70-300 vs 80-400

[revid]

I have the nikkor 70-300 4.5-5.6 vr and looking to sell and upgrade to the 80-400 of the same lens.Any comments or opinions please?

 

[coastalconn]

Might want to wait and see how the Tamron 150-600 pans out. Might save you 1500 and give you an extra 200mm of reach..

 

[BillM]

I went from a 70-300 to the Sigma 150-500 and then to the Nikon 80-400. I'm happy with the decision but if the new Tamron was available when I made the move I would have bought it. With the leftover money you could add another body and still have money leftover to buy more gear

 

[Tailgunner]

I went from a 70-300 to the Sigma 150-500 and then to the Nikon 80-400. I'm happy with the decision but if the new Tamron was available when I made the move I would have bought it. With the leftover money you could add another body and still have money leftover to buy more gear

So do you like the 80-400 more than the Sig 150-500? Are you using an older 80-400 or newer?

 

[revid]

I went from a 70-300 to the Sigma 150-500 and then to the Nikon 80-400. I'm happy with the decision but if the new Tamron was available when I made the move I would have bought it. With the leftover money you could add another body and still have money leftover to buy more gear

I want to use this on a dx body(7000 or 7100) so would that sway your decision?

 

[Propsguy]

The autofocus on the 80 - 400 is too slow to make it a worthwhile upgrade. And for the price, the aperture is nothing to write home about either...

 

[BillM]

I like the 80-400 MUCH better than the Sigma. And it is the new version 80-400. The Sigma more or less fell apart on me after a few weeks. Night and day difference in build quality.

 

[Derrel]

The NEW, AF-S G-series 80-400 gets good reviews from Thom Hogan, who is a pretty strict critic when it comes to lenses. It's on rebate right now, at a decent price. I would like to have it myself, but right now I already have the "old" AF-D model and the 70-300 VR. What I like about the 70-300VR is its "relatively small" overall length, and it fits snugly into a waist-pack water bottle slot on my favorite day-hike setup, whereas the 80-400 is longer, and heavier. THe 80-400 is "workable" as a carry lens for a day at the seashore, and has been a good lens for me for saltwater fishing from boats, use in the wind, and for shooting from one, fixed location.

THe 150-600 is bigger than an 80-400, and has no real "bottom end width", so it's less useful EXCEPT for long-distance shooting. But check out that front filter size...this 150-600 is not going to be a good lens for walking around resort towns or along the streets of vacay spots, whereas the 70-300 OR 80-400 VR are pretty "shoulder-strap-carryable" without looking like a paparazzi or a perv.

The one thing is, if you buy an expensive Nikon zoom, after 10 years or so, you can sell it for close to what you payed, with pretty reasonably minor depreciation. When you buy a third-party lens, you see the re-sale price drop 40% the first year, and it only becomes worth less and less and less over a decade.

Go take a look at what a $1699 Nikkor 70-200 VR "One" sells for today, about ten years later. Compare that against a Sigma, Tamron, or Tokina zoom. The Sigma, Tamron, and Tokina lenses are the ones to buy when they are two years old, and you give some poor schlub half of what he bought it for.

 

[BillM]

I want to use this on a dx body(7000 or 7100) so would that sway your decision?

I use it on a D7100 and a D800. It is a little tight on the fingers between grip and lens on the 7100 but i have larger hands.

And a great point on the resale value by Derrel :thumbup:

 

[BillM]

And I wouldn't actually consider the AF slow, these tend to move about rather quickly

 

[Tailgunner]

The NEW, AF-S G-series 80-400 gets good reviews from Thom Hogan, who is a pretty strict critic when it comes to lenses. It's on rebate right now, at a decent price. I would like to have it myself, but right now I already have the "old" AF-D model and the 70-300 VR. What I like about the 70-300VR is its "relatively small" overall length, and it fits snugly into a waist-pack water bottle slot on my favorite day-hike setup, whereas the 80-400 is longer, and heavier. THe 80-400 is "workable" as a carry lens for a day at the seashore, and has been a good lens for me for saltwater fishing from boats, use in the wind, and for shooting from one, fixed location.

THe 150-600 is bigger than an 80-400, and has no real "bottom end width", so it's less useful EXCEPT for long-distance shooting. But check out that front filter size...this 150-600 is not going to be a good lens for walking around resort towns or along the streets of vacay spots, whereas the 70-300 OR 80-400 VR are pretty "shoulder-strap-carryable" without looking like a paparazzi or a perv.

The one thing is, if you buy an expensive Nikon zoom, after 10 years or so, you can sell it for close to what you payed, with pretty reasonably minor depreciation. When you buy a third-party lens, you see the re-sale price drop 40% the first year, and it only becomes worth less and less and less over a decade.

Go take a look at what a $1699 Nikkor 70-200 VR "One" sells for today, about ten years later. Compare that against a Sigma, Tamron, or Tokina zoom. The Sigma, Tamron, and Tokina lenses are the ones to buy when they are two years old, and you give some poor schlub half of what he bought it for.

Thanks,

I've taken a small interest in birds while I'm out shooting my landscapes and all I've got is my 70-200mm 2.8 VRII. I love this lens but I really wouldn't mind some more reach. I've got a 1.7 TCEII but it still doesn't cut the mustard. So I'm been thinking about an older 80-400 VR or Sig 150-500. My 1.7TC should work with the 80-400mm but I hear the older 80-400mms are some what slow and a TC would probably agitate it more. I'm using a D800, so AF shouldn't be an issue.

 

[robbins.photo]

The NEW, AF-S G-series 80-400 gets good reviews from Thom Hogan, who is a pretty strict critic when it comes to lenses. It's on rebate right now, at a decent price. I would like to have it myself, but right now I already have the "old" AF-D model and the 70-300 VR. What I like about the 70-300VR is its "relatively small" overall length, and it fits snugly into a waist-pack water bottle slot on my favorite day-hike setup, whereas the 80-400 is longer, and heavier. THe 80-400 is "workable" as a carry lens for a day at the seashore, and has been a good lens for me for saltwater fishing from boats, use in the wind, and for shooting from one, fixed location.

THe 150-600 is bigger than an 80-400, and has no real "bottom end width", so it's less useful EXCEPT for long-distance shooting. But check out that front filter size...this 150-600 is not going to be a good lens for walking around resort towns or along the streets of vacay spots, whereas the 70-300 OR 80-400 VR are pretty "shoulder-strap-carryable" without looking like a paparazzi or a perv.

The one thing is, if you buy an expensive Nikon zoom, after 10 years or so, you can sell it for close to what you payed, with pretty reasonably minor depreciation. When you buy a third-party lens, you see the re-sale price drop 40% the first year, and it only becomes worth less and less and less over a decade.

Go take a look at what a $1699 Nikkor 70-200 VR "One" sells for today, about ten years later. Compare that against a Sigma, Tamron, or Tokina zoom. The Sigma, Tamron, and Tokina lenses are the ones to buy when they are two years old, and you give some poor schlub half of what he bought it for.

Umm.. but Derrel, I was actually kind of cultivating that "pervy paparazzi" look.. lol.

 

[Derrel]

The old 80-400VR will NOT accept the Nikon autofocus converters...the rear element is too close to the back of the lens. It just will NOT physically mate with those TC's. It WILL work with the OLD, manual focus Nikon converters, but it's a bad mix. The old 80-400 is not so much slow to focus as it is a regal PITA for acquiring focus on new targets, and it also tend to get "confused" many times. For example, I've tried to use it on high school soccer in good, bright daylight on the D2x...it's "just okay" at its best, ranging downward to, "Why yes, yes I do have the vocabulary of a well-educated sailor, coach, thanks for noticing my temporary fit of lens-induced insanity and rage mixed with loathing and disgust!" It focuses FAST, as long as it's pre-focused on about the right distance...but with a simple swing of the camera onto a NEW target, at a vastly different distance, and Dzzzzt-dzzzzt-dzzzzzzzzt [focus hunting!] is the result about half the time.

Now, knowing how this lens actually FUNCTIONS, Nikon made a brand-new, FIRST, one-of-a-kind M/A switch, right up front, right behind the focusing ring. This was the first lens that could be set to M, and then just twisted a bit, to A, allowing you to easily GET OUT OF AUTO, and back into manual focusing, without needing to depress the small locking button. The lens has L M _______A L over about a 1/2 inch arc of twist, meaning Locked into MANUAL, then Manual, then the intermediate space, then AUTO, then LOCKED on AUTO. You can feel the Manual-Auto ring by feel, since there's a smooth band between it, and the focusing ring. And when you use this lens, and it goes into a focus hunt, you KNOW you must MANUALLY rectify the situation, or it will come allllll the way back to Minimum Focus Distance, then try to re-acquire. I would rate it as one of the poorest AF lenses I've ever used, for ACTIVE targets.

This lens is FINE for slow-moving stuff, or stuff that moves steadily, but it's NOT worth a damn for action sports; the 70-300VR runs circles around the "old" screw-drive 80-400VR for targets that move.

 

[Tailgunner]

The old 80-400VR will NOT accept the Nikon autofocus converters...the rear element is too close to the back of the lens. It just will NOT physically mate with those TC's. It WILL work with the OLD, manual focus Nikon converters, but it's a bad mix. The old 80-400 is not so much slow to focus as it is a regal PITA for acquiring focus on new targets, and it also tend to get "confused" many times. For example, I've tried to use it on high school soccer in good, bright daylight on the D2x...it's "just okay" at its best, ranging downward to, "Why yes, yes I do have the vocabulary of a well-educated sailor, coach, thanks for noticing my temporary fit of lens-induced insanity and rage mixed with loathing and disgust!" It focuses FAST, as long as it's pre-focused on about the right distance...but with a simple swing of the camera onto a NEW target, at a vastly different distance, and Dzzzzt-dzzzzt-dzzzzzzzzt [focus hunting!] is the result about half the time.

Now, knowing how this lens actually FUNCTIONS, Nikon made a brand-new, FIRST, one-of-a-kind M/A switch, right up front, right behind the focusing ring. This was the first lens that could be set to M, and then just twisted a bit, to A, allowing you to easily GET OUT OF AUTO, and back into manual focusing, without needing to depress the small locking button. The lens has L M _______A L over about a 1/2 inch arc of twist, meaning Locked into MANUAL, then Manual, then the intermediate space, then AUTO, then LOCKED on AUTO. You can feel the Manual-Auto ring by feel, since there's a smooth band between it, and the focusing ring. And when you use this lens, and it goes into a focus hunt, you KNOW you must MANUALLY rectify the situation, or it will come allllll the way back to Minimum Focus Distance, then try to re-acquire. I would rate it as one of the poorest AF lenses I've ever used, for ACTIVE targets.

This lens is FINE for slow-moving stuff, or stuff that moves steadily, but it's NOT worth a damn for action sports; the 70-300VR runs circles around the "old" screw-drive 80-400VR for targets that move.

Thanks, there goes that idea lol

How about the Sig 150-500? I'm thinking I could maybe pick up a good deal on one with the release of the Tamron 150-600?

 

[coastalconn]

Thanks, there goes that idea lol

How about the Sig 150-500? I'm thinking I could maybe pick up a good deal on one with the release of the Tamron 150-600?

The Sig 150-500 isn't that bad. You pretty much have to shoot it at F8 at 500, but it is useable. AF is pretty sure footed.. here is my set with the 150-500 Sigma 150-500 OS - a set on Flickr