Nikon AF-S FX NIKKOR 80-400mm f.4.5-5.6G ED Vibration Reduction Zoom Lens with Auto Focus for Nikon DSLR Cameras

I don't consider myself a Nikon "fan boy." However, I currently use Nikon DSLR's and lenses in most of my photography pursuits. In the film days I've used Canon 35mm, Fuji medium format and Nikon 35mm. Like many of you I'm a nature photographer and mostly shoot landscapes but now and then I enjoy shooting wildlife, birds in particular. My primary wildlife lenses are the Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8G VR (the older VR-1 Model) and Nikon 300mm AF-I f2.8D (from the early 1990's and no VR) both of which I usually match up with a Nikon TC-20e III. While the 70-200mm fits nicely in my camera backpack along with my other lenses, the 300mm does not and like all of Nikons 300mm f2.8 lenses it's a beast--big and heavy. That necessitates planning ahead. Ever since this new 80-400mm came out, I've been intrigued by the possibility of replacing the 70-200mm and 300mm with it. And because it size is similar to my 70-200mm, it will fit in my backpack. I'm not bothered by the slower aperture of f4.5-f5.6 because I almost always use a tripod. And with a TC-20e, both the 70-200mm and 300mm become f5.6. I took the plunge but then I had to find out how this new 80-400mm stacked up with the other two. The first thing I did was replace the tripod collar with a Really Right Stuff (RRS) LC-A13 collar and foot replacement. As many reviewers have already stated, the standard Nikon collar does not hold the lens solidly when mounted on a tripod. The RRS collar is solid as a rock and its nice having a lens foot that is already ARCA quick release compatible. I tested all three lenses using a Nikon D7100, my primary wildlife body. All photographs were shot at f5.6 which theoretically gives the 70-200mm and 300mm a slight advantage since they are both f2.8 lenses and unlike the 80-400mm, not being shot wide-open. I used objects in my yard rather than a test chart because I wanted to simulate the types of subject I actually photograph. These included an agave, a very spiny cactus, and a piece of wood with rough grain so I could see how well the each lens picked up the texture and detail of the subjects. Using an ISO of 100, all of the lenses were tripod mounted and the camera was fired using the Nikon ML-L3 wireless remote in mirror up mod to eliminate any vibration. I tested the 70-200mm against the 80-400 set at 200mm and the 300mm against the 80-400mm set at 300mm. And remember, on the D7100 the actual focal lengths are 300mm and 450mm. Frankly I was astounded by the results because the difference in sharpness between these lenses was very hard to see when viewed at normal magnification. At 100% view the 80-400 is slightly softer but not much. Since I usually use a teleconverter on the 70-200mm and 300mm to get them to around 400mm's or more, the 80-400mm is at least as sharp if not sharper at those focal lengths. On a D7100 set to 1.3x crop mode, the 80-400mm becomes a 156-780mm lens. I also found the lens is sharpest at f8-f10. At f11 the lens is still sharp but it begins to be diffraction limited. I also tested the 80-400mm with a TC-14e and the lens performed pretty well. Images are softer but they are definitely usable. On the D7100, the addition of a teleconverter changes the AF system to a single focus point and focusing hunts a little more. With the addition of a teleconverter I found that the lens consistently "front focused." That was easily fixed using AF fine-tune in the D7100's menu. We all have different photography styles and you're needs may be different than mine. But for me the combination of Nikons latest VR, excellent AF all in a package that is small and well balanced really makes this lens a pleasure to use. And now I don't have to decide whether to carry the 300mm f2.8 or not. According to DXO lab, the 80-400mm is even sharper on a D800 so it can double as a landscape lens when longer focal lengths are needed.

I compared the 80-400 to my 70-300. No comparison, of course. 80-400 is much much sharper, especially at 300mm. Sharpness of the 80-400 is very good at 80, 105, and 300mm at f/5.6 and 8, shows some softness at 300mm f/16. At 105mm is looked good compared to my 105mm macro. Note: all lenses Nikon, using D7100. The tripod collar is the weak spot of the lens: there seems to be a slight movement around it. Insignificant for landscapes, noticeable at closest focussing distance. I had no trouble walking several hours with the 80-400 on my D7100 using the Nikon neck strap (that was a test: I am replacing it with a better, wider strap for more comfort). Is it worth around 4 times the price of the 70-300? Very hard to decide: it is much sharper at the long end. Has a somewhat longer reach. But the 70-300 is not bad, and sure weighs a lot less. The 80-400 does not disappoint.

I have had one of the original 80-400mm lenses almost since it was introduced, and it has been my mainstay lens for hiking and finding wildlife. It performed quite well, and while it had its issues, the versatility and weight more than made up for them. This lens takes that concept and upgrades it to amazing levels. There are very few things to be snarky about on this lens. * Takes teleconverters. And still has great AF and sharpness with the 1.4x TC. The old lens doesn't work with TCs. * Much sharper and better contrast. Wow. There is a quite noticeable improvement in optical quality even at normal viewing. The old lens took great photos but was a little mushy. My 600mm prime is sharper, but this is pretty darn good, and I would probably not see the difference except that I was looking at similar bird shots with the 600mm and this lens with the 1.4xTC right next to each other. Without the TC, it's sharp enough that it would be very difficult to see anything to complain about except under lab conditions. * Autofocus is faster. Honestly it's not so much faster than the original 80-400 that you would miss many, if any shots because of it. Continuous tracking autofocus is noisy but is better than the original. For birds, it's pretty good. You lose focus sites with a teleconverter attached because of the minimum f/stop, but it's still pretty darn good. It locked and tracked the airplane for my daughter's first solo flight perfectly. This is a superb airplane/airshow lens. * Close-focus. Still darn good and fast. Good for critters you can get close to. Great for birds at a feeder. * Improved VR. VR will help dramatically for some subjects when handholding, but is pretty useless for fast-moving subjects. VR can help with some nice bird effects, allowing for wingtip motion blur while holding the scene solid. You'll still probably find yourself bumping up the ISO unless you're in full sun with this lens, especially if you are using a TC. Downsides * Really expensive. * Tripod collar is even more lame than the original 80-400mm. You can not release the foot from the tripod collar, which is annoying for handheld use. Get a good collar and removable foot from Really Right Stuff. This is is still a heavy lens, and you will get tired handholding it unless you're in reasonably good shape. If you're going to use it a lot, get some exercise! Taking pictures is a good method :) If you have the luxury of being able to use a tripod, then do so. It will help. Get a gimble head if you can (I like Really Right Stuff - it also does a great job as a panoramic head). Ball heads are lousy for tracking subjects but are quick and easy to set up, smaller and lighter. Some, like the Acratech, do a passable job as a pseudo-gimble when on a good tripod. This lens + the 1.4X teleconverter is an amazing kit for nature/wildlife/airshows/car racing/motorcycle racing etc. I don't have a 1.7X, but the 2.0X is too much of a compromise on finder brightness, f/stop and focus capability for me. This combo is easily transportable and easily handled. Much of the time the 80-400 is enough, and when it isn't, the TC works great. If you can justify the expense, this kit will make you very happy.

Me han mandado la caja con el objetivo sin embalaje alguno, con la etiqueta del envío sobre la caja, la cual presenta las señales propias de un envío, con pequeños golpes, raspaduras, etc. No es comprensible que un objeto delicado y de esta calidad venga sin embalaje con el riesgo que eso supone, y con todos los detalles del producto a la vista.

Súper bien. Yo lo compré por recomendación de un amigo que también había visto que valía la pena. En cuanto al precio muy bien. Me salió más barato que en Estados Unidos. Muy buena promoción

und stattdessen das 200-500er behalten, da das 80-400 bei weitem nicht so scharf abbildete.Heute bin ich allerdings ein wenig im Zweifel, und deshalb gebe ich dem Objektiv 5 Sterne: Die Qualität des 80-400 wird eigentlich in Tests nur gelobt. Warum hat es dann bei mir versagt? Und zwar auf allen Testfotos? Weil die ganzen Labortests nicht stimmen? Heute differenziere ich da etwas mehr. Und zwar habe ich mich mittlerweile - ein paar Sigma-Objektiven wegen - mit der Objekitvkalibrierung beschäftigt. Ich habe dieses frenetisch gefeierte Sigma 50/1.4 Art, aber es war erst ab Blende 8 scharf. Kann nicht sein, dachte ich und habe mir das Sigma-USB-Dock, den Spyder LensCal und die Software Reikan Focal besorgt. Und siehe da: Das Objektiv musste kalibriert werden. Jetzt ist es so scharf schon bei Blende 1.4, dass es weh tut. Und ich glaube jetzt, dass das 80-400 auch hätte kalibriert werden sollen. Möglicherweise wäre es dann auch zur Hochform aufgelaufen. Ich will es jedenfalls zugunsten von NIKON annehmen. By the way: Es ist ja leider üblich bei NIKON, auch teuerste Objektive ohne Endjustierung auf die Menschheit loszulassen, ein Joch, in dem alle Nikon-Enthusiasten gehen müssen. Leider! Trotzdem - kein NIKON-Bashing. Wir Fans kennen die Marke, ihre Stärken und Schwächen. Und wer irgendwann mal von Canon (viel perfekter!) zu Nikon gewechselt hat, wird nie mehr zurückwollen. Wegen was? Der Farben wegen, ganz genau.

Dieses Objektiv tritt nun die Ablöse des SIGMA 120-400/4.5-5.6 OS an. Doch etwas abgeschreckt durch den ursprünglich hohen Preis des NIKON's meinte ich, dass SIGMA ist für den speziellen Einsatzbereich von bis zu 400mm ausreichend; behielt aber das NIKON-Objektiv stets im *Auge*. Das SIGMA ist gut aber deckte meine Anforderungen letztendlich nicht zu vollen 100 Prozent ab. Nun der Entschluss, kräftig zu investieren und auf das neue NIKON 80-400mm umzusteigen. Die ersten Testbilder sind gemacht und es offenbart sich eine neue *fotografische Welt*. Schärfe im Bild bei vollen 400mm ohne Ende. Es liegen sichtbar *Welten* zwischen beiden Objektiven. Das Nikon ist groß und relativ schwer als ständig angesetzter Begleiter an meiner *alten* D300 mit Batteriegriff. Das NIKON 80-400mm weckt ähnliche Erinnerungen wie zu analogen Zeiten das 80-200mm/2.8 an F100. Groß, wuchtig, relativ schwer aber mit Wahnsinns tollen Bild-Ergebnissen. Zusammenfassung meiner ersten Eindrücke bzgl. NIKON 80-400mm/4.5.-5.6: Groß, relativ schwer im Gewicht, aber liegt gut in Hand durch Abstützung der Stativschelle am linken Handballen, leichtes kontrolliertes Verdrehen/Verändern des Zoom-Bereiches, schneller und sehr präziser Autofokus, optimale Schärfe über den gesamten Bereich, einen Kauf den man nicht bereut und bereits kurz darauf nach etwas *Besseren* sucht. Und somit bestimmt, da bin ich mir sicher, eine schöne und wertvolle Kombination zu meiner stets *geliebten* D300 für längere Zeit.

Viel wurde ja schon zum Thema Kunststoff geschrieben und ja, Metall fühlt sich sicher besser und auch der Zoomring, besonders im Vergleich zu meinem Sigma 100-300mm f/4 EX das auch noch seine Länge dabei nicht ändert, weit weniger weich läuft dürfte dem geschuldet sein. Definitiv einen Punktabzug aber verdient die Stativschelle die, besonders bei langen Brennweiten und längeren Belichtungszeiten, stabil sein sollte wie ein Fels. Meine persönliche Alternative ist nun eine NC80-400GN von Kirk die dieses "Schellchen" ersetzen wird. Immerhin sind, mit Kamerabody, schnell mal 2,5kg zusammen und bei 400mm ist auch die Angriffsfläche für auch ein laues Lüftchen schon sehr groß. Was die sonstigen Qualitäten angeht kann ich nur sagen keine Probleme an der D800 und fachlich versierte Vergleich, auch mit Festbrennweiten, gibt es anderswo. So ganz allgemein aber ist dieses 80-400mm für mich aber ein Objektiv das mit auf Tour gehen kann. Es soll nicht und muss nicht mit den wirklich guten, und teureren, Dickschiffen konkurrieren.