Things you can do with an AFS 80-400 ED (and D850)

[VBLondon]

Have a look at this image of an old jet fighter.

https://www.dpreview.com/challenges/Entry.aspx?ID=1118797

It's spectacular viewed full-size.

Just so you know what the link is, embedded below (sorry I didn't know how to do it so you can click-through). This looks like "a nice shot if you like aircraft photos" in this size but full-size I thought it was one of the most wowing examples of both capture and processing I've seen in a while.

 

[Lasse p]

That´s an amazing photo. Tons of details.

What focal length did you shoot at? It looks to be far sharper than my Nikkon 200-500.

 

[VBLondon]

What focal length did you shoot at?

I wish! I was just linking to a photo I saw in the "Finished Challenges" window on the DPR site. The photographer's DPR username is Ratusca https://www.dpreview.com/members/8848146222/overview

 

[Bernard Delley]

That´s an amazing photo. Tons of details.

What focal length did you shoot at? It looks to be far sharper than my Nikon 200-500.

The AF-S 80-400mm f/4.5-5.6 G wqas shot wide open at 400mm f/5.6 by "ratusca" . The exposure time 1/2000 s (ISO 400) is an important key to the sharpness of this image as well as the accurate hit on focus (maybe AF fine tune has to be done).

The AF-S 80-400 is clearly in a similar sharpness class than the 200-500. I have both lenses and highly appreciate the versatility of the 80-400. It is the choice lens, if you wish to cover the long lens range from "portrait" to "super-tele" in one lens. It is not a cheap lens, as a lot of optical feats must be pulled to have good aberration correction across its 5x zoom range: 20 elements in 12 groups (including four ED glass and one Super ED glass elements, and Nano Crystal Coat)

The much smaller 2.5x zoom range of the 200-500 got its aberration corrections with a tad less effort: 19 elements in 12 groups (including three ED glass elements) . The 200-500 is rated to have a tad better IQ in the overlapping FL range by most accounts. I would agree. But, internet hype exaggerates the differences. You can do images with excellent IQ with either lens.

You can find examples in my dpreview galleries .

The most important consideration for me is, how important is the 500mm end and how much weight is allowed for the long FL from say 70mm up. As a weight compromise, I may choose only the AF-P 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 E ED VR 4.3x zoom: 18 elements in 14 groups (including one ED glass element) .

 

[PHXAZCRAIG]

That´s an amazing photo. Tons of details.

What focal length did you shoot at? It looks to be far sharper than my Nikon 200-500.

The AF-S 80-400 is clearly in a similar sharpness class than the 200-500. I have both lenses and highly appreciate the versatility of the 80-400. It is the choice lens, if you wish to cover the long lens range from "portrait" to "super-tele" in one lens. It is not a cheap lens, as a lot of optical feats must be pulled to have good aberration correction across its 5x zoom range: 20 elements in 12 groups (including four ED glass and one Super ED glass elements, and Nano Crystal Coat)

Exactly. It is a lens made for those who need it to be good all the way from 80 to 400 - and small enough to bring with you - not a lens that only needs to be good at 390-400mm.

 

[Entropius]

That´s an amazing photo. Tons of details.

What focal length did you shoot at? It looks to be far sharper than my Nikon 200-500.

The AF-S 80-400 is clearly in a similar sharpness class than the 200-500. I have both lenses and highly appreciate the versatility of the 80-400. It is the choice lens, if you wish to cover the long lens range from "portrait" to "super-tele" in one lens. It is not a cheap lens, as a lot of optical feats must be pulled to have good aberration correction across its 5x zoom range: 20 elements in 12 groups (including four ED glass and one Super ED glass elements, and Nano Crystal Coat)

Exactly. It is a lens made for those who need it to be good all the way from 80 to 400 - and small enough to bring with you - not a lens that only needs to be good at 390-400mm.

I stopped using my 80-400 when I fell on a trail and damaged it. It's been back to Nikon for repair but in the meantime I was seduced by the PF lenses.

But the 80-400 is very nice glass. I have a shot of a cedar waxwing eating berries with it that's extremely sharp at 400/5.6 -- shot on a D7100 at ISO 1600 or so.

The 80-400 focuses fast and accurately, too, and its VR is excellent.

A sidenote with it, though: it is noticeably less sharp with the VR on, since there is some uncorrected chromatic aberration when the VR group is shifted offcenter. The VR improves things hugely when you need it, but this is one of those lenses where you really should turn the VR off when you don't.

 

[threw the lens]

That´s an amazing photo. Tons of details.

What focal length did you shoot at? It looks to be far sharper than my Nikon 200-500.

The AF-S 80-400 is clearly in a similar sharpness class than the 200-500. I have both lenses and highly appreciate the versatility of the 80-400. It is the choice lens, if you wish to cover the long lens range from "portrait" to "super-tele" in one lens. It is not a cheap lens, as a lot of optical feats must be pulled to have good aberration correction across its 5x zoom range: 20 elements in 12 groups (including four ED glass and one Super ED glass elements, and Nano Crystal Coat)

Exactly. It is a lens made for those who need it to be good all the way from 80 to 400 - and small enough to bring with you - not a lens that only needs to be good at 390-400mm.

I stopped using my 80-400 when I fell on a trail and damaged it. It's been back to Nikon for repair but in the meantime I was seduced by the PF lenses.

But the 80-400 is very nice glass. I have a shot of a cedar waxwing eating berries with it that's extremely sharp at 400/5.6 -- shot on a D7100 at ISO 1600 or so.

The 80-400 focuses fast and accurately, too, and its VR is excellent.

A sidenote with it, though: it is noticeably less sharp with the VR on, since there is some uncorrected chromatic aberration when the VR group is shifted offcenter. The VR improves things hugely when you need it, but this is one of those lenses where you really should turn the VR off when you don't.

Potentially a very useful observation.

I come across this lens surprisingly rarely, I think because it was highly priced for the specification.

Do people think it offers any advantage in that (expensive) middle ground between a 70-300 and Nikon 200-500?

 

[Bernard Delley]

That´s an amazing photo. Tons of details.

What focal length did you shoot at? It looks to be far sharper than my Nikon 200-500.

The AF-S 80-400 is clearly in a similar sharpness class than the 200-500. I have both lenses and highly appreciate the versatility of the 80-400. It is the choice lens, if you wish to cover the long lens range from "portrait" to "super-tele" in one lens. It is not a cheap lens, as a lot of optical feats must be pulled to have good aberration correction across its 5x zoom range: 20 elements in 12 groups (including four ED glass and one Super ED glass elements, and Nano Crystal Coat)

Exactly. It is a lens made for those who need it to be good all the way from 80 to 400 - and small enough to bring with you - not a lens that only needs to be good at 390-400mm.

I stopped using my 80-400 when I fell on a trail and damaged it. It's been back to Nikon for repair but in the meantime I was seduced by the PF lenses.

But the 80-400 is very nice glass. I have a shot of a cedar waxwing eating berries with it that's extremely sharp at 400/5.6 -- shot on a D7100 at ISO 1600 or so.

The 80-400 focuses fast and accurately, too, and its VR is excellent.

A sidenote with it, though: it is noticeably less sharp with the VR on, since there is some uncorrected chromatic aberration when the VR group is shifted offcenter. The VR improves things hugely when you need it, but this is one of those lenses where you really should turn the VR off when you don't.

Potentially a very useful observation.

I come across this lens surprisingly rarely, I think because it was highly priced for the specification.

Do people think it offers any advantage in that (expensive) middle ground between a 70-300 and Nikon 200-500?

using one tele lens: AF-P 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 or AF-S 80-400 : 400 about doubles the weight, more than doubles the price for the lens. But gets you 1.77 times the pixels on the subject, which clearly shows.

Af-S 80-400 against say AF-P 70-300 + 200-500: 500 about doubles the lens weight. Lens prices abuot equal for both options. 500 gets you 1.56 times the pixels on subject as compared to 400, which shows ( less than 1.4x the pixels would show marginally). If you do not want to switch lenses, because of lost time and because of dust, then you need an additional camera body: adds more weight and cost !)

another variant: AF-S 80-400 against AF-P 70-300mm + 500mm PF: more weight than 400, lens prices about doubled against 400. Otherwise similar to above, with a bit of a gap in FL around 400: needing to crop the 300 to get a "400 field of view" leads to a loss in IQ there, which a rate more important than the IQ gain at 500 with the PF. -- The IQ of the 500 PF is of great interest if you compare against going longer: 180-400 x1.4 ... 560mm/f5.6 or 600mm f/4...

 

[PHXAZCRAIG]

I kind of like the variant of 80-400 + 500PF. More useful than any 200-500 variant I can think of. The 80-400 can do what it excels at, and the 500 takes care of the long end where the 80-400 is at its weakest, all for not much weight.

 

[Bernard Delley]

I kind of like the variant of 80-400 + 500PF. More useful than any 200-500 variant I can think of. The 80-400 can do what it excels at, and the 500 takes care of the long end where the 80-400 is at its weakest, all for not much weight.

there was an interesting post on AF-S 80-400 + 500 f/4 xTC1.4 showing bears . By looking at the images at their max size (without gleaning exif data) it is not possible to tell which of the two lenses was used. hint the 80-400 was always used at 400 wide open.

One of the 500 x TC14 images was front focused though.

 

[chambeshi]

I posted comparisons last week of 80-400 G to 300 PF+TC14 III and 400 f2.8E

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/63149367

 

[John Card]

I have been happy with the results I have gotten from mine, but The focusing is not as fast as I would like. (I have the older version)