Nikkor 80-400 VR

Discussion in 'Photography Equipment & Products' started by fmw, Nov 18, 2006.

  1. fmw

    fmw No longer a newbie, moving up!

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2006
    Messages:
    2,601
    Likes Received:
    137
    I was at the camera store today and saw this lens. It is absolutely tiny given its focal length range. I'm not thrilled with the idea of a 5X zoom and its compactness and variable maximum aperture tell me a few things about its design that don't appeal to me. But it is incredibly small. I rarely carry my 80-200 f2.8 because it is so heavy and bulky. This might be an answer for me. Any reviews?
     
  2. Sw1tchFX

    Sw1tchFX TPF Noob!

    Joined:
    May 3, 2006
    Messages:
    7,500
    Likes Received:
    478
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos NOT OK to edit
    I've heard it's really great, but the AF is excutiatingly slow.
     
  3. Tiberius

    Tiberius TPF Noob!

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2006
    Messages:
    328
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Michigan, USA
    The AF will be notably slower than your 80-200 f/2.8. I'd say that it's not fast enough for Sports on anything short of a D2X (maybe a D200), but really, anything else (lanscapes, wildlife, just general walk-aroud shots) it works great for.
     
  4. fmw

    fmw No longer a newbie, moving up!

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2006
    Messages:
    2,601
    Likes Received:
    137
    That's it? I shot sports for decades with no AF at all so I know how to do that. You should see the AF on my old 300 f4. It even has a ring to allow you to cut down the amount of travel so the AF doesn't get lost. You mean it is well corrected, sharp and fairly free of pincushion distortion? Wow.
     
  5. dsp921

    dsp921 TPF Noob!

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2005
    Messages:
    323
    Likes Received:
    3
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos NOT OK to edit
    If the slow AF isn't a problem, and you can live with the 4.5 - 5.6 aperture, the image quality is pretty good (even for a 5X), but won't be as good as your 80-200. It has some barrel and pincushion distortion, but it's not really that bad. The lens is sharp and has good contrast. It's a personal choice, I think you know the compromises (speed and image quality for size and zoom range), you just have to decide if you can live with them.
    Check out this review: http://www.naturfotograf.com/index2.html
    I tend to use his reviews over most of the others I see. As usual YMMV....
    I tried one and went with the 70-200 instead, but it seems your reason for looking at it are different.
     
  6. fmw

    fmw No longer a newbie, moving up!

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2006
    Messages:
    2,601
    Likes Received:
    137
    Thanks. I'm not a nature shooter and, in fact, I don't use telephoto all that much. This little thing is about half the size of the 80-200. I assume the VR would allow me to work handheld where I can't with the 80-200. Never had VR or even tried it. I could sell both it and the 300 and raise enough to pay for it. I'll give it some thought. Thanks for the review link.
     

Share This Page