Peter,
petermmc wrote:How would you compare the VR 80-400 with the 80-200's at the 80-200 range in terms of sharpness at say 5.6 or 8? Some comments would be appreciated.
Unfortunately, I can't give you an answer to this at the moment. I've not done a side by comparison of the two, and the only comparable lens I have is my old 70-210 f4-5.6 AF, which is quite a nice lens, but I don't think it's quite as good as the 80-400VR, but I'd need to do some comparitive images to really be sure.
And of course it's not the glass you're asking about.
I'm expecting to have some shooting time next week, so if you care to remind me, let's see if I can arrange for a couple of comparisons to be made.
I am a sharpness fanatic and am considering purchasing either a new 80-200 Nikon 2.8 or now, after seeing your photos, the 80-400VR.
OK, sharpness is one important aspect here, but there are a couple of other issues that need to be seriously considered. At 2.8, the 80-200 is very fast, so the question of low-light performance needs needs to be considered.
The 80-400VR is significantly slower in this regard, but of course it has twice the reach. For my needs, the extra reach was a primary consideration and is why I bought this lens over and above the 80-200 or the 70-200VR.
Note too that the 80-400's AF will perform more slowly than some other lenses; this can be controlled with thoughtful use of the lens (I had no issues at the F1 in Melbourne, and there aren't too many things that move more quickly than a gaggle of F1 cars in full flight) but it may or may not be an issue for you.
Aside from the testing I referred to above, I'd strongly recommend a visit to the next minimeet, so you can have a play and make some infomred judgements for yourself.
And one final comment - that moon shot looks superb printed on A3+ from the R1800.