Why there are no reviews for 80-400 ?

Started Sep 20, 2017 | Questions
jaykumarr Regular Member • Posts: 482
Why there are no reviews for 80-400 ?

In both dpreview.com or photozone.de Canon 100-400 MkII review is there. But not Nikon 80-400 .

That is despite the fact that Nikon's price is 10% more, zoom is 20% wider ... appearing to be a slightly better lens. why is that ?

Is there any comparison between these two?
regards
out of focus

ANSWER:
This question has not been answered yet.
inasir1971
inasir1971 Veteran Member • Posts: 3,625
Re: Why there are no reviews for 80-400 ?
1

jaykumarr wrote:

In both dpreview.com or photozone.de Canon 100-400 MkII review is there. But not Nikon 80-400 .

That is despite the fact that Nikon's price is 10% more, zoom is 20% wider ... appearing to be a slightly better lens. why is that ?

Is there any comparison between these two?
regards
out of focus

There have been quite a number of reviews:

https://photographylife.com/reviews/nikon-80-400mm-vr

http://www.naturalart.ca/artist/fieldtests/AF-S_80-400mmVR.html

Just do a Google search. I really like that lens. It's pretty sharp, very fast and accurate AF, and decent VR. Very versatile even for sports.

 inasir1971's gear list:inasir1971's gear list
Sony RX1R II Nikon D4 Nikon D850
fishy wishy
fishy wishy Veteran Member • Posts: 7,932
Re: Why there are no reviews for 80-400 ?
1

jaykumarr wrote:

In both dpreview.com or photozone.de Canon 100-400 MkII review is there. But not Nikon 80-400 .

That is despite the fact that Nikon's price is 10% more, zoom is 20% wider ... appearing to be a slightly better lens. why is that ?

Is there any comparison between these two?
regards
out of focus

lenstip to the rescue:

"the Nikkor AF-S 80–400 mm f/4.5–5.6G ED VR is a very sharp and a very good lens but certainly not such an outstanding instrument, resolution-wise, as the Canon EF 100–400 mm f/4.5–5.6L IS II USM"

I prefer Nikon sensor performance but you don't want to get into a lens shootout with Canon, the 100-400 II and 70-200 IS II are particularly brilliant.

Rexgig0 Veteran Member • Posts: 5,198
Re: Why there are no reviews for 80-400 ?

jaykumarr wrote:

In both dpreview.com or photozone.de Canon 100-400 MkII review is there. But not Nikon 80-400 .

That is despite the fact that Nikon's price is 10% more, zoom is 20% wider ... appearing to be a slightly better lens. why is that ?

Is there any comparison between these two?
regards
out of focus

There are reviews, if one searches for them. In addition to the ones referenced in the preceding replies, Ming Thein reviewed this one, or at least wrote a detailed article.

My wife has a Nikkor 80-400G, and I have a Canon 100-400L II IS. I would not say the Nikkor is "better." Both are quite good lenses, but the Canon lets me get much closer to subjects, and has a higher magnification ratio, so is more useful for close-range photography, for which my wife* is envious. Not trying to start a brand war; I shoot with both Nikon and Canon cameras and lenses.

*My wife is the mentor who guided my initial path into SLR photography.

-- hide signature --

I wear a badge and pistol, and make evidentiary images at night, which incorporates elements of portrait, macro, still life, landscape, architecture, and PJ. I enjoy using both Canons and Nikons.

 Rexgig0's gear list:Rexgig0's gear list
Canon EOS 7D Mark II Canon EF 135mm F2L USM Canon EF 400mm f/5.6L USM Canon EF 100mm f/2.8L Macro IS USM Nikon AF-S Micro-Nikkor 60mm f/2.8G ED +49 more
OP jaykumarr Regular Member • Posts: 482
Thanks all of you. Your points are taken well!!
1
-- hide signature --

regards
out of focus

OP jaykumarr Regular Member • Posts: 482
Re: Why there are no reviews for 80-400 ?

To my surprise DxOMark has given higher scoring for 80-400 Nikon than 100-400 Canon. I assume that should not be taken seriously and closer macro distance has value!!

fishy wishy wrote:

jaykumarr wrote:

In both dpreview.com or photozone.de Canon 100-400 MkII review is there. But not Nikon 80-400 .

That is despite the fact that Nikon's price is 10% more, zoom is 20% wider ... appearing to be a slightly better lens. why is that ?

Is there any comparison between these two?
regards
out of focus

lenstip to the rescue:

"the Nikkor AF-S 80–400 mm f/4.5–5.6G ED VR is a very sharp and a very good lens but certainly not such an outstanding instrument, resolution-wise, as the Canon EF 100–400 mm f/4.5–5.6L IS II USM"

I prefer Nikon sensor performance but you don't want to get into a lens shootout with Canon, the 100-400 II and 70-200 IS II are particularly brilliant.

-- hide signature --

regards
out of focus

Ando72 Regular Member • Posts: 406
Re: Why there are no reviews for 80-400 ?

Thom Hogan has also reviewed the 80-400.

 Ando72's gear list:Ando72's gear list
Nikon D7100 Nikon D750 Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 35mm F1.8G Nikon AF Nikkor 85mm f/1.4D Nikon AF-S Nikkor 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6G VR +7 more
Ando72 Regular Member • Posts: 406
Re: Why there are no reviews for 80-400 ?

I don’t really understand the comparison of similar lenses across brands.  Maybe as a purely academic exercise but how many people are actually shopping with the true intent to buy one or the other?

 Ando72's gear list:Ando72's gear list
Nikon D7100 Nikon D750 Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 35mm F1.8G Nikon AF Nikkor 85mm f/1.4D Nikon AF-S Nikkor 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6G VR +7 more
Vince P
Vince P Senior Member • Posts: 1,852
Re: Why there are no reviews for 80-400 ?
1

jaykumarr wrote:

In both dpreview.com or photozone.de Canon 100-400 MkII review is there. But not Nikon 80-400 .

That is despite the fact that Nikon's price is 10% more, zoom is 20% wider ... appearing to be a slightly better lens. why is that ?

Is there any comparison between these two?
regards
out of focus

Enjoy.. Well maybe not if you gave an 80-400..

-- hide signature --

https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2016/08/the-sort-of-great-400mm-shootout/
Instagram @vinnypimages

It's usually pointless looking at the review sites across brands because they are tested on different bodies. Lensrentals use body independent testing kit. And test multiple samples at infinity so usually much closer to real world results.

 Vince P's gear list:Vince P's gear list
Sony RX100 V Nikon D5 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX85 Panasonic GH5 Nikon D850 +61 more
1971_M5
1971_M5 Veteran Member • Posts: 6,957
Re: Why there are no reviews for 80-400 ?
1

I like this lens.  Probably my most-used.  It is expensive, but mine is excellent throughout the focal range... even wide open at 400mm.  The VR is effective.  It is versatile and compact.  Only downside is the nervous bokeh.  I swapped the stock Nikon foot for the Kirk collar (which was necessary for stability on long exposures) -- and this even makes the lens easier to to transport due to the low profile with a built-in Arca-Swiss plate.

 1971_M5's gear list:1971_M5's gear list
Nikon D7100 Nikon AF-S Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8G ED VR Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 35mm F1.8G Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 17-55mm f/2.8G ED-IF Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 12-24mm f/4G ED-IF +4 more
(unknown member) Regular Member • Posts: 188
Re: Why there are no reviews for 80-400 ?

Ando72 wrote:

I don’t really understand the comparison of similar lenses across brands. Maybe as a purely academic exercise but how many people are actually shopping with the true intent to buy one or the other?

You must also not understand the comparison of bodies across brands, right?

Ando72 Regular Member • Posts: 406
Re: Why there are no reviews for 80-400 ?
1

A Weed wrote:

Ando72 wrote:

I don’t really understand the comparison of similar lenses across brands. Maybe as a purely academic exercise but how many people are actually shopping with the true intent to buy one or the other?

You must also not understand the comparison of bodies across brands, right?

Sure I do.  For a lens though the thing is, unless you’re planning on switching brands entirely, what difference does it make?  As a Nikon user, I can’t see how the fact that the Canon 100-400 is a better lens will influence my decision to buy the 80-400 or not.  I guess there might be a small subset of users that want to run dual systems.

 Ando72's gear list:Ando72's gear list
Nikon D7100 Nikon D750 Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 35mm F1.8G Nikon AF Nikkor 85mm f/1.4D Nikon AF-S Nikkor 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6G VR +7 more
(unknown member) Regular Member • Posts: 188
Re: Why there are no reviews for 80-400 ?

Ando72 wrote:

A Weed wrote:

Ando72 wrote:

I don’t really understand the comparison of similar lenses across brands. Maybe as a purely academic exercise but how many people are actually shopping with the true intent to buy one or the other?

You must also not understand the comparison of bodies across brands, right?

Sure I do. For a lens though the thing is, unless you’re planning on switching brands entirely, what difference does it make? As a Nikon user, I can’t see how the fact that the Canon 100-400 is a better lens will influence my decision to buy the 80-400 or not. I guess there might be a small subset of users that want to run dual systems.

Many people don't believe in rewarding companies for inferior products.

A company that thinks it has a captive demographic and churns out an uncompetitive product will soon see people voting with their feet--regardless of how entrenched they might be at the outset.

BasilG Veteran Member • Posts: 7,173
Re: Why there are no reviews for 80-400 ?
1

Ando72 wrote:

A Weed wrote:

Ando72 wrote:

I don’t really understand the comparison of similar lenses across brands. Maybe as a purely academic exercise but how many people are actually shopping with the true intent to buy one or the other?

You must also not understand the comparison of bodies across brands, right?

Sure I do. For a lens though the thing is, unless you’re planning on switching brands entirely, what difference does it make?

How is it any different for camera bodies?

Rexgig0 Veteran Member • Posts: 5,198
Neither Canon Nor Nikon Products Are Inferior, Overall.
1

A Weed wrote:

Ando72 wrote:

A Weed wrote:

Ando72 wrote:

I don’t really understand the comparison of similar lenses across brands. Maybe as a purely academic exercise but how many people are actually shopping with the true intent to buy one or the other?

You must also not understand the comparison of bodies across brands, right?

Sure I do. For a lens though the thing is, unless you’re planning on switching brands entirely, what difference does it make? As a Nikon user, I can’t see how the fact that the Canon 100-400 is a better lens will influence my decision to buy the 80-400 or not. I guess there might be a small subset of users that want to run dual systems.

Many people don't believe in rewarding companies for inferior products.

A company that thinks it has a captive demographic and churns out an uncompetitive product will soon see people voting with their feet--regardless of how entrenched they might be at the outset.

Neither Nikon nor Canon is consistently producing inferior lenses, across the line-up. Each is making some clear winners, which seems to be enough to prevent an exodus of brand migration. Being a dual-system, Canon/Nikon shooter, I love individual lenses, made by each, so am very unlikely to quit either brand. My most-recent high-end lens acquisition was a pre-owned Nikkor 200/2 VR, but my next may well be a wide-angle Canon L lens. (To keep from going broke, I try to avoid too much lens duplication, across the systems, do not up-grade camera bodies each generation, and often buy pre-owned gear.)

I believe my Canon 100-400L II IS has some level of advantage over my wife’s Nikkor 80-400G, particularly the Minimum Focusing Distance; the EF 100-400L II IS performs nicely as a close-range lens. She seems to agree that my L lens is “better,” overall, but she is not going to switch to Canon, having tried the Canon system before, and not liked it. (The reason I started with Canon gear is because I used the Canon gear that she had acquired, pre-owned, to try digital photography, before reverting to her Olympus film cameras. She later became a Nikon camera fan when using her employer-issued Nikon DSLRs.)

To use a realistic, practical example: Her 80-400G tele-zoom may be “inferior” in some ways, to my 100-400L II IS, but her D500 camera body’s AF capability is certainly superior to that of any of my current camera bodies, Canon or Nikon. This is logical, as I have the newer tele-zoom, but she has the newest camera body. On a nature photo walk, I may be able to get much closer to a subject, but her D500 may be able to acquire focus on a subject, especially in low light, that would be an impossible challenge for my 7D II or 5Ds R. Her gear will have the low-light AF advantage, while I can get closer to an interesting close-range subject.

As the sun disappears, in the above scenario, I may switch to a D3s or Df, but my wife’s D500 will maintain the AF advantage, regardless of which lens I use. I would have to buy a D500, D850, or D5 to level the playing field, but none of these cameras can use a Canon EF lens.

As for Sony, their lenses have not yet reach a competive level, particularly at the long end.

-- hide signature --

I wear a badge and pistol, and make evidentiary images at night, which incorporates elements of portrait, macro, still life, landscape, architecture, and PJ. I enjoy using both Canons and Nikons.

 Rexgig0's gear list:Rexgig0's gear list
Canon EOS 7D Mark II Canon EF 135mm F2L USM Canon EF 400mm f/5.6L USM Canon EF 100mm f/2.8L Macro IS USM Nikon AF-S Micro-Nikkor 60mm f/2.8G ED +49 more
OP jaykumarr Regular Member • Posts: 482
Re: Why there are no reviews for 80-400 ?
1

Ando72 wrote:

unless you’re planning on switching brands entirely, what difference does it make? --
-

It makes difference because I have no SLRs at all, and want to join SLR league

1971_M5
1971_M5 Veteran Member • Posts: 6,957
Re: Why there are no reviews for 80-400 ?
2

Maybe my copy is better than most, but I think this lens performs very well.

 1971_M5's gear list:1971_M5's gear list
Nikon D7100 Nikon AF-S Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8G ED VR Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 35mm F1.8G Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 17-55mm f/2.8G ED-IF Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 12-24mm f/4G ED-IF +4 more
Michael Benveniste
Michael Benveniste Veteran Member • Posts: 3,932
Re: Why there are no reviews for 80-400 ?
3

jaykumarr wrote:

It makes difference because I have no SLRs at all, and want to join SLR league

While I can think of a few lenses which might cause someone to choose one system over another, neither Nikon's 80-400mm nor Canon's 100-400mm are among them.  I suggest first set a budget, then get "hands-on" with the various choices within that budget, and then choose the system which seems to work best for you.

-- hide signature --

Mainstream Commercial Nihilism Can't Be Trusted.

 Michael Benveniste's gear list:Michael Benveniste's gear list
Nikon Coolpix 995 Nikon D200 Nikon D800 Nikon 1 V2 Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 18-70mm f/3.5-4.5G ED-IF +35 more
Tord S Eriksson
Tord S Eriksson Forum Pro • Posts: 10,057
Re: Why there are no reviews for 80-400 ?
2

Ando72 wrote:

A Weed wrote:

Ando72 wrote:

I don’t really understand the comparison of similar lenses across brands. Maybe as a purely academic exercise but how many people are actually shopping with the true intent to buy one or the other?

You must also not understand the comparison of bodies across brands, right?

Sure I do. For a lens though the thing is, unless you’re planning on switching brands entirely, what difference does it make? As a Nikon user, I can’t see how the fact that the Canon 100-400 is a better lens will influence my decision to buy the 80-400 or not. I guess there might be a small subset of users that want to run dual systems.

All photographers I know own at least two systems, one major and one for special uses, so I could well understand someone owning a Canon 100-400, and a Canon body for that while using a different brand for the rest of his kit.

It is after all the lenses that are important, not which body you use.

Sony a7 owners often shoot mainly with Canon lenses (or Zeiss, or Nikon), as they think that is a better choice than Sony's own lenses.

I use Nikon 1 and Nikon F Mount cameras, and the Nikon 1 lenses are useless on the DX and FX bodies, the reverse is not true, of course. So two different systems, with a few lenses I like are used on both while most are very much only useful on their native systems.

Two shots from tonight, using the same lens but very different cameras:

So, indeed, having more than one 'system' is very useful, even if in this special case the end result was similar (no noise-canceling software was used, both cameras used with its built-in setting at OFF).

-- hide signature --

Tord_2 (at) photographer (dot) net
Nikon V2, J5, D3300, D7500 & D600, some m4/3.

 Tord S Eriksson's gear list:Tord S Eriksson's gear list
Olympus C-8080 Wide Zoom Ricoh GR Nikon 1 V1 Nikon D600 Nikon 1 V2 +25 more
Lance B Forum Pro • Posts: 30,920
Ephotozine shows Nikon better than the Canon for sharpness
2

jaykumarr wrote:

To my surprise DxOMark has given higher scoring for 80-400 Nikon than 100-400 Canon. I assume that should not be taken seriously and closer macro distance has value!!

Well, Ephotozine has it sharper than the Canon 100-400 on similar Mp bodies - 5D MKIII to the Nikon D600:

https://www.ephotozine.com/article/canon-ef-100-400mm-f-4-5-5-6l-is-ii-usm-lens-review-26892

https://www.ephotozine.com/article/nikon-nikkor-80-400mm-f-4-5-5-6g-ed-vr-ii-review-22065

fishy wishy wrote:

jaykumarr wrote:

In both dpreview.com or photozone.de Canon 100-400 MkII review is there. But not Nikon 80-400 .

That is despite the fact that Nikon's price is 10% more, zoom is 20% wider ... appearing to be a slightly better lens. why is that ?

Is there any comparison between these two?
regards
out of focus

lenstip to the rescue:

"the Nikkor AF-S 80–400 mm f/4.5–5.6G ED VR is a very sharp and a very good lens but certainly not such an outstanding instrument, resolution-wise, as the Canon EF 100–400 mm f/4.5–5.6L IS II USM"

I prefer Nikon sensor performance but you don't want to get into a lens shootout with Canon, the 100-400 II and 70-200 IS II are particularly brilliant.

-- hide signature --

regards
out of focus

-- hide signature --
 Lance B's gear list:Lance B's gear list
Nikon D500 Nikon D850 Nikon AF-S Nikkor 16-35mm F4G ED VR Nikon AF-S Nikkor 24mm f/1.4G ED Nikon AF-S Micro-Nikkor 105mm f/2.8G IF-ED VR +14 more
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads