Nikon 80-400 4.5 VR ???

[Brian Penn]

Just wanted to know if anyone has used (or owns) the 80-400 4.5 VR? I am particularly interested in how it couples with the D100. Please let me know. I feel some money burning a hole in my pocket.
Thanks!
Brian

 

[B Petterson]

Yes and it works quite well.

Birger

 

[Mark Estrada]

Works very nicely on my D100, but the combo is not as well balanced as compared to the 80-400 on my D1x. For me, the heft and larger grip of the D1x makes it easier to handle and effectively use the combo. I'd suggest getting the hand grip for the D100. To me, the D100 has best balance with short lenses. 80-400 is well worth the money for the range and sharpness -- it's my primary shooting lens. Best when shot on bright days. If you work in low light and need faster focusing speed, I'd suggest the 80-200 f2.8 AFS.

Best bet is to go to a camera store and actually run your own tests and see how you like the feel and image quality. I usually take a blank CF card with me, test the lens in the store trying to simulate typical shooting conditions, and check it out on the computer at home before making a purchase.

Just wanted to know if anyone has used (or owns) the 80-400 4.5 VR?
I am particularly interested in how it couples with the D100.
Please let me know. I feel some money burning a hole in my pocket.
Thanks!
Brian

 

[Hendrix HK]

http://search.dpreview.com/forums/search.asp?query=80%7E400+VR&forum=1021&fields=subject

 

[Brian Penn]

Works very nicely on my D100, but the combo is not as well balanced
as compared to the 80-400 on my D1x. For me, the heft and larger
grip of the D1x makes it easier to handle and effectively use the
combo. I'd suggest getting the hand grip for the D100. To me, the
D100 has best balance with short lenses. 80-400 is well worth the
money for the range and sharpness -- it's my primary shooting lens.
Best when shot on bright days. If you work in low light and need
faster focusing speed, I'd suggest the 80-200 f2.8 AFS.

Best bet is to go to a camera store and actually run your own tests
and see how you like the feel and image quality. I usually take a
blank CF card with me, test the lens in the store trying to
simulate typical shooting conditions, and check it out on the
computer at home before making a purchase.

Thanks for the info, Mark. I have the grip for my D100. It does seem to help a little bit with heavier glass. It's a toss up between the 80-200 and 80-400, but I am leaning towards the 80-400 because of the VR. I will have to get out to the stores and try it out. I'll just have to tell my girlfriend I am picking up a filter... white lies here and there never hurt, right?

 

[Joe Hoddinott]

Works very nicely on my D100, but the combo is not as well balanced
as compared to the 80-400 on my D1x. For me, the heft and larger
grip of the D1x makes it easier to handle and effectively use the
combo. I'd suggest getting the hand grip for the D100. To me, the
D100 has best balance with short lenses. 80-400 is well worth the
money for the range and sharpness -- it's my primary shooting lens.
Best when shot on bright days. If you work in low light and need
faster focusing speed, I'd suggest the 80-200 f2.8 AFS.

I'll have to agree with you here. The 80-400 is very well balanced on the D1x because of the weight of the camera body. The D100 (even with the MBD100 grip) will feel a bit front heavy with this lens because of the body weight. This is just something that you will need to get used to.

That was a major adjustment when I tried some of my heavier glass that I frequently use on the D1x, on my D100.

--
Regards,
Joe H.

---------------------------------------
http://www.biggerboatstudios.com

(Sarcasm Included - some assembly required.)

 

[james meister]

Just wanted to know if anyone has used (or owns) the 80-400 4.5 VR?
I am particularly interested in how it couples with the D100.
Please let me know. I feel some money burning a hole in my pocket.
Thanks!
Brian

I was wondering if anybody has compared the 80-400VR at 400mm compared to the 80-200AFS plus the 2x tele at 400mm. I'm having a tough time deciding what to buy.

Thanks,
James

 

[Tom899]

Brian, I have the 80~400VR and D100. The VR technology is great. I am just blown away at the sharp results you can get in just about any hand held situation. I recently bought the MB-D100 grip, but don't see a difference in the way it feels. I guess this is because I grip the lens with my left hand to zoom, and hold the camera with my right. So, I'm not even touching the grip when I'm shooting. Maybe it's just the added weight that people like. In any case, It feels very comfortable to me with or without the grip. I own quite a few Nikor lenses, this is my favorite for hand held situations.
Tom B.

Just wanted to know if anyone has used (or owns) the 80-400 4.5 VR?
I am particularly interested in how it couples with the D100.
Please let me know. I feel some money burning a hole in my pocket.
Thanks!
Brian

 

[Brian Penn]

Brian, I have the 80~400VR and D100. The VR technology is great. I
am just blown away at the sharp results you can get in just about
any hand held situation. I recently bought the MB-D100 grip, but
don't see a difference in the way it feels. I guess this is because
I grip the lens with my left hand to zoom, and hold the camera with
my right. So, I'm not even touching the grip when I'm shooting.
Maybe it's just the added weight that people like. In any case, It
feels very comfortable to me with or without the grip. I own quite
a few Nikor lenses, this is my favorite for hand held situations.
Tom B.

Thanks, Tom.

 

[Stan Disbrow]

Hi,

I have both lenses and the TC14e. The 80-400VR is a fairly decent unit, but does suffer from image softness above 300mm. From 350mm to 400mm it's actually a rather poor performer.

The 80-200 is far sharper than the 80-400VR in the lower half of the VR's zoom range. This holds true for both the AFS as well as the AF (shaft drive AF) versions of the 80-200.

With the TC14e attached, the AFS 80-200 will be a 112-280mm zoom and it still optically outperforms the 80-400VR in the 200-280mm range. I think the 80-400VR is better than the 80-200 with TC14e in the 112-200mm range.

That's a problem with teleconverters. They're really meant for use with prime lenses, not zooms. Zooms already have too many optical elements in them, and the TC adds several more. Oh, and don't even think about putting the TC20e onto the AFS 80-200. The 2x is really, really soft and, I think, only good on the AFS f2.8 prime lenses.

Another problem is the AFS 80-200 is a much heavier lens than the 80-400VR, and one is likely to find it hard to handhold for very long. This gets worse when the TC14e is attached as the TC moves the lens' CG out further from the body (and the AFS 80-200 has a fairly forward CG already).

If you know that you need range in the 300-400mm range, I would suggest looking at the AFS 300 f4. This lens will outperform either the 80-400VR or the AFS 80-200 with TC14e by a wide margin. The TC14e can be added and then you have a very good performing 420mm f5.6 lens. It's so good it's like comparing a Porsche to a Yugo.

Now, the AFS 80-200 is a pretty costly lens, and getting hard to find. Nikon is in the process of replacing this with the AFS 70-200 f2.8G VR unit, and it appears that production of the AFS 80-200 has ceased. There are reports of difficulties finding stock lately.

The 80-400VR is also fairly costly, but it does make for a reasonable all-around lens for the upper end of the focal range. I find that having an AF 28-105 f3.5-4.5D and the AF 80-400VR is a good combination when one wants to carry a single body and a pair of lenses. This, I think, is the primary reason to consider buying one (and why I bought mine).

However, for a similar amount of money, one can get an AF 80-200 f2.8D, and AFS 300 f4 plus a TC14e. You trade the loss of AFS in the 80-200 for more money in your wallet to get the AFS 300 f4 with. You could save a bit more money by getting the AF 300 f4, but then you'd lose AF capability with the TC. In any event, the optical performance of the AF 300 f4 is the same as for the AFS 300 f4.

So there's several lenses for you to think about as options to the 80-400VR. Just so you know, I shoot with both a Nikon D1H and a Kodak DCS 660, both of which are heavier than the D100 and counterbalance these longer and heavier lenses a bit better.

Stan

Just wanted to know if anyone has used (or owns) the 80-400 4.5 VR?
I am particularly interested in how it couples with the D100.
Please let me know. I feel some money burning a hole in my pocket.
Thanks!
Brian

I was wondering if anybody has compared the 80-400VR at 400mm
compared to the 80-200AFS plus the 2x tele at 400mm. I'm having a
tough time deciding what to buy.

Thanks,
James

--
Amateur Photographer
Professional Electronics Development Engineer

 

[Ed Nazarko]

buy the VR. I have shot with both the 80-200 AFS with the nikon 2x, and now use the 80-400VR. No comparison. The VR is sharper than the 80-200 with the 2x (although as another poster very rightly observed, the 80-200 is a far superior lens, in its range.) The VR lens also feels a lot more balanced than the other lens with a converter.

And, VR is the best piece of magic to come down the pike. I've pulled off some desperation shots at a 30th of a second and below at over 200mm...

get that money out of your pocket before you self-immolate!

Just wanted to know if anyone has used (or owns) the 80-400 4.5 VR?
I am particularly interested in how it couples with the D100.
Please let me know. I feel some money burning a hole in my pocket.
Thanks!
Brian

I was wondering if anybody has compared the 80-400VR at 400mm
compared to the 80-200AFS plus the 2x tele at 400mm. I'm having a
tough time deciding what to buy.

Thanks,
James

 

[Digitall #107280]

Hi Brian

I have one VR 80-400 and I love it!! it is my all terrain big zoom lens
The VR works very well in my S2...

It makes a visit the 3 photos of test that I made with the VR.

Night shots:

Photo 1/6 sec.
http://www.s2pro.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=90

Photo 1/11 sec.
http://www.s2pro.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=89

Daylight shot:
http://www.s2pro.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=88

Great lenses!!

Just wanted to know if anyone has used (or owns) the 80-400 4.5 VR?
I am particularly interested in how it couples with the D100.
Please let me know. I feel some money burning a hole in my pocket.
Thanks!
Brian

--
Pedro D

'The photographic machine is a mirror endowed with memory, however incapable to think...'

 

[Bimthecat]

Wait for the 70-400 2.8 VR

The 80-400 VR is soft-ish at above 300mm.

A 5 to 1 ratio zoom, especially into long 300mm + range,
cannot hold Centration well.
Element Centration (all elements aligned perfectly, required for sharpness)
is nearly impossible with heavy, big, zoom lenses.
This is why long prime sports teles are rigid tubes with IF .
(internal focusing mechanisms).
This is the only way they can solve Centration, and approach APO status.
APO: all colors focusing on the same plane at the same time....
...also requiring ED glass)

It's not Nikon's fault.
It's the nature of the beast.

 

[Bimthecat]

Wait for the 70-200 2.8 VR

The 80-400 VR is soft-ish at above 300mm.

A 5 to 1 ratio zoom, especially into long 300mm + range,
cannot hold Centration well.
Element Centration (all elements aligned perfectly, required for
sharpness)
is nearly impossible with heavy, big, zoom lenses.
This is why long prime sports teles are rigid tubes with IF .
(internal focusing mechanisms).
This is the only way they can solve Centration, and approach APO
status.
APO: all colors focusing on the same plane at the same time....
...also requiring ED glass)

It's not Nikon's fault.
It's the nature of the beast.

 

[james meister]

Hi,

I have both lenses and the TC14e. The 80-400VR is a fairly decent
unit, but does suffer from image softness above 300mm. From 350mm
to 400mm it's actually a rather poor performer.

The 80-200 is far sharper than the 80-400VR in the lower half of
the VR's zoom range. This holds true for both the AFS as well as
the AF (shaft drive AF) versions of the 80-200.

With the TC14e attached, the AFS 80-200 will be a 112-280mm zoom
and it still optically outperforms the 80-400VR in the 200-280mm
range. I think the 80-400VR is better than the 80-200 with TC14e in
the 112-200mm range.

That's a problem with teleconverters. They're really meant for use
with prime lenses, not zooms. Zooms already have too many optical
elements in them, and the TC adds several more. Oh, and don't even
think about putting the TC20e onto the AFS 80-200. The 2x is
really, really soft and, I think, only good on the AFS f2.8 prime
lenses.

Another problem is the AFS 80-200 is a much heavier lens than the
80-400VR, and one is likely to find it hard to handhold for very
long. This gets worse when the TC14e is attached as the TC moves
the lens' CG out further from the body (and the AFS 80-200 has a
fairly forward CG already).

If you know that you need range in the 300-400mm range, I would
suggest looking at the AFS 300 f4. This lens will outperform either
the 80-400VR or the AFS 80-200 with TC14e by a wide margin. The
TC14e can be added and then you have a very good performing 420mm
f5.6 lens. It's so good it's like comparing a Porsche to a Yugo.

Now, the AFS 80-200 is a pretty costly lens, and getting hard to
find. Nikon is in the process of replacing this with the AFS 70-200
f2.8G VR unit, and it appears that production of the AFS 80-200 has
ceased. There are reports of difficulties finding stock lately.

The 80-400VR is also fairly costly, but it does make for a
reasonable all-around lens for the upper end of the focal range. I
find that having an AF 28-105 f3.5-4.5D and the AF 80-400VR is a
good combination when one wants to carry a single body and a pair
of lenses. This, I think, is the primary reason to consider buying
one (and why I bought mine).

However, for a similar amount of money, one can get an AF 80-200
f2.8D, and AFS 300 f4 plus a TC14e. You trade the loss of AFS in
the 80-200 for more money in your wallet to get the AFS 300 f4
with. You could save a bit more money by getting the AF 300 f4, but
then you'd lose AF capability with the TC. In any event, the
optical performance of the AF 300 f4 is the same as for the AFS 300
f4.

So there's several lenses for you to think about as options to the
80-400VR. Just so you know, I shoot with both a Nikon D1H and a
Kodak DCS 660, both of which are heavier than the D100 and
counterbalance these longer and heavier lenses a bit better.

Stan

Hi Stan,

Thanks for all the info. - I never really thought about the 300AFS but I will now research into that lens also. Right now I'm leaning towards the 80-400 to use when I'm travelling but just like your info. - others have commented that it is soft at the upper end. I thought the upcoming 70-200VR plus a 2x conv. would be the perfect combo to get to 400mm but you mentioned that the 2x really isn't that great with zooms - thanks for that piece of info. also.

Also, can a 1.4x be put on the 80-400VR? -

James

 

[james meister]

buy the VR. I have shot with both the 80-200 AFS with the nikon
2x, and now use the 80-400VR. No comparison. The VR is sharper
than the 80-200 with the 2x (although as another poster very
rightly observed, the 80-200 is a far superior lens, in its range.)
The VR lens also feels a lot more balanced than the other lens with
a converter.

And, VR is the best piece of magic to come down the pike. I've
pulled off some desperation shots at a 30th of a second and below
at over 200mm...

get that money out of your pocket before you self-immolate!

Hi Ed,

Thanks for all your info. - I value info. like yours because you have tried both lenses and are not just assuming one is better than the other. I think I will get a lot of use from the 80-400VR especially when travelling and I don't want to carry a lot of lenses or a tripod. I will now also check out the 300afs after Stan's post too.

James

 

[Stan Disbrow]

Hi,

You're welcome. This is what the fora are all about, you know. Sharing between us all (not flaming). It's always been somewhat tough to decide which lenses to buy when. Ideally, one would be wealthy and just buy 'em all at once!

I find that the 80-400 makes a nice travel lens along with the 28-105. The thing gets progressively softer from 300-400mm, but for travelling it's a tradeoff for bulk and wieght.

You can put a 1.4x TC on the 80-400, but not the AFS version. You lose the AF functionality, plus if it's soft straight up, it'll be softer still with the extra elements of the TC added in...

Stan

Hi Stan,
Thanks for all the info. - I never really thought about the
300AFS but I will now research into that lens also. Right now I'm
leaning towards the 80-400 to use when I'm travelling but just like
your info. - others have commented that it is soft at the upper
end. I thought the upcoming 70-200VR plus a 2x conv. would be the
perfect combo to get to 400mm but you mentioned that the 2x really
isn't that great with zooms - thanks for that piece of info. also.

Also, can a 1.4x be put on the 80-400VR? -

James

--
Amateur Photographer
Professional Electronics Development Engineer
More info and list of gear is in my Posters' Profile.

 

[Robert M28897]

Stan,

I meant to reply a while back, but I was just looking at a number of shots from a vacation I took recently (where indeed, the 80-400 VR was a utility lens par excellence), and while I try to avoid extending the lens past 300 if I can, at 400 one can certainly get acceptable results...I've done much more poorly with the 70-300 G at the end of its zoom, in contrast. In fact, Bjorn Roslett indicated in his original VR review that shooting at 400mm stopped down to f11 produces good results (couple of examples below...you'll have to take my word that the larger images also look decent). I find it's a mixed bag shooting at that zoom level, but since I've mostly tried to shoot action, I don't know that it's the lens as much as the slow focus (and my technique) that's the killer.

Also, many of my shots were taken with the Fuji S2 and its 12mp interpolated jpegs, which produce a mildly softer image than the 6mp jpeg (though the images sharpen well). I'd agree that the 80-200 and 300mm f4 would be better for the faster focus alone, not mention superior glass, but the 80-400 does a creditable to very good job, with and without VR. I haven't tried blowing up images beyond 8x10 or so, but the prints look great.

Robert

I have both lenses and the TC14e. The 80-400VR is a fairly decent
unit, but does suffer from image softness above 300mm. From 350mm
to 400mm it's actually a rather poor performer.

The 80-200 is far sharper than the 80-400VR in the lower half of
the VR's zoom range. This holds true for both the AFS as well as
the AF (shaft drive AF) versions of the 80-200.

With the TC14e attached, the AFS 80-200 will be a 112-280mm zoom
and it still optically outperforms the 80-400VR in the 200-280mm
range. I think the 80-400VR is better than the 80-200 with TC14e in
the 112-200mm range.

That's a problem with teleconverters. They're really meant for use
with prime lenses, not zooms. Zooms already have too many optical
elements in them, and the TC adds several more. Oh, and don't even
think about putting the TC20e onto the AFS 80-200. The 2x is
really, really soft and, I think, only good on the AFS f2.8 prime
lenses.

Another problem is the AFS 80-200 is a much heavier lens than the
80-400VR, and one is likely to find it hard to handhold for very
long. This gets worse when the TC14e is attached as the TC moves
the lens' CG out further from the body (and the AFS 80-200 has a
fairly forward CG already).

If you know that you need range in the 300-400mm range, I would
suggest looking at the AFS 300 f4. This lens will outperform either
the 80-400VR or the AFS 80-200 with TC14e by a wide margin. The
TC14e can be added and then you have a very good performing 420mm
f5.6 lens. It's so good it's like comparing a Porsche to a Yugo.

Now, the AFS 80-200 is a pretty costly lens, and getting hard to
find. Nikon is in the process of replacing this with the AFS 70-200
f2.8G VR unit, and it appears that production of the AFS 80-200 has
ceased. There are reports of difficulties finding stock lately.

The 80-400VR is also fairly costly, but it does make for a
reasonable all-around lens for the upper end of the focal range. I
find that having an AF 28-105 f3.5-4.5D and the AF 80-400VR is a
good combination when one wants to carry a single body and a pair
of lenses. This, I think, is the primary reason to consider buying
one (and why I bought mine).

However, for a similar amount of money, one can get an AF 80-200
f2.8D, and AFS 300 f4 plus a TC14e. You trade the loss of AFS in
the 80-200 for more money in your wallet to get the AFS 300 f4
with. You could save a bit more money by getting the AF 300 f4, but
then you'd lose AF capability with the TC. In any event, the
optical performance of the AF 300 f4 is the same as for the AFS 300
f4.

So there's several lenses for you to think about as options to the
80-400VR. Just so you know, I shoot with both a Nikon D1H and a
Kodak DCS 660, both of which are heavier than the D100 and
counterbalance these longer and heavier lenses a bit better.

Stan

Just wanted to know if anyone has used (or owns) the 80-400 4.5 VR?
I am particularly interested in how it couples with the D100.
Please let me know. I feel some money burning a hole in my pocket.
Thanks!
Brian

I was wondering if anybody has compared the 80-400VR at 400mm
compared to the 80-200AFS plus the 2x tele at 400mm. I'm having a
tough time deciding what to buy.

Thanks,
James

--
Amateur Photographer
Professional Electronics Development Engineer

 

[George Richardson]

Works very nicely on my D100, but the combo is not as well balanced
as compared to the 80-400 on my D1x. For me, the heft and larger
grip of the D1x makes it easier to handle and effectively use the
combo. I'd suggest getting the hand grip for the D100. To me, the
D100 has best balance with short lenses. 80-400 is well worth the
money for the range and sharpness -- it's my primary shooting lens.
Best when shot on bright days. If you work in low light and need
faster focusing speed, I'd suggest the 80-200 f2.8 AFS.

I'll have to agree with you here. The 80-400 is very well balanced
on the D1x because of the weight of the camera body. The D100
(even with the MBD100 grip) will feel a bit front heavy with this
lens because of the body weight. This is just something that you
will need to get used to.

That was a major adjustment when I tried some of my heavier glass
that I frequently use on the D1x, on my D100.

--
Regards,
Joe H.

---------------------------------------
http://www.biggerboatstudios.com

(Sarcasm Included - some assembly required.)

----------

Could do with a pistol grip under the 80-400 VR ,with cable release.

Ive been trying for ages to get something.

I think Nikon did make one ages ago.

GR

http://www.pbase.com/dickhead/s1

 

[darren kelly]

Guys,

I use an 80-400VR and have found it very sharp at 400mm. I have also combined it with a 1.4X and have found the sharpness to be acceptable.

When combined with my D100, the 400 plus the 1.4 gives me effectively 840mm at F8, which I can hand hold at about 1/320 of a second successfully and in most situations have used it with the ISO set to 400.

In 3 weeks, I'm spending a week in the mountains shooting Grizzly bear. I expect to be able to capture close ups that will rival anything I've seen in National Geographic.

My 2 cents

Shadow