Nikon AF-S 80-400mm f/4.5-5.6 G ED VR

[Turn7]

Any good then ?

Step up from the comsumer 70/300 I hope ?

This or 70/200 2.8 and convertor if required ?

[Gad-Westy]

Turn7 said:

Any good then ?

Step up from the comsumer 70/300 I hope ?

This or 70/200 2.8 and convertor if required ?

I can't really give a full answer to this having not tried the new 80-400 but I do own a 70-200 and 70-300VR. Every review suggests that the 80-400 should be a chunk better than the 70-300VR as it should be for the price of course.

I've tried the 70-200 2.8 with a 2x was really unimpressed. The lens is great on it's own but seems to suffer dramatically with the TC attached.

One thing though, the 200-500 is imminent and is going to be cheaper than the 80-400. Are you not tempted to wait and see how that turns out....?

[Turn7]

Gad-Westy said:

Turn7 said:

Any good then ?

Step up from the comsumer 70/300 I hope ?

This or 70/200 2.8 and convertor if required ?

I can't really give a full answer to this having not tried the new 80-400 but I do own a 70-200 and 70-300VR. Every review suggests that the 80-400 should be a chunk better than the 70-300VR as it should be for the price of course.

I've tried the 70-200 2.8 with a 2x was really unimpressed. The lens is great on it's own but seems to suffer dramatically with the TC attached.

One thing though, the 200-500 is imminent and is going to be cheaper than the 80-400. Are you not tempted to wait and see how that turns out....?

I am now.....

I wasnt aware of the quite large price differential bewteen the two. If the longer fixed aperture glass is anygood, its a no brainer for me.

[Gad-Westy]

Turn7 said:

Gad-Westy said:

Turn7 said:

Any good then ?

Step up from the comsumer 70/300 I hope ?

This or 70/200 2.8 and convertor if required ?

I can't really give a full answer to this having not tried the new 80-400 but I do own a 70-200 and 70-300VR. Every review suggests that the 80-400 should be a chunk better than the 70-300VR as it should be for the price of course.

I've tried the 70-200 2.8 with a 2x was really unimpressed. The lens is great on it's own but seems to suffer dramatically with the TC attached.

One thing though, the 200-500 is imminent and is going to be cheaper than the 80-400. Are you not tempted to wait and see how that turns out....?

I am now.....

I wasnt aware of the quite large price differential bewteen the two. If the longer fixed aperture glass is anygood, its a no brainer for me.

Must admit I have no real need for a very long telephoto but I'm watching that one with interest.

[kevin63]

I have the 70-200mm f2.8 and the 80-400mm (latest version) and I can't leave the 80-400mm alone, it's awesome. I take long range nature shots and it's quite good at close up stuff too, it's pricey, but I don't regret it one bit. Below is an example of long range and close up, but more on my Flickr.

DSC_1500 by Kev, on Flickr

DSC_1406 by Kev, on Flickr

[Turn7]

Bottom image is amazing. What sort of distance were you ?

Also,whats it like at big crops - if required ?

[kevin63]

Bottom image was somewhere near the minimum focus distance around 1.5 metres. I do find that I can do a heavy crop as the lens does seem to be pin sharp even at full zoom, I love it on wildlife trips and for Motorsport. I find that even if I see a bug on a plant, I don't have to change my lens which is useful. I am using it on a Nikon D7100 so it's an equivalent to 120-600mm in 35mm format.