nikon 80-400 VR

[nre]

A colleague at work has one of the above for sale for a good price, however a review I found on the web states that the AF is slow on it and wouldn't be a good lens for sports photography, as I'd be using it primarily for motorsport this would be an issue. Does anyone have one of these and use it for motorsport that could share their experiences?

Thanks

N

[GetCarter]

It's very slow.

70 - 300 ED is about the same speed to aquire and a fraction of the cost.

(ETA... and 1/4 the size and weight)

Edited by GetCarter on Wednesday 7th January 20:34

[DanH]

It's slow to focus. I tested one at a shop.

However would probably work ok for track photos as you'd get the focussing done before the car came into shot on the track?

Not sure I'd spend a lot on one as this lense is ripe for replacement by Nikon as its a big gap they have compared to Canon.

[nre]

thanks guys pretty much confirms the review I read.

He's offering it at £600 which is about 2/3rds current cost and it's mint condition.

N

[malc350]

It is a total dog focus-wise and probably worse than your wildest dreams... it also has an awkward looking and even more awkward performing zoom in that the lens extends OK but you have to watch your fingers don't get trapped when you wind it back in to its shortest focal lengths. I remember image quality being pretty good though and the VR was effective.

Review and photos of the lens extended here:

http://www.photozone.de/nikon--nikkor-aps-c-lens-t...

[Dogsey]

Used one during the summer for photographing the Fighting Torque 2008 event, fantastic quality but it weighs a ton and as the others have mentioned it's AF is very slow. Still managed to get one of my favourite images of 2008 with it though.



Almost all this set were shot with it.

[Pupp]

Got one and can confirm the focus is a bit sluggish. Like the lens otherwise 'though and have been well happy with the results for wildlife, aircraft etc

[DanH]

p.s. I thought about this lens but chose to get the 70-200 and a 2x tele. Not had much luck with that but I think probably because I'm trying to hand hold at 400mm. Quite new to photography so no idea if its the tele or just the wobble! Still, at least the 70-200 is a top notch lens without the tele!

[ian in lancs]

GetCarter said:

It's very slow.

70 - 300 ED is about the same speed to aquire and a fraction of the cost.

(ETA... and 1/4 the size and weight)

Edited by GetCarter on Wednesday 7th January 20:34

yep the 70-300 VR is a top lens

[suntiger1965]

get a 80-200 vr and then a 1.4 or 2.0 converter. more expersive but boy is it quick


dom

[beano500]

suntiger1965 said:

get a 80-200 vr and then a 1.4 or 2.0 converter. more expersive but boy is it quick


dom

Perhaps you mean an 80-200 AFS, or a 70-200 VR AFS?

I use the TC-20 sparingly on the latter, and quite often a TC-14. 400mm-worth and handholding on the moon at circa 1/125-1/250 is quite acceptable with VR on - probably worth practising your technique though! I would recommend a very gentle squeeze on a short burst whilst well braced for a chance of a good hit rate.

[_dobbo_]

I've owned an 80-400 for a few years now and literally only used it 3 times, it just doesn't suit my style of photography.

I should really stick it on ebay and buy a sigma 70-200 to replace it.

[Don]

I've got the 80-400 VR.

Absolutely love it. Lots of fun for wildlife shots. Yes the AF is not terribly fast and yes it is big and heavy. The extra zoom is worth it though.

[beano500]

_dobbo_ said:

I've owned an 80-400 for a few years now and literally only used it 3 times, it just doesn't suit my style of photography.

I should really stick it on ebay and buy a sigma 70-200 to replace it.

I know it's credit crunch time and all that but I've got 5p in used change.....

Oh go on, ,make it a tenner.


Then again - I can't justify another piece of glass to lug around, and Simpo would only say it's not "weird enough" for my collection.

You might try Nikonians' UK selling forum - had luck seeking a lens, although not got much interest in selling.

Although slow, the 80-400 does have a dedicated following and a reputation for quality. I expect it depends upon a body with fast autofocus if you need it for sport/moving stuff, but I've seen some great shots on Nikonians and elsewhere with this one.

[_dobbo_]

I've got no problems at all with image quality. 400mm at f/5.6 gives some lovely bokeh and you can't half get in close especially with the crop factor.

My issue with it is the size and weight means it gets left out of the bag 9 times out of 10. The one time I take it is if I'm going somewhere there might be "wildlife", on those days it's stayed on the camera all day. Biggest problem is that I don't have many of those days!

I think I've shot 2 weddings and 1 day at Longleat and that's about it.

Reckon I'll get back what I paid for it on ebay anyway, as I got a great deal from another PH'er when I bought it in the first place.