DSLRUsers.com

New aquisition
80-400 VR shot agility with it all day very happy overall but did have to go up to 5000 iso at the end of the day
my opposition was shooting with a 350D and 300mm kit lens--good luck
slow focus was not too much of an issue amd at $840 as new my 200-400 stayed in the van
cheers jim

Jim,

Play with the lens a little, and learn where its sweet spots are. You should find that this is an incredibly sharp piece of glass somewhere around f/6.3 or f/8.

Congrats on the purchase! It is not a perfect lens, but does do a mighty fine job. At the price you managed to snare yours for, I cant see any reason to complain.

Oh for HSM on this lens -- Will Nikon ever fulfill this void??

inmotion wrote:New aquisition
80-400 VR shot agility with it all day very happy overall but did have to go up to 5000 iso at the end of the day
my opposition was shooting with a 350D and 300mm kit lens--good luck
slow focus was not too much of an issue amd at $840 as new my 200-400 stayed in the van
cheers jim

nice review looks like a image outta my old 18-200mm

whats the reason for using it over the 200-400 f4 ?

biggerry wrote:whats the reason for using it over the 200-400 f4 ?

Far be it from me to give the definitive answer but
200-400: Weight (approx.) 3,360g
80-400 Weight (approx.) 1,360g
could have something to do with it.

While on the 200-400. Would you recommend it for wildlife?
I have heard some reports that it is less than stellar beyond about 200m.

Mr Darcy wrote:

biggerry wrote:While on the 200-400. Would you recommend it for wildlife?
I have heard some reports that it is less than stellar beyond about 200m.

Howdi Greg,
The af-s 200-400 is a very capable lens. Its a particularly contrasty lens with vivid and very sharp detail.
Not many things I don't like about it. The only one that comes to mind is the woeful tripod mount, some might disagree.

Overall for a big zoom lens its a winner in every department. Excellent on DX as well.

HI I am keen to have a substitute for the 200-400
a to cover breakdown
B less expensive option in adverse or dangerous surroundings
C some enviroments --very steep hills or slippery -muddy hills make the 200-400 difficult to use at times
D more versatile focal lengths

when I purchased the 200-400 i was warned i would have to "get used ti it"
No way --first shots were stellar
many shots require no pp this is a big help
I did discover that -.3ev helps with saturation

with horses the 200-400 is a great lens BUT they are a large animal and with a rider the presentation shots dictate the use of a 2nd body
hence the need for something like the 80-400
if those ancint romours are ever true of changing it to 135-500 and HSM wow im in

the 200-400 has proved usefull at lon distances
I took a shot with monopod on a hilltop in gusty winds of up to 100kmph
at a range of 2km to check out a farm ute and you could even see it had no rego plate

I regularly use this on my D3s in DX form giving 600mm--a handy trick when you need it

seriously though most wildlife shots will be much less distance if you need to heavily crop

I can do a test shot oi you like at a set distance of a sey object
jim

80-400mm VR is a very useful lens and capable of very sharp imagery. It's a forgiving lens to use. The 200mm - 400mm is one very heavy sucker to use and almost demands the use of a tripod. Given that, it is a superb optic as one would expect for the price. It's weight makes it pretty useless for walk around photography and that is its limitation.

Mr Darcy wrote:While on the 200-400. Would you recommend it for wildlife?
I have heard some reports that it is less than stellar beyond about 200m.

It is great for wildlife and beautiful in its full range 200-400. The AF-S is also super fast. Being constant f4 is also a big bonus.

Price and weight tend to be the issues for using the 80-400 over the 200-400.

As for the tripod mount, using the RRS replacement foot is much better, imho.

inmotion wrote:B less expensive option in adverse or dangerous surroundings

The Aquatech Sport Sleeve is great for adverse conditions. Used it in downpours, not a problem.

Matt. K wrote: It's weight makes it pretty useless for walk around photography and that is its limitation.

lol reminds me of wendell last year...lugging that thing around, at least I think it was a 200-400

Yes, that is the 200-400 that Wendell is using. He has admited to me that it is possibly the SHARPEST lens he owns....and is rather surprised that it is so good.

Mind you it is a very heavy, cumbersome lens

aim54x wrote:Yes, that is the 200-400 that Wendell is using. He has admited to me that it is possibly the SHARPEST lens he owns....and is rather surprised that it is so good.

Mind you it is a very heavy, cumbersome lens

I used to think the 70-200 was heavy. Perspective, brings new reality.
It is a great lens. Don't be put off by its weight, get used to it.

Yes i am in the market for a wether proof cover
considering Aquatech v Lens coat
I also use the lens Indoor at Werribbee park in Melbourne the constant f4 is a big bonus and the afs is spot on in the dim conditions

cheers jim
ps aqutech seems to be in front

My apologies for effectively hijacking this thread.
Gary, it may be a good idea to strip all the 200-400 stuff out to a new thread
I am looking for a lens combination to take to Japan
According to Martin,

What should I bring?
Lenses:
Telephoto lens; no shorter than 200mm, but 300mm or longer is advisable. If you have a 400, 500 or 600mm lens, BRING IT!
1.4x Teleconverter or Extender; If you buy this for the trip, make sure you get one that works with your telephoto lens. If the longest lens you have is 200mm, a teleconverter is a must
Standard lenses; a 70-200mm is perfect for both landscapes and close wildlife. Standard zooms like a 24-105 will be useful too
Wide angle lens; prime or zoom for Landscape work
We may have some uses for a macro lens, but if weight doesn't allow, leave it at home
Also consider extension tubes as an alternative to a macro lens, again, if you are trying to cut down on the gear you bring

So I am looking to get to at least 400mm, while keeping the 70-200 as a "standard lens"
I was thinking that the 200-400 might be the go as I could use it with my 2x TC to get to a massive 800mm
So I went looking at the reviews.
Thom Hogan said

it doesn't work so great as a wildlife lens where you are shooting at long distances often or need TCs,

And Brad Hill said:

And, it should be pointed out, the 200-400 did rather poorly (compared to ALL other competitors) in contrast.

Certainly the accompanying photos bear this out. There is also poor definition at the edges.

You are all saying the 200-400 is a wonderful lens for wildlife which is contradicting two professional wildlife 'togs. So I am confused.
Now I have the 70-200VR2, the 200f2 and the TC20EIII so I can go down two of Brad's routes at no cost to me. The 400f2.8 is way over budget, and the 200-400 is pushing the very limits, but it could get me out to 800 at a pinch.

Any thoughts?

Mr Darcy wrote:
You are all saying the 200-400 is a wonderful lens for wildlife which is contradicting two professional wildlife 'togs. So I am confused.
Now I have the 70-200VR2, the 200f2 and the TC20EIII so I can go down two of Brad's routes at no cost to me. The 400f2.8 is way over budget, and the 200-400 is pushing the very limits, but it could get me out to 800 at a pinch.

Any thoughts?

Howdi Greg,
Just to be clear on how I see this lens.
The 200-400 is a great lens. I do not recommend putting any TC on it as its performance plummets like a stone. Focus acquisition was the main problem especially on cloudy days. In fact I have had no luck with any TC, but have to put it down to sample variation for a lot of reasons.

I sold my 200-400 and purchased a 400 2.8, the main difference between the lenses @ 400 is subject isolation and low light performance. The 400 wins hands down, no problem. This is not to say the 200-400 was that far behind. Its a great lens and for every professional that does not like it for whatever reason, there are plenty that do. It has its place, but push it to where it was imho not intended to go and the results will be less that acceptable, and you can find ways to take the shine of it.

Using a cropped body it does 300-600 and does it well. With TC's as I had focus acquisition problems and too much light loss.

My main gripe was the mount which is just pathetic for slow shutter speeds. The foot was changed to RRS which is on all my gear, but the collar is just too weak, but then again I think all the big teles have very poor collars. The lens is long but nicely balanced and works really well on a mono at anything over 1/400. Below this and things can go downhill pretty quickly.

On dull days my D300 had to be pushed up in ISO to keep a respectful shutter more than I liked. The D3 could handle this much better but you loose the crop. Everything is a compromise. When the suns not out it will challenge your skill.

Anyway. I Hope this helps explain things a bit better from my experiences with the lens.

Would I buy another one? Probably not, but that is not because it is a bad lens, just because I have the focal range covered with other primes that do the job better.

Greg,

Mr Darcy wrote:You are all saying the 200-400 is a wonderful lens for wildlife which is contradicting two professional wildlife 'togs. So I am confused.
Now I have the 70-200VR2, the 200f2 and the TC20EIII so I can go down two of Brad's routes at no cost to me. The 400f2.8 is way over budget, and the 200-400 is pushing the very limits, but it could get me out to 800 at a pinch.

Any thoughts?

you are taking only one of Brad's statements in regards to the 200-400. There is a lot more to the review then the statement you pulled out. I know Brad personally and he does value the 200-400 very highly. Given that the has the option of using the 400 f2.8 or the 600mm, his 200-400 stays in the bag often. I also would not recommend using the TC on the 200-400 and if I have to use a TC, I would use the 1.4TC at most.

Seeing that you already have the 70-200VR2, 200f2 and the tc2III, why bother with anything more?

inmotion wrote:the 200-400 has proved usefull at lon distances
I took a shot with monopod on a hilltop in gusty winds of up to 100kmph
at a range of 2km to check out a farm ute and you could even see it had no rego plate

I took a shot, hand held from my 80-400 @400mm on my D200 over about 1.3km and it was of that sort of quality.

For the right purpose, the 80-400 is a nice lens.