DSLRUsers.com

Hi guys, I've searched and am probably searching for the wrong terms, but can someone tell me what format the 80-400mm lens is? ie what sensor size it will fit? I want the lens but if it is designed for aps-c sized sensors then I might resist the urge.

Cheers,
Owen.

Owen,

It's full frame.

Lenses for DX cameras are so designated in their name.

Owen
And furthermore....it is a fabulous lens!

Yeah I know. I still remember seeing Gary post his image of the moon that he took. Looks like I'll have to start saving Thanks for responding guys.

will do me till I get enough for a fast prime!
one of the better value bang for buck lenses out there. 80-400 covers a lot of bases.

Steve

Owen,

It is a great lens! On my D2X all the time.

Michael

Thanks Michael.

You can all stop now, it'll be a while before I save enough $$$$ so I have to let the eagerness dwindle a bit

Which areas of photography does the 80-400 excel in?

Animals/birds? Sports?

I'm just wondering if I should get the 80-400 or the 70-200.

From what I've heard of it is slow to focus and doesn't have a large aperture, so it's not ideal for sports or quick moving animals. For that you'd be better off with the 70-200 and the teleconverter.

owen wrote:For that you'd be better off with the 70-200 and the teleconverter.

So what do people use the 80-400 for?

greencardigan wrote:Which areas of photography does the 80-400 excel in?

Animals/birds? Sports?

Yes.

I'm just wondering if I should get the 80-400 or the 70-200.

You're asking the worng questions, I'm afraid.

Both lenses are very sharp and either will provide images of exceptional clarity, given a good photographer operating the camera.

But the 70-200 is a faster lens optically, and it also focuses more quickly on all bodies. That can make a difference in many shooting circumstances.

OTOH, the 80-400 provides superior reach than even the 70-200 with a TC, so the correct question relates to your photographic needs: do you need the reach that the 80-400 provides? And is your need for that reach greater than your need for the superior performance that the 70-200 provides?

They're probably the more salient questions that you should be seeking answers to. If your needs are satisified by one lens and not the other, then your choice is made.

owen wrote:From what I've heard of it is slow to focus and doesn't have a large aperture, so it's not ideal for sports or quick moving animals. For that you'd be better off with the 70-200 and the teleconverter.

No offence Owen, But I really tire of seeing people say that.

The 80-400, mounted on a D70 body, is perfectly capable of delivering excellent work, including delivering images of F1 cars that do seem to move somewhat more quickly than most other things on this planet.

So, yes, the 80-400 isn't as quick as a 70-200, but yes, it is fast enough - ideal, even - for delivering high quality images of extremely fast moving sports or animals.

But, and this is true of anything, you do need to know how to use the lens, and how to get the best out of it. It comes back to technique and skills, but there's no rocket science involved here.

greencardigan wrote:

owen wrote:For that you'd be better off with the 70-200 and the teleconverter.

So what do people use the 80-400 for?

Everything, from fast moving animals, to very fast sports, to shots of the moon, to portraiture.

Next question, please?

The 80-400. Often knocked, seldom matched

Yes, the AF is slower on a D70 compare to a D2x/D2H. On an outright AF speed test, the 70-200VR on a D70 will win hands down due to the 70-200 being an AF-S lens rather than the 80-400's body screw driven AF-D specification.

I'm sure Gary will be along shortly to add his part about the 80-400 focus speed.
[edit: while typing the reply, sure enough ]

The AF shortcoming can be overcome by developing good technique and appropriate use of the focus limit switch.

I use my 80-400 for mainly wildlife and nature work, but have used it before in the 105-135mm@ f/5 range for portraiture.

This and this image are the only two examples I currently have in my gallery (sorry!) of the type of thing I use it for.

To figure out which combo is best for you includes:
* do I need f/2.8?
* Do I want to swap the TC on and off to get the extra range?
* for the cost difference of the 80-400 vs the 70-200+TC, would I be better buying a combo of the 80-400 and say a Sigma 70-200/Nikon 80-200 2.8?
* consider by the time you put a TC on the 70-200, your aperture range will be getting into the 80-400's territory anyway

If you shoot a lot of low light sport, yeah... get the 70-200VR with TC.

If you currently shoot with a 70-300G equivalent and you're looking to upgrade to something that will give seriously good results without breaking the bank too much - 80-400 is your lens.

gstark wrote:No offence Owen, But I really tire of seeing people say that.

I was just going from what I've read, you've got first hand experience

Personally I'll be using it for mainly landscape-type shots and whatever else comes up.

owen wrote:

gstark wrote:No offence Owen, But I really tire of seeing people say that.

I was just going from what I've read, you've got first hand experience

Exactly, and that's probably my point. Should people be making a comment of this type when they don't have that first hand experience? And no, I'm not having a go at you; as I said, I do tire of seeing those sorts of comments being made when there isn't usually any basis for them.

I know that it rarely bothers people on some other sites, but I think that we're different (dare I say better?) here.

daniel_r wrote:If you currently shoot with a 70-300G equivalent and you're looking to upgrade to something that will give seriously good results without breaking the bank too much - 80-400 is your lens.

That sounds like me. Looking to replace the 70-300.

Thanks for the sample shots Daniel.

greencardigan wrote:

owen wrote:For that you'd be better off with the 70-200 and the teleconverter.

So what do people use the 80-400 for?

I've used mine for band photos, street photography, portraits, wildlife, sports and even macro shots (with diopters on the front)...

It can be a little slow to focus (on the D70), but you get used to it and learn when to use manual focus. The only thing I find annoying is that it's not possible to focus on anything closer than 4.5 metres away (apart from when using the aforementioned diopters) - but that's a function of the lens that would be difficult to change...

How long has the 80-400 been around?

What's the chances of it being superseeded in the near future?

greencardigan wrote:How long has the 80-400 been around?

What's the chances of it being superseeded in the near future?

Since early 2001.
Nikon does not stop their productions after 20 years in circulation or at least 10 years time, is the minimum.
It still has lot of life span.

greencardigan wrote:How long has the 80-400 been around?

What's the chances of it being superseeded in the near future?

Why is that a concern? If you have it, then you have it.

I guess one of the things they could upgrade is the VR in it to be the same as the 18-200 lens. Other than that lenses aren't like computers (or cameras for that matter) you don't need to upgrade them because they don't change all that much.