go with the new 300/4 AFS, I got
it, and I think it is a great lens for wildlife shooting,
especially large birds on the wing. Today, I got a call, and the
80/400 will be in tomorrow. I can take the 300 back, and pay the
difference, or keep both. I already have the 80/200 AFS, which I
use for football and racing. Question is, to anyone already
familiar with the VR lens, do I need the 300?? I have read all of
the info that is out there on the VR, but I need to get a reaction
from someone USING this lens in the field. Any help would be
appreciated!
Mike
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Mike,

If you plan to use the 80-400 for football and basketball,etc.. it will not replace the 300 F4AFS,but if it's for wildlife , certainly you don't need the 300.
rgds, Amine
Mike said:
I hope someone out there has been using this lens with the D-1, it
would make my decision a lot easier! I have been waiting for a
year for the 80-400 VR lens, anyone who has looked into this knows
how SLOW they have been getting into the retailers. Last week, I
thought I'd forget the thing and go with the new 300/4 AFS, I got
it, and I think it is a great lens for wildlife shooting,
especially large birds on the wing. Today, I got a call, and the
80/400 will be in tomorrow. I can take the 300 back, and pay the
difference, or keep both. I already have the 80/200 AFS, which I
use for football and racing. Question is, to anyone already
familiar with the VR lens, do I need the 300?? I have read all of
the info that is out there on the VR, but I need to get a reaction
from someone USING this lens in the field. Any help would be
appreciated!
Mike
Click to expand...
 
I used to have the 300/4 AF EDIF (nice lens, but geologic AF speed), and sold it to get the 300/4 AFS. The VR is faster than that, but when I'm trying to get locked on a moving subject with the VR I nearly always go MF. It's just too slow. Otherwise, it's a great lens and I use mine a lot.

I'm glad you enjoyed the site Mike. Right now, I've about halfway through the creation of the last year's portfolios, and once I have them done the entire imaging website is going to be revamped. Check it out in a few weeks... if you have the time.

Ron Reznick
http://digital-images.net
http://trapagon.com
Mike said:
Ron Reznick said:
As you know from your 80-200 AFS, the high-speed focusing allows
you to acquire and track subjects that are moving rapidly. The VR,
even when setting the focus-range limiter, is very, very slow to
focus in comparison to an AFS lens. For action, you'd want to use
your 80-200 AFS or 300 AFS. The only sure way to get an action shot
with the VR is the same as you used with a manual-focus tele --
prefocus to the range, and use the manual focus ring. The lens does
have an M/F ring similar to the one on the 105mm Micro, so
switching to MF is pretty rapid (doesn't require switching the
camera).

The contrast on the VR is a bit less than the 300/4 AFS. It's a
teeny bit softer as well, and a little more subject to flare.

With that said, not only is the range of the lens exceptional, but
the VR itself allows you to quite often get an impossible shot.
I've taken usable shots at 1/20-1/30 at 400mm of static subjects.
Hand-held. This isn't guaranteed to work of course -- you need a
solid handholding technique for certain if you want to hold more
than about a stop under the reciprocal of the focal length. It's
very easy to get a 1/100 sec. shot at 400mm though. This is nearly
impossible with the 300mm hand-held.

Ron Reznick
http://digital-images.net
http://trapagon.com
Mike said:
I hope someone out there has been using this lens with the D-1, it
would make my decision a lot easier! I have been waiting for a
year for the 80-400 VR lens, anyone who has looked into this knows
how SLOW they have been getting into the retailers. Last week, I
thought I'd forget the thing and go with the new 300/4 AFS, I got
it, and I think it is a great lens for wildlife shooting,
especially large birds on the wing. Today, I got a call, and the
80/400 will be in tomorrow. I can take the 300 back, and pay the
difference, or keep both. I already have the 80/200 AFS, which I
use for football and racing. Question is, to anyone already
familiar with the VR lens, do I need the 300?? I have read all of
the info that is out there on the VR, but I need to get a reaction
from someone USING this lens in the field. Any help would be
appreciated!
Mike
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Matter of opinion of course. Try shooting hummingbirds in flight, or any fast-moving bird in flight for that matter, with the VR vs. the AFS 300mm. Try catching a running bobcat or coyote, or other fast-moving critter.

The AFS wins for fast acquisition and tracking.

Ron
Amine said:
Mike said:
I hope someone out there has been using this lens with the D-1, it
would make my decision a lot easier! I have been waiting for a
year for the 80-400 VR lens, anyone who has looked into this knows
how SLOW they have been getting into the retailers. Last week, I
thought I'd forget the thing and go with the new 300/4 AFS, I got
it, and I think it is a great lens for wildlife shooting,
especially large birds on the wing. Today, I got a call, and the
80/400 will be in tomorrow. I can take the 300 back, and pay the
difference, or keep both. I already have the 80/200 AFS, which I
use for football and racing. Question is, to anyone already
familiar with the VR lens, do I need the 300?? I have read all of
the info that is out there on the VR, but I need to get a reaction
from someone USING this lens in the field. Any help would be
appreciated!
Mike
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
All,

Thanks again to everyone for their thoughts here. I have and will definitly keep the VR, BUT, I'm also going to get the 300 AFS back. I was out getting some shotsof Canada geese today for the state, the VR is good when they are in water, but like Ron mentioned, in flight is another ballgame. I might also go out on a limb here and say that in my opion, I think that the 300/4 AFS seemed sharper and quicker when compared to the 80/200 AFS. Like always, each lens has a job that it can do better than another, or like someone mentioned awhile back, in another post, it would be fantastic to have the 80/400 with AFS AND VR combined! Oh well, someday they will all be built like this.
Mike
Ron Reznick said:
The AFS wins for fast acquisition and tracking.

Ron
Amine said:
Mike said:
I hope someone out there has been using this lens with the D-1, it
would make my decision a lot easier! I have been waiting for a
year for the 80-400 VR lens, anyone who has looked into this knows
how SLOW they have been getting into the retailers. Last week, I
thought I'd forget the thing and go with the new 300/4 AFS, I got
it, and I think it is a great lens for wildlife shooting,
especially large birds on the wing. Today, I got a call, and the
80/400 will be in tomorrow. I can take the 300 back, and pay the
difference, or keep both. I already have the 80/200 AFS, which I
use for football and racing. Question is, to anyone already
familiar with the VR lens, do I need the 300?? I have read all of
the info that is out there on the VR, but I need to get a reaction
from someone USING this lens in the field. Any help would be
appreciated!
Mike
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
When I'm shooting long and there is even a possiblity of needing to shoot non-stationary animals, I carry both lenses (VR & 300AFS). I also carry the TC-14e for the 300mm, as it works very well even wide open (where it is a bit soft but eminently usable). Stopping down the VR to between f/8 and f/11 at 400mm gets the best results, stopping down the 300+TC to f/8 removes that little bit of softness. By itself, you can shoot the 300mm at f/4 with just a touch of softness as long as you focus carefully (DOF is shallow at f/4).

Both lenses most definitely have their place, and together make a very good pair for long work. The contrast and detail are a bit better on the prime, and of course DOF is shallower, but besides the AF speed issue the VR actually gets used more often at this time of year. When we hit summer that may change of course.

Ron
Mike said:
Ron Reznick said:
The AFS wins for fast acquisition and tracking.

Ron
Amine said:
Mike said:
I hope someone out there has been using this lens with the D-1, it
would make my decision a lot easier! I have been waiting for a
year for the 80-400 VR lens, anyone who has looked into this knows
how SLOW they have been getting into the retailers. Last week, I
thought I'd forget the thing and go with the new 300/4 AFS, I got
it, and I think it is a great lens for wildlife shooting,
especially large birds on the wing. Today, I got a call, and the
80/400 will be in tomorrow. I can take the 300 back, and pay the
difference, or keep both. I already have the 80/200 AFS, which I
use for football and racing. Question is, to anyone already
familiar with the VR lens, do I need the 300?? I have read all of
the info that is out there on the VR, but I need to get a reaction
from someone USING this lens in the field. Any help would be
appreciated!
Mike
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Hello Mike!
Mike said:
Thanks again to everyone for their thoughts here. I have and will
definitly keep the VR, BUT, I'm also going to get the 300 AFS back.
Click to expand...
I had the need for a longer lens too and decided to go with the TC14E (my longest lens is the the 80-200mm AFS at the moment) instead of buying the VR. The TC14E is surely a fine piece of glass but I'm afraid it doesn't offer the length I've been looking for.

I also found the need for higher shutter-speeds increase greatly. It's totally impossible to hand-hold a 200mm lens with the TC14E on the D1 (effectively 420mm when zoomed in). Below 1/250 and the image is soft. I can hand-hold a 200mm lens on the D1 (effectively 300mm) down to 1/125 (or lower when supporting the camera using a fence or similar).

You need a lot of light to reach 1/250 at, say, F6.3 and in the afternoon, that can be dificult to find. Therefore, a tripod/monopod is ESSENTIAL!

Are you of the same conclusion? Should I trade the TC14E back and get the VR instead?

I wish Nikon would produce a 200-400mm F2.8 AFS lens to cover the tele beyond the 80-200mm lens with many people use. I mean, why produce a lens which goes from 80-400mm? I find it interesting!

If I already own a lens which support the 80-200mm length, why invest in another lens that cover this area too? (obviously because of the longer length), but it's strange that they don't use the intervals between the lenses better.
i.e.
17-35mm AFS F2.8
28-80mm AFS F2.8
80-200mm AFS F2.8
Why not a 200-400mm AFS F2.8?

Even if it would pretty expensive, it would cover almost everything a user would need. Add to that the teleconverters and you're there.
 
Anders,

I have a 80-200AFS just like you and also the 80-400VR ... the advantage that I see from using both of these lenses are shooting in different type of lighting. Outdoor, I prefer the 80-400VR and since it's a VR making it hand holding possible while I shoot 80-200AFS mostly indoor.

At first I thought I can live just by using the TC but considering the VR is much worth it. Just MHO.
Anders Lundholm said:
Mike said:
Thanks again to everyone for their thoughts here. I have and will
definitly keep the VR, BUT, I'm also going to get the 300 AFS back.
Click to expand...
I had the need for a longer lens too and decided to go with the
TC14E (my longest lens is the the 80-200mm AFS at the moment)
instead of buying the VR. The TC14E is surely a fine piece of glass
but I'm afraid it doesn't offer the length I've been looking for.

I also found the need for higher shutter-speeds increase greatly.
It's totally impossible to hand-hold a 200mm lens with the TC14E on
the D1 (effectively 420mm when zoomed in). Below 1/250 and the
image is soft. I can hand-hold a 200mm lens on the D1 (effectively
300mm) down to 1/125 (or lower when supporting the camera using a
fence or similar).

You need a lot of light to reach 1/250 at, say, F6.3 and in the
afternoon, that can be dificult to find. Therefore, a
tripod/monopod is ESSENTIAL!

Are you of the same conclusion? Should I trade the TC14E back and
get the VR instead?

I wish Nikon would produce a 200-400mm F2.8 AFS lens to cover the
tele beyond the 80-200mm lens with many people use. I mean, why
produce a lens which goes from 80-400mm? I find it interesting!

If I already own a lens which support the 80-200mm length, why
invest in another lens that cover this area too? (obviously because
of the longer length), but it's strange that they don't use the
intervals between the lenses better.
i.e.
17-35mm AFS F2.8
28-80mm AFS F2.8
80-200mm AFS F2.8
Why not a 200-400mm AFS F2.8?
Even if it would pretty expensive, it would cover almost everything
a user would need. Add to that the teleconverters and you're there.
Click to expand...
 
Having spent days reading all of your comments regarding the 80-400VR I'm ready to buy one. But where? Does anyone know who has them at a decent price? Thanks in advance.

David
azuree said:
I have a 80-200AFS just like you and also the 80-400VR ... the
advantage that I see from using both of these lenses are shooting
in different type of lighting. Outdoor, I prefer the 80-400VR and
since it's a VR making it hand holding possible while I shoot
80-200AFS mostly indoor.

At first I thought I can live just by using the TC but considering
the VR is much worth it. Just MHO.
Anders Lundholm said:
Mike said:
Thanks again to everyone for their thoughts here. I have and will
definitly keep the VR, BUT, I'm also going to get the 300 AFS back.
Click to expand...
I had the need for a longer lens too and decided to go with the
TC14E (my longest lens is the the 80-200mm AFS at the moment)
instead of buying the VR. The TC14E is surely a fine piece of glass
but I'm afraid it doesn't offer the length I've been looking for.

I also found the need for higher shutter-speeds increase greatly.
It's totally impossible to hand-hold a 200mm lens with the TC14E on
the D1 (effectively 420mm when zoomed in). Below 1/250 and the
image is soft. I can hand-hold a 200mm lens on the D1 (effectively
300mm) down to 1/125 (or lower when supporting the camera using a
fence or similar).

You need a lot of light to reach 1/250 at, say, F6.3 and in the
afternoon, that can be dificult to find. Therefore, a
tripod/monopod is ESSENTIAL!

Are you of the same conclusion? Should I trade the TC14E back and
get the VR instead?

I wish Nikon would produce a 200-400mm F2.8 AFS lens to cover the
tele beyond the 80-200mm lens with many people use. I mean, why
produce a lens which goes from 80-400mm? I find it interesting!

If I already own a lens which support the 80-200mm length, why
invest in another lens that cover this area too? (obviously because
of the longer length), but it's strange that they don't use the
intervals between the lenses better.
i.e.
17-35mm AFS F2.8
28-80mm AFS F2.8
80-200mm AFS F2.8
Why not a 200-400mm AFS F2.8?
Even if it would pretty expensive, it would cover almost everything
a user would need. Add to that the teleconverters and you're there.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
The images have been posted...

Now I have a question. Is there any real benefit to having the VR on while partly pushing the shutter button?

I wonder if anyone has seen any definitive difference in the end images between the two "on" positions?

Gerald
Gerald Carter said:
My wife and I picked up this lens just last week, so we don't have
a lot of experience with it yet. However we certainly have very
much liked our few hours so far! The lens itself is well finished
and easy to handle. The images are sharp, contrasty and we haven't
detected any centre "hot spotting". The close focus distance is
short enough to be barely tolerable for song birds (any closer and
they fly away) but it still gives good subject size on 35mm. It
should be even better with the D1 (we're waiting for a D1x, are
impressions are with the lens on an F5).

Last Saturday we went out to test the lens at a nearby bird
sanctuary. My results were not so good - I put it down to
overenthusiasm. Most of my attempts with Red-winged Blackbirds and
Tohees were fuzzy because of the extremely shallow depth of field -
and even though the VR was working, the birds keep moving! Irmgard,
I must admit, pulled in a number of good pictures of Northern
Shoveller Ducks. She has a photo of a Great Blue Heron taken at
400mm with only 1/80 sec that's very sharp throughout. I will post
it on our website ( http://homepage.mac.com/gcarter ) this weekend,
probably late Saturday night.

We have a 300mm f4, but it is the older camera-focused lens, not
the new one with the silent-wave motor. So we haven't a basis for
comparing focusing speed.

Gerald
Mike said:
I hope someone out there has been using this lens with the D-1, it
would make my decision a lot easier! I have been waiting for a
year for the 80-400 VR lens, anyone who has looked into this knows
how SLOW they have been getting into the retailers. Last week, I
thought I'd forget the thing and go with the new 300/4 AFS, I got
it, and I think it is a great lens for wildlife shooting,
especially large birds on the wing. Today, I got a call, and the
80/400 will be in tomorrow. I can take the 300 back, and pay the
difference, or keep both. I already have the 80/200 AFS, which I
use for football and racing. Question is, to anyone already
familiar with the VR lens, do I need the 300?? I have read all of
the info that is out there on the VR, but I need to get a reaction
from someone USING this lens in the field. Any help would be
appreciated!
Mike
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
I just purchased one 80-400mm VR from
http://www.oanda.com/convert/classic

for $1521. They are a Canadian firm, but the price is as good as I found anyplace. The one caveat is that I got the last one they had, and it was the only one I found calling around. All the big shops said they were on wait-list. Lowest price was $1469 I found, but they didn't have it.

I also recommend Photo.Net Purchaser Info page to see what experience others have had with a potential seller at
http://www.photo.net/neighbor/opc.tcl?category_id=0

Mac Lingo
 
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