DSLRUsers.com

Well I have just finished a two week play with the Nikon 80-400mm VR lens that I had on loan. Here are my impressions along with links to sample pics that illustrate the strengths and weaknesses of this lens as I see it. This is, by necessity, a long post - hopefully it is of value. Here's a shot of the lens from the Maxwell site:


To see a larger version of any of the images below, just click the image.

First impressions
The lens is heavy at 1.34 Kg and big (91mm diameter, 171 mm long). Full specs are at http://www.maxwell.com.au/products/nikon/nikkor/af_zoom/80-400_vr.html. After walking around with it on a 3 hour shooting session I knew I was carrying it, but it was practicable. And the VR DEFINITELY works - my "good" shot count was up by at least 30%.

Reach
The zoom range is impressive. Check the three pics below taken from a distance of 1.2km. The shots are at 80 mm, 300 mm and 400 mm respectively:


At a closer distance the images are quite sharp. Both shots below were taken from the same location 50 m away from the building. The images are at 80 mm and 195 mm respectively:


Depth of field
The DOF is very shallow so you really need to ensure your focus is locked on your subject. See the shot below taken at 80 mm:

and these two shot at 400 mm of some seagulls about 50 m from the camera:


The rest of the review continues in the next post below

The review continues...

Focussing on moving targets
While it can be achieved, I had great difficulty focussing on moving targets. I tried bees in flowers and some birds. The 2 shots below are some examples that succeeded (although it must be said I've taken better bee in flight shots with my 70-300 G lens):


The real problem here is that the lens is VERY slow to focus and these ones work because they are pretty slowly moving targets. The shot below is of some egrets nesting in a swaying tree branch and the BEST shot I could get was this one - the problem being the tree was moving too fast for the lens to lock on the target:


Conclusions
This is an impressive lens. It has a nice big zoom range and the VR allows for shots for which you'd normally need a tripod (the cathedral shots at the top of the thread are a great example of this). While it is heavy it can be hand held practically for a considerable time.

It is slow to focus on fast moving targets, but with patience this CAN be achieved. It also has quite a shallow depth of field, but, again, knowing this you can compensate and achieve satisfactory results.

So, should you buy one?

• If you want to take sports shots where the objects are fast moving (cars for example) - probably not, but for slower subjects (eg football matches) it would be fine.
• If you want to take wildlife shots the same applies - for fast moving subjects you'll have problems, but for slower ones it will be fine (see my Shortland Wetlands 21 Jan photos for some GOOD examples here
• For any other type of usage the same rules apply. Excellent hand held shots for slow moving targets. Not so good when your subject moves too fast

Don't get me wrong though, in terms of value for money this is a great lens within the limits I mention above and well worth adding to your kit IF you aren't concerned by the problems raised.

For faster moving subjects, better depth of field or greater acuity the better choice is the 70-200 mm VR, perhaps with a 1.7 Teleconverter. But for that you'll pay about 50% more.

Edit: To illustrate what I mean by speed. This crop from a slightly larger pic is at the limit of the moving target speed I'm talking about:


Hopefully the information above will help you if you are consiering purchasing this lens, but the final point I'd like to make is there is no substitute for trying out the lens for yourself at one of our meets at birddog's place - so come along one Saturday and try before you buy.

Edit:
Updated 21 Feb 05 as some pics were removed from Pixspot to save space.

Also have a look at my Shortland Wetlands 19 Feb 05 for a visit to the same place with the 70-200 VR + TC 17IIE


Cheers

If you wanted to chase moving targets, can you recommend a particular lens or lenses that would perform better?

Great comprehensive review Stubbsy. Just an additional note - do you happen to recall what its closest focusing distance was? I know it's no macro lens and doesn't to pretend to be one, however your flower shots in the review above seems to indicate it's workable as a close focus lens.

onimod wrote:If you wanted to chase moving targets, can you recommend a particular lens or lenses that would perform better?

I've updated the comments a little to include this answre - get the 70-200 VR + a 1.7 TC if needed. After having tried both I've settled on this pairing despite the greater cost, but that's because I need this for what I want to do.

onyx wrote:do you happen to recall what its closest focusing distance was

The Maxwell site gives this as 2.3 m and that's pretty much correct. To take the flower shots I had to get used to moving AWAY from them to get close up shots!

Stubbsy - very impressive review. I noticed halation on some shots did you apply any USM to these pics?

Chris

sirhc55 wrote:I noticed halation on some shots did you apply any USM to these pics

Yep - I've since learned to be a little more subtle and check my results more closely

Stubbsy
Good review. I would add that with a bit of time and practice a good operater might eventually find a workaround for the slow focus....or should I say...ways to compensate. The lens has some restrictions but overall, a very useful piece of glass. Thanks for the heads up!

Matt. K wrote:Stubbsy
Good review. I would add that with a bit of time and practice a good operater might eventually find a workaround for the slow focus....or should I say...ways to compensate. The lens has some restrictions but overall, a very useful piece of glass. Thanks for the heads up!

Hey Matt, what was your impression of it on Saturday? I'd agree with stubbsy that it's slow to focus. Taking pics of seagulls on Saturday really pointed it out. Hopefully I can find ways to compensate with mine - think I'll have to become good at panning for the track photos!

skippy

I was wondering how long you'd take to post given you just traded up to this from the bigma and have foregone buying a house for another 20 years

Only just made it under an hour!


pssst ... wanna buy a Bigma?

Great review stubbsy - really helpful to anyone (read everyone) considering this lens. Amazing range of shots shows its versatility.

Cheers
Peter

Thanks stubb’s

You just made me need this thing even more!!!!!!
& with all this wet weather we’re having up here ATM it’s not getting any closer

Cheers
Ray

yes... Thats one of the price adding items on the 70-200VR, having AF-S (AKA Ultrasonic motor AKA Silent Wave Motor AKA really fast quite AF)

See I really want this lens...

Like... really want it...

To the point that I have the money put aside in a different account...

But a few weeks ago I wasn't sure it would be worth it, i'm over that now but now I wonder if ( as so frequently is the case ) I'll buy this lens in late february and in early march they'll annouce the 80-400VR AF-s or something similar.. with 70-200 aquity(sp?) all the way to 400mm and an autofocus system that can motion track a bullet-train..

Now if someone could guarantee that this lens wont be released before 2006, or that it wont be release for less than 5K.. then I'll be happy.. ( again )..

Dean, if it makes you happy, I'll guarantee it.
Now go and buy the lens and enjoy it.

PlatinumWeaver wrote:See I really want this lens...

Like... really want it...

To the point that I have the money put aside in a different account...

But a few weeks ago I wasn't sure it would be worth it, i'm over that now but now I wonder if ( as so frequently is the case ) I'll buy this lens in late february and in early march they'll annouce the 80-400VR AF-s or something similar.. with 70-200 aquity(sp?) all the way to 400mm and an autofocus system that can motion track a bullet-train..

Now if someone could guarantee that this lens wont be released before 2006, or that it wont be release for less than 5K.. then I'll be happy.. ( again )..

PW,
You may save up more for your dream of the 80-400VR/ AF-S, and I don't see it in the near future, same as the 70-400VR AF-S/2.8, if it's available, I don't think you'll able to reach it within your limitation.
It's the same story of all other guys, holding off buying the D70 and waiting for the D90 or D200 or Dxxxx.

I love this forum.. despite the fact that it has nearly tripled since I joined I still get glimpses of that close-knit community spirit..

I reloaded the page to see if there were any replies.. assumed there weren't and was about to go back to the index when I noticed there was now a page two.... you guys rock..

Hey Birdy, there's no evidence of a shortage of stock in that lens is there? I'd really prefer to wait a month before buying it, but don't want to get caught out if availability suddenly dries up..

PlatinumWeaver wrote:I love this forum.. despite the fact that it has nearly tripled since I joined I still get glimpses of that close-knit community spirit..

I reloaded the page to see if there were any replies.. assumed there weren't and was about to go back to the index when I noticed there was now a page two.... you guys rock..

Hey Birdy, there's no evidence of a shortage of stock in that lens is there? I'd really prefer to wait a month before buying it, but don't want to get caught out if availability suddenly dries up..

The true story is unknown yet, maybe it will follow the way of 70-200VR.
Poon searched for me all of the 70-200VR in HKG market but could not get me one or two this week as of today, price is increased by US$50.00/ lens, just verbally over the phone, no confirmation yet.

Dean, before you put this lens to rest and i myself haven't played with it a lot yet but here is a pic i took last weekend out of many using the 80-400VR at 400mm. I did not have any probs with focus speed even chasing these bikes, the only mistake i made and will learn from it is to check the settins on the camera before i use it as i had the ISO set high and forgot about it and some pics had some noise in them.
Cheers
John
BBJ
80-400VR-400mm

Dean,

PlatinumWeaver wrote:See I really want this lens...

I have it.

But a few weeks ago I wasn't sure it would be worth it, i'm over that now but now I wonder if ( as so frequently is the case ) I'll buy this lens in late february and in early march they'll annouce the 80-400VR AF-s or something similar.. with 70-200 aquity(sp?) all the way to 400mm and an autofocus system that can motion track a bullet-train..

That would be acuity.

I think Peter has over-emphasised the slow focussing of this lens.

A couple of points here - what about photographic technique, for instance? What did we do in the days BAF? I'm not for a moment suggesting that Peter's technique is lacking. Rather, that perhaps he's looking too much at the modern tools available (and I am just so impressed with what VR can help us achieve) that he's overlooking the fact that there are other, perfectly satisfactory ways to achieve sharp focus, besides AF.

Yes, the 70-200 is fast, as is the 200-400, everything is a compromise, and it becomes a matter of what are the compromises that we're willing to settle for in the acquistion of our collection of glass?

One of my primary needs is for the reach that the 80-400 provides me. The 70-200 just doesn't cut it, and even with a 1.7TC it's still short of the mark. Hell, I'm concerned that at 400, I'm still not getting all of the reach that I need!

Along with reach, I need good acuity. The 80-400 is excellent in this regard. Make no mistake about that. Here are a few test shots that I made when I first bought this lens. Look carefully at 4935Crop1, which is a full size crop from 4935.

This image was taken from the eastern side of Pyrmont Bridge, looking into the boats at the Maritime Museum. Distance, maybe 1Km, perhaps a bit more. 400mm, f8, 1/2000, handheld.

Look at the chainwire fence, behind the boats. This picture is worth far more than a thousand words, in demonstrating the acutiy of this lens, and I don't think it's possible to do much better than this.

Yes, the lens is slower in AF than othan other lenses. it's also a damn sight faster than other AF lenses that I have, and have used.

But I'm going to be using this lnes at the F1 races in Melbourne in a month. Try to find a faster moving sport than F1 ...

Yet I am completely unconcerned about the lens's (lack of) speed in these circumstance. It's not an issue, because I'll simply revert to BAF techniques when I need to.

gary wrote:I think Peter has over-emphasised the slow focussing of this lens

Guilty. Trouble is that wasn't actually my intent. I guess this was what disappointed me most about what is, as you say, a great lens and this coloured my critique. I think your comments add back the balance.

What you and Matt. K have both said in different ways is that in experienced hands you can get this lens to perform extremely well.

Thank you all for your replies.. I hope that other people are thinking the same way I am and all this effort and time you're putting in helps someone else make the right decision..

I have a slight problem in that when you're talking about what we did in the days before auto-focus ( which I assume is what BAF means ).. I have no experience with this. Last july I bought the D70... the year before that I bought a Kodak P&S Digital.. a few years before that my sister and I had another kodak digital, very very rudimentary..

My photographic experience is, at the most, 2yrs worth... AF is all I know

PlatimumWeaver

My photographic expeirence is similar to yours. 3 Years ago I bought a Kodak DC4800 P&S. Never had a camera before that. I think that's why the slow to focus was such an issue for me - I've been spoilt.

PlatinumWeaver wrote:I have a slight problem in that when you're talking about what we did in the days before auto-focus ( which I assume is what BAF means )

Correct.

.. I have no experience with this. Last july I bought the D70... the year before that I bought a Kodak P&S Digital.. a few years before that my sister and I had another kodak digital, very very rudimentary..

My photographic experience is, at the most, 2yrs worth... AF is all I know

Do not view that as a disadvantage, nor as a problem. It is however another technique for you to learn and master. Nothing more, and nothing less.

Take the camera, and a child, to the local park. Approach an empty swing; turn on the camera, turn off AF; exposure mode to A.

You'll be standing in front of the swings; stand at a safe distance and select a suitable focal length that will fill the fram with the child and swing, and set your aperture to f5.6 or 8

Let the child play on the swings; indeed, that is all they're permitted to do for the next few minutes. Through your viewfinder, find a point about halfway up on their backswing and manually set that focus point.

Now, take some photos of the child as they're swinging, trying to time your release of the shutter with their up or down pass through the selected focus point.

Post your results here, and we can see what you've learned.

Stubbsy, great review. Platinum Weaver, don't be put off by the slower autofocus, the 80-400 VR is a great lens and in many applications af isn't even desirable to use (hell, I just paid over $400 for a lens with only manual focus!). Recently I had to shoot some cars going around a corner (somewhat similar to a racetrack), I found it far better to manually focus on a preset point, then shoot when the cars came into focus. Far higher hit rate than even AFS. So focussing speed isnt everything, all lenses are compromises somewhere, just choose which compromises you can live with. Interestingly was reading Popular Photography on the plane and read that a papparazzi main lens after a 500 f4 was the 80-400 VR. He had 3 D1X bodies and this was his main non big gun lens

gstark wrote:But I'm going to be using this lens at the F1 races in Melbourne in a month. Try to find a faster moving sport than F1 ....

Like nearly everyone else, I'm tossing up between the 70-200 +TC and the 80-400. Heart v Brain v Wallet !! I'll be really looking forward to seeing the F1 pics, it will sway me one way or the other

gstark wrote:But I'm going to be using this lnes at the F1 races in Melbourne in a month. Try to find a faster moving sport than F1 ...

Archery?

But I'm going to be using this lnes at the F1 races in Melbourne in a month. Try to find a faster moving sport than F1 ...

i think that they won't let you in with any lenses bigger than a 200mm. the tennis also has this policy i believe.

(d70+ 200mm + 1.4 tc + 1.5cf = 420mm) i think they will let you in with this though

redline wrote:But I'm going to be using this lnes at the F1 races in Melbourne in a month. Try to find a faster moving sport than F1 ...

i think that they won't let you in with any lenses bigger than a 200mm. the tennis also has this policy i believe.

(d70+ 200mm + 1.4 tc + 1.5cf = 420mm) i think they will let you in with this though

I knew this too, mostly at any events if you don't have an official pass, they won't let you in with the big glasses.
The Airshow at Avalon is OK, I don't know about the GP but I'm sure no one allowed with big glasses into Australian Open Tennis without the official pass.

Hi Birddog114,

how do you get an official pass to that venue or any other venue for that matter.
I've seen guys walk around the big Military Tatoo on Australia Day in Canberra yesterday who were not wearing any passes and some photographers who did.
The Canon guy didn't display any pass and I guess I would have qualified with my D70 and 70-200VR !

Cheers
CD

redline wrote:But I'm going to be using this lnes at the F1 races in Melbourne in a month. Try to find a faster moving sport than F1 ...

i think that they won't let you in with any lenses bigger than a 200mm. the tennis also has this policy i believe.

(d70+ 200mm + 1.4 tc + 1.5cf = 420mm) i think they will let you in with this though

Gee, that's going to be hard to police... Some PHD cameras already go past 200mm (35mm equivalent) with digital zoom and almost all pseudo SLR's such as the Nikon Coolpix 8800 will do around 350mm.

70-200 plus TC sounds the go. After all even the dumbest security ape can (probably) read the number 400. Just tell them TC stands for "time capture" ie, it's a 10 second delay device.

Hi All, for what i know to get into some places like in a media erea you need to represent a media organisation or be accredited to get a media pass or have work published.
Something like that, there is sites on the net that go into more detail if you do a search for "media pass".
Cheers

christiand wrote:Hi Birddog114,

how do you get an official pass to that venue or any other venue for that matter.
I've seen guys walk around the big Military Tatoo on Australia Day in Canberra yesterday who were not wearing any passes and some photographers who did.
The Canon guy didn't display any pass and I guess I would have qualified with my D70 and 70-200VR !

Cheers
CD

Christiand,
The official pass is only issued to member from media organizations with accreditation. If you want to start, just doing some free works with your local newspaper as fun and you'll earn it later.
I don't know about Military Tatoo, is that outdoor event? some outdoor events, they did not ask for the pass but if those events are in the enclosed places as stadium or venue then no pass no big lens, they will stop you at the front gate.
The good thing to have official pass on your jacket/ shirt or lanyard, giving you more privileges in some areas as:
- Media briefing prior the game start.
- Access to the restricted media zone with vantage point of viewing and shooting.
- Attend to interviewing at some restricted places with sign: MEDIA Only.

redline wrote:But I'm going to be using this lnes at the F1 races in Melbourne in a month. Try to find a faster moving sport than F1 ...

i think that they won't let you in with any lenses bigger than a 200mm. the tennis also has this policy i believe.

We've never been queried - took in the 70-300G paperweight last time we were there, and a friend using a 10D had a high end 300 with him with no issues at all.

honestly,
to i don't think that would give an "offical pass" to the causal shooter maybe to the Hearld sun or the age. But they would also have their names on their media list, which has shooters from all over the world covering this event. Maybe hide your 80-400 inside a "large plastic bottle".

Stubbsy enjoyed the review. Very well done. One question - are you quitting your Sigma?

Oneputt wrote:Stubbsy enjoyed the review. Very well done. One question - are you quitting your Sigma?

Stubbsy does not have the Bigma, skippy does

gstark wrote:We've never been queried - took in the 70-300G paperweight last time we were there, and a friend using a 10D had a high end 300 with him with no issues at all.

Same here, I took my 28-300 last year, no worries. Maybe if you tried to take the 200-400 VR in they might have some issues, but I reckon you'd be fine with a 80-400 VR.

Birddog114 wrote:

redline wrote:But I'm going to be using this lnes at the F1 races in Melbourne in a month. Try to find a faster moving sport than F1 ...

i think that they won't let you in with any lenses bigger than a 200mm. the tennis also has this policy i believe.

(d70+ 200mm + 1.4 tc + 1.5cf = 420mm) i think they will let you in with this though

I knew this too, mostly at any events if you don't have an official pass, they won't let you in with the big glasses.
The Airshow at Avalon is OK, I don't know about the GP but I'm sure no one allowed with big glasses into Australian Open Tennis without the official pass.

Interesting - I never knew that, do they have some person actually checking your gear when you come in?

yeah they had ppl last year at the gates checking bags

redline wrote:yeah they had ppl last year at the gates checking bags

THey're checking drinks, weapons etc. Never bothered with our photography gear.

They're looking for Canon camera dudes...They throw them out by the scruff of their necks!