DSLRUsers.com

I was recently reading a revew (by ken i think) on this lens and it mentioned that the AF was very slow and was quite a bit slower to the 70-300 ED how does this compare to the 70-300G?

feel free to move this post to the noob section

The 70-300G is a starter lens (entree dish), it's slow but not slow and depends on lighting and how you want to use it for.
The 80-400VR is one of the "main course meal" its value is 10 times more than the 70-300G and it can do more than the 70-300G can do, it's slow in term of speaking of its tracking moving objects but it wins on with many shooters are now currently have, it's 100mm longer than the other, again depend how do you treat and use it.

VR in handholding and non VR is another benefit of owning the 80-400VR, though the 70-300G is underrated but produced some stunning and tack sharp pics.

Zeb ...

Have a look at my moon shot - handheld - using the 80-400 at the recent Sydney Night Shoot. That will give you an idea of the sharpness of this lens.

Then go and look at my shots from the F1GP from Melbourne in March of this year, and tell me where the lens exhibits problems following fast moving objects.


Comparing this lens with any of the Nikkor 70-300s is like comparing a Vespa with a BMW.

sorry i dont think i made the question very clear. i was just wanting to compare the autofocus speed of these two lenses. but if you have used it to shoot f1 cars then i am guessing it is fast enough for my needs

zeb00 wrote:sorry i dont think i made the question very clear. i was just wanting to compare the autofocus speed of these two lenses. but if you have used it to shoot f1 cars then i am guessing it is fast enough for my needs

That was my point.

The 70-300G is in a class of its own. While others have better examples of this lens, mine, unfortunately, it's also at the bottom of that class. It's about as sharp as a crayon. A broken one.

The ED is a better lens, but neither compare with the 80-400.

Gary were you up all night?

Nah ...