New lens

[gr8five]

Im looking at the Nikon 80-400 lens and wanting some opinions. I know its not Pro glass but it is at the top of what I want to spend. Thanks in advance for your comments.

Mike

 

[shadowlands]

You'll save a ton if you go with the former model, and go used, via adorama or keh.com.

 

[Coasty]

I have the older model and would not recommend getting it for the camera you have. Will it work? Sure it will, but the newer 80-400 has come a long way from the10+ year old D model. You may save a few dollars but will miss a lot of shots with the old screw drive focus.

 

[gr8five]

The lens Im looking at is the new model and its about 6 months old.

 

[Dave442]

The new model is very nice.

 

[raventepes]

I've been wanting the 80-400 for quite some time now, but the thing is, there are other contenders on the list that take up much of the same focal length. For starters, the Sigma 150-600 Sport. Everything I hear about that lens is that it's simply phenomenal. But is the 80-400 worth it over the extended focal length of the Sigma? Nikon has also announced a 200-500 with a constant f/5.6 aperture. Sure, it may not be f/4, but when you're shooting long, you really aren't looking for DOF most of the time.

I think in some ways, the only way I might get the 80-400 at this point would be if I were going to be using it as a short telephoto instead of a 70-200, or if I were specifically intending on using it on crop frame, which is where that particular lens really shines. Since you already have a Tamron 70-200, I'd look at either the Sigma Sport (or even the Contemporary to save size and weight), or look at the 200-500 from Nikon.

 

[gr8five]

I just returned the Tamron 150-600. When extended it's too long when shooting handheld for me. On the tripod is was better but still too long for me. I really don't think I will miss the extra 200mm for what I shoot. Also I'm selling my 70-200.

 

[Braineack]

I just returned the Tamron 150-600. When extended it's too long when shooting handheld for me. On the tripod is was better but still too long for me. I really don't think I will miss the extra 200mm for what I shoot. Also I'm selling my 70-200.

It is really that much different?

http://media.the-digital-picture.co...-6.3-DG-OS-HSM-Lens-Comparison-with-Hoods.jpg

 

[coastalconn]

I've always thought the Nikon 80-400 is slightly overpriced for what it is. Whatever you get, these lenses are going to be relatively long and big. I shot the Tamron for over a year and thought it was super easy to shoot handheld. I now shoot a 500 F4 handheld at 8.5#(11+ with the camera). If you are really that concerned about size and weight, your best bet would be the 300 F4 PF with a 1.4x TC (less than 2#). Who knows what the new 200-500 will be like, but I think it will be a pretty good lens for the price, but it does weigh a little more than the Tamron 150-600.

 

[gr8five]

I just returned the Tamron 150-600. When extended it's too long when shooting handheld for me. On the tripod is was better but still too long for me. I really don't think I will miss the extra 200mm for what I shoot. Also I'm selling my 70-200.

It is really that much different?

http://media.the-digital-picture.co...-6.3-DG-OS-HSM-Lens-Comparison-with-Hoods.jpg

Sorry, I wasn't very clear. What I'm saying is its longer (total length) then I care to handle and I really wouldn't use the 500 to 600mm enough to keep it. It seems like a great lens just not for me.

 

[Braineack]

total focal length?

when you say: its too long to handle, I think 10 inches.

 

[gr8five]

To some of us 10 inches is long. Its not the closed un hooded length that is long its the total hooded length of 17.5 inches that I didn't care for. As I said earlier (its longer (total length) then I care to handle and I really wouldn't use the 500 to 600mm enough to keep it). Im not knocking your lens its just not for me at this time.

 

[robbins.photo]

To some of us 10 inches is long.

Put me down for an official "no comment".

Lol

 

[crimbfighter]

I think one thing you have already identified, is that certain lenses aren't for you. If you believe you will be doing most of your shooting in the 80-400mm focal length, and you want a one lens solution, and you're not worried about large constant apertures, then the new 80-400 would probably serve your needs very well. I've heard very good things about the new version and if I had the spare money, I'd probably pick one up myself.

I think something we are all guilty of doing from time to time is over analyzing every possible lens combo for one advantage over another. Bottom line, to me, is if this focal length is best suited for you, and you have the money, go for it. Though I would recommend renting one for a few days before buying it, just to make sure. It might cost you $100 or so, but it would be worth the money to know for sure if you want it before buying it. Think of it this way, spending $100 to rent it is much less than you will lose on depreciation if you try to sell it right away because you don't like it.

Just my thoughts, hope it helps.

 

[gr8five]

I just returned the Nikkor 200-400 and 80-400 lenses after trying out both. I thought the 200-400 was a great lens but I liked the 80-400 also. The 200-400 is defiantly a better lens, imho. When adding cost into the equation the 80-400 is a lot closer to fitting into my budget.