DSLRUsers.com

Let me preface this rant by saying that I know at the end of the day you get what you pay for, but as an amateur who is never going to have anything printed larger than A3, let alone poster size, who is also on a limited budget, I'm wondering if the 80-400 isn't a bargain?

I've got the lens lust bug something bad and am looking very hard at the 70-200 2.8, but would like a little more reach. The 70-200 is already dearer than the 80-400 (as it should be considering the faster and better glass). But if I want more reach,I'm looking at teleconvertors which add cubic dollars to the price and slow the glass down. A 1.7 TC will blow it out to 340mm, but slow it down to f4.5. A 2x TC will give me 400mm, but a maximum aperture of f5.6. These are the same numbers as the 80-400 at double the price plus heaps more weight and size

I know the 80-400 is a "slow" lens, but for the sizes I want to go to I can "claim back" a couple of f-stops by upping the ISO. From tests I've done the superb CCD in the D70 is virtually as good at ISO800 as it is at ISO200.

Press the "Post Reply" buttton to show me the errors of my way

I have the 70-200 VR and my friend has the 80-400 VR. There is not a lot of difference in the size and weight of the two lenses. I wouldn't choose between them based on this alone.

In my view, the 70-200 is faster to focus; has better low-light capability; and has better contrast, making it "punchier".

Obviously the 80-400 has longer reach, and if that is your most important criterion, then your decision is made. Similarly, if price is major factor, then 80-400 is probably what you want.

If money was no object (what am I SAYING?!) I would buy the 70-200 VR and a prime lens for the extra focal length - either a 300mm or 400mm.

Does this help?

Can you cope with a 200 mm limit? If not, the choice is clear. If you'd prefer the speed, the answer is equally clear. Yes, you can always bump up the ISO, but the 70-200 gives you 2 stops headstart. As always, it really depends on what you're shooting. Do you want to compromise on length, or speed?

sounds like the 80-400 may go unused, I'll be happy to take it off your hands if needed....anyone!

cricketfan wrote:If money was no object (what am I SAYING?!) I would buy the 70-200 VR and a prime lens for the extra focal length - either a 300mm or 400mm.

Does this help?

If money was no object, I wouldn't have made the original post

As you correctly point out the 70-200 is a superior lens and if I won lotto tomorrow, Id be straight over to xxxxxxx to get a 70-200 AND a 200-400. But in a world of mortgages, comprimises have to be made

i had (and am still having) the same debate i basically thought that at the moment with my humble 70~300G i'm using 300mm twice as much as any other focal length and wanting longer so as much as i would like the 70-200 i just don't think i'd use it. the reach of the 80-400 is the key if you need it then the choice is made.



Damn! as i typed that my thoughts turned to the 200-400 and if i really need the 80-200 range at all. but then there is a big hole from 100 to 200 hmm the 70-200 2.8 would fill that nicely....HELP

Played with Mudder's 80-400 today and let me tell you it's not a slow lens. Yeah the 70-200 will be super fast because of its AF-S...

I however will be getting the 80-400 as soon as humanly possibly..

cricketfan wrote:There is not a lot of difference in the size and weight of the two lenses. I wouldn't choose between them based on this alone.

I have the 70-200 vr and that by itself is heavy enough. If i was to carry both of these I would seriously need to see a chiropractor.

I do sometimes feel like I need a longer lens, but that is prolly lens lust.

PlatinumWeaver wrote:Played with Mudder's 80-400 today and let me tell you it's not a slow lens. Yeah the 70-200 will be super fast because of its AF-S...

I however will be getting the 80-400 as soon as humanly possibly..

Yes, mudder's 80-400 was very impressive, taking the dx 1.5 field of view thing into account, it is like having a 120-600, the VR is excellent, it is cheaper (or should I say, less dear) than the 70-200......

The 80-400 is a serious choice.

As many people has known, I have 80-400/ 70-200.
I do use the 80-400 in many occassion coz the its reachable capability, if I need to travel and do some seriously shooting I'll have my 70-200 VR with me, the 200-400VR is the one of my new acquisition, even it's f4 but it faaaaaaaaaaaast in compariron with the 70-200VR.
The 80-400 is well recommend for anyone who want a longer reach and money is an object.
The 70-200 is recommend for anyone who want a super fast lens and and using it in natural light.
The 200-400VR is for the poor/ poverty cos it caused the drama, suffering and lack of sleep, it drained your pocket after the acquisition.

Johndec, I think you have the options nailed but don't forget a teleconverter as the poor mans option of getting the extra reach. Not as straightforward as the 80-400 to deal with, but miles cheaper than a 200-400 (Birddy's is unbelievable)

G'day Johndec,
I was in the exact same position as yourself not long ago... Trying to decide on 70-200 with TC, Vs 80-400...
If you're finding yourself using 200 or less then that's the one to go for (remember extra $) but if you're using over 200mm a lot, then that will probably provide the decision mechanism for you, but consider the type of photography you're into...
I use mine mainly for animals, birds chilling etc. Not fast moving subjects (especially if the subject is moving quickly either directly towards or away from you) where the combination of body driven focus with low gearing make the focus nowhere near as fast as the 70-200 with the AF-S (I better get the acronym right here!)...
I assume the 70-200 might give you a *slightly* sharper image but it's whether you'd pick it, or if your selling your work...

Dunno if that helps...

Cheers,
Mudder

Well bit like being stuck between a rock and a hard place. Found a reveiw on the 80-400, seems to be ok but yeh i want to take pics of motorbikes racing so i know the 70-200 would be the go but then what about reach???
The xtra length would be nice, use a Tc and loose a stop or 2 if i am not worng, oh well still lots of saving to do before i can get either.
Well here is a link to digital pro shooter Nikon 80-400VR: Triumph or Tragedy?

http://www.nikondigital.org/dps/dps-v1-i4-full.htm
Cheers
John

If you are after an affordable VR zoom with good reach you really can't go past the 80-400 in my opinion. I own the 70-200 VR but reach isn't the issue for me - this is a general purpose lens for me that shoots anything from sports to portraiture. If I was getting more serious about sports or wildlife I would want the extra reach.

Gary has the 80-400VR lens and has posted some results that he has achieved. The results don't seem to lack any sharpeness or contrast IMHO.

Cheers,

BBJ wrote:Well bit like being stuck between a rock and a hard place.

John,

The bikes racing may not be the issue you think it is. Prefocus on a point in the track (turn off AF) and you're set.

Yes True Garry, I am starting to think like 70-20 f/2.8 would be the one, ok for the light issue, but i can get close to track in some places and in others i cant because of the runoff and well we dont always have it sunny here, but then i have been doing pictures with my lil Fuji S7000 so i am thinking of the 80-400 + i would like to try wildlife and stuff.
I took this shot with my Fuji S7000 and is ok so one would think the D70 AF would be a lot faster.

Great shot BBJ

BBJ wrote:I took this shot with my Fuji S7000 and is ok so one would think the D70 AF would be a lot faster.

G'day BBJ,
Interesting, I previously had a Fuji S7000 too, before I went to the D70! Maybe it's a sign...

Cheers,
Mudder