80-400

[fintastic]

I just orderd a 80-400 vr nikon . Any body use one
had to buy a christmas present for myself.

John

[badpickev]

its ok, nothing that is fantastic about it.


ps, this post may be voted as the understatement of the year post.

[gaopa2]

John, the 80-400 VR is an early, maybe even the earliest, VR lens Nikon made. It is slow and many don't have too many good comments to make about this lens. However, I have one and love mine. Last spring I was asked to be the event photographer for a sailboat regatta. I had one D200 with my 70-200 VR and another D200 mounted with my 80-400 VR. I got some outstanding images with both lenses, but my best ones were taken with the 80-400 as I could reach out further.

Another use I have put the 80-400 to over the past year is moon shots. I set my camera with the 80-400 on a tripod and use cable release. The camera is set to spot metering and the lens extended fully. With that technique I can get shots like this one.

Put me down as one who likes the 80-400VR lens. No, I don't use it all that much, but when I do, I am always pleased with the images. I think you will like yours.
Merry Christmas! Bill P.

[MrB]

Gaopa,
Fantastic moon shot!

[gaopa2]

Thanks, Mr. B! The key is spot metering and a steady tripod with cable release. Merry Christmas, Bill P.

[nohoneythatsnotanewlens]

I shoot Nascar races from the top of the broadcast booth with great results. It is much slower than my 80-200 but I am still pleased with the results.

[fintastic]

Thanks for the feed back I went ahead and did it so I will post some pic in the near future .
These are the type photos I shoot any way (motor sports ect.)
Nice pic Goapa2
John

[ScottBuckel]

This lens was, as I remember, the first VR lens shipped. I like mine and I have gotten many great shots with it, but I really prefer the 200-400 albeit much more expensive.

The lens does focus slower than I would like, but it is not a AFS lens. For me the more important aspect of the lens is that it is pretty sharp, and the versatility makes it a good lens to have.

I think Nikon should add AFS to the lens and it would be a great everyday lens.

Scott

[JDArt]

I had one and sold it. Like others, I found it very slow focusing and not terribly sharp, even at F8. Maybe I had a bad copy.

[Nikonfreak]

Originally Posted by JDArt

I had one and sold it. Like others, I found it very slow focusing and not terribly sharp, even at F8. Maybe I had a bad copy.

Don't know. I was never very impressed by it.

It was a good first stab at a wide range VR lens by Nikon. It's long overdue for an AF-S update to take care of the slow focusing though the variable aperature could hurt in this area a bit. I'd probably bet that Nikon might update that lens in 2008, add VR II and AF-S to it and address some of the softness issues to kind of bring it on par with the 70-300 VR.

Nikon could use a 70-200 f/4 AF-S as a low cost alternative to the f/2.8 VR lens and I would guess a nice 400 f/4 VR would be nice as an addition to the lineup as a less expensive alternative that would provide some reach for folks.

Right now, to get any kind of quality beyond 300mm, you generally are looking at spending $4500+ (exception is 300 f/4 + 1.4TC) ...

Julio

[cyclohexane]

Nikon could use a 70-200 f/4 AF-S as a low cost alternative to the f/2.8 VR lens

I've said it over and over again... Nikon could do this with almost no R&D whatsoever. They already had an excellent 70-210mm f/4 Series E manual focus lens which was produced briefly as an AF lens from 1986-87. It'd be a great starting place... just add AF-S, VR, and it'd probably sell. Throw out an updated 18-70mm DX with VR and there's a pretty sweet two lens kit.

I would guess a nice 400 f/4 VR would be nice as an addition to the lineup as a less expensive alternative that would provide some reach for folks.

The 400mm f/3.5 AI/AIS could fill this one, as it was a pretty small lens; smaller than the 300mm f/2.8 and 200mm f/2. Probably wouldn't hurt to slow it down to f/4...

[Nikonfreak]

A 400 f/3.5 AF-S VR would be just fine for me provided it was very sharp wide open. I can shoot at f/3.5 at many venues and the loss of 2/3 stop isn't too bad (from f/2.8

With the D3 and D300, you can just jump from ISO 800/1000 to 1250 or 1600 and be just fine.

I could live with that for the most part.

If it were quite good with TC's I bet they'd have a ton of bird / nature guys picking it up like it was warm, sliced bread if the price were fairly reasonable... say $2500 - 3200 USD.

Julio

[fintastic]

A few from today all at 400mm and f6.3 except #1 is f7.1. I think I can do better with this lens but this is my first outing and I am happy. I think the 400mm may be a tad soft but not to bad.
John

[nohoneythatsnotanewlens]

Nice stuff. You're inspiring me to go out and play with mine. What else do you have? I especially line #6, it's a shame that other duck in in the background or it would be even better.

Rick

[fintastic]

Rick
Thanks, I could clone it out but didnt bother for this. I was working with with the auto focus on this lens .; I shot on spot focus and did just fine I shoot all my motor sports that way.
There are a few more pics upon on the bird fourm under new years day.
by the way go get them at nascar I am envious!!!!!! And I like your web site.
John

[oposum_2000]

superb shots !