(Buy it with this link and help support me!)
The Nikon 80-400mm VR is a fantastic lens for my kind of photography. When I'm hiking long distances and have to carry all my equipment on my shoulders, size and weight are the foremost issues. The 80-400 is one the smallest lightest lens available that encompases such a broad focal range. Any "prime" lens at or above 300mm telephoto will weigh many times more, the 400mm f/2.8 namely weighs almost 10 pounds! The 80-400 VR by comparison weighs a "mere" 47 oz. (just under 3 pounds) Also it is only 6.7"x3.6" compared to the 13.9x6.3". The 80-400 is almost shorter than the 400mm is wide!!!
Pictured is my friend Kevin shooting with his F3, not using the 80-400 VR. I'm using it to take this picture, from at least 100-200 yards away, at Rabbit Island.
This is because of the next reason I find the 80-400 VR such a wonderful piece of equipment: the 80-400 VR's max apeture is f/4.5 at 80mm and tightens to f/5.6 at 400mm. This is quite slow comapred to the f/2.8 and f/4 prime lenses, and accounts for most of the aforementioned difference in size and weight. (And price!)
I find the light weight and small size of the 80-400 to be a benefit BECAUSE my type of photography rarely ever calls for the f/2.8 wide apeture that fast-action, dim light photographers need. Since I can make most of my images with an apeture of f/8 or tighter, carrying arround a huge lens with an f/2.8 max apeture is a burden I can thankfully forego...
I find the light weight and small size of the 80-400 to be a benefit BECAUSE my type of photography rarely ever calls for the f/2.8 wide apeture that fast-action, dim light photographers need. Since I can make most of my images with an apeture of f/8 or tighter, carrying arround a huge lens with an f/2.8 max apeture is a burden I can thankfully forego...
Lastly, the 80-400 VR is relatively slow at autofocusing when used with all but the best, fastest professional camera bodies such as the F5 and the D2X. But as you can see by viewing the photos in this review, there are a plethora of situations in which fast autofocus is not crucial.
Canon makes a 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 IS lens that is "equal" to the Nikon 80-400 VR, except the Canon has USM which makes it autofocus much faster. If for some reason you're reading this review having made NO serious camera equipment purchases yet, this is one thing to consider. The two lenses are the same weight, have the same apeture, are similarly sharp, and both have stabilization. The Nikon however is much slower autofocusing.
If you agree with the above "benefit" of having such a light/small lens, (you can forego an f/2.8 apeture) but fast autofocus is STILL critical to you, then consider the Canon system. But do so with these two grains of salt: First, the Canon lens is a "push-pull" design, which is easy to get used to but more importantly it can act like a "dust blower" when zooming in and out, which reportedly can cause continual dust-on-the-sensor issues if you have a DSLR. Secondly, it is rumored (but probably just wished) that Nikon will release an upgraded 80-400 VR in 2006 that is SWM, which is equivalent to Canon's USM and would improve autofocus by leaps and bounds.
With these aspects in light, I hope you can see why I love the 80-400 VR so much. It is light weight, small, and oh, it's sharp! I have made enlargements 24" wide from the pictured image and my D70, and they're awesome. From 80mm to 400mm, this lens is optically professional-quality. I usually shoot stopped down to f/8-16, but I have shot occasionally at "wide open" and have never experienced much loss of image quality, if any at all. On a DSLR you can get bits of Chromatic Aberration in the corners of images, like most all sub-$3,000 telephoto lenses, but this is SO easily corrected in photoshop that I consider it a blessing that CA is this lens' only optical nuance.
However, two sources of soft/blurry images that many shooters will encounter has to do with technique: Firstly, turn VR to "OFF" if you are shooting with this lens secured on a tripod. You can shoot with your tripod loosely holding the lens, like a poor-man's wimberly head, but turn VR off when you're completely locked down otherwise it (the VR lens elements) will move while your camera doesn't, blurring your images. Secondly, even on a tripod, at the "delicate" shutter speeds between 1/15 sec. and 5 seconds, it is strongly advised that you use AT LEAST a timer to remove your shake-causing fingers from the equation, and AT BEST mirror lock up to really and truly eliminate all possibility of poor equipment performance.
Canon makes a 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 IS lens that is "equal" to the Nikon 80-400 VR, except the Canon has USM which makes it autofocus much faster. If for some reason you're reading this review having made NO serious camera equipment purchases yet, this is one thing to consider. The two lenses are the same weight, have the same apeture, are similarly sharp, and both have stabilization. The Nikon however is much slower autofocusing.
If you agree with the above "benefit" of having such a light/small lens, (you can forego an f/2.8 apeture) but fast autofocus is STILL critical to you, then consider the Canon system. But do so with these two grains of salt: First, the Canon lens is a "push-pull" design, which is easy to get used to but more importantly it can act like a "dust blower" when zooming in and out, which reportedly can cause continual dust-on-the-sensor issues if you have a DSLR. Secondly, it is rumored (but probably just wished) that Nikon will release an upgraded 80-400 VR in 2006 that is SWM, which is equivalent to Canon's USM and would improve autofocus by leaps and bounds.
With these aspects in light, I hope you can see why I love the 80-400 VR so much. It is light weight, small, and oh, it's sharp! I have made enlargements 24" wide from the pictured image and my D70, and they're awesome. From 80mm to 400mm, this lens is optically professional-quality. I usually shoot stopped down to f/8-16, but I have shot occasionally at "wide open" and have never experienced much loss of image quality, if any at all. On a DSLR you can get bits of Chromatic Aberration in the corners of images, like most all sub-$3,000 telephoto lenses, but this is SO easily corrected in photoshop that I consider it a blessing that CA is this lens' only optical nuance.
However, two sources of soft/blurry images that many shooters will encounter has to do with technique: Firstly, turn VR to "OFF" if you are shooting with this lens secured on a tripod. You can shoot with your tripod loosely holding the lens, like a poor-man's wimberly head, but turn VR off when you're completely locked down otherwise it (the VR lens elements) will move while your camera doesn't, blurring your images. Secondly, even on a tripod, at the "delicate" shutter speeds between 1/15 sec. and 5 seconds, it is strongly advised that you use AT LEAST a timer to remove your shake-causing fingers from the equation, and AT BEST mirror lock up to really and truly eliminate all possibility of poor equipment performance.
D70, 80-400 VR @ 400mm; f/7.1 & 1/30 sec, loose tripod.
As is customary with my lens tests, here's an un-edited D70 image file (You can tell from the characteristic yellows / greens that AWB will give without any custom settings, which I do reccomend. Read my review on the D70 for more...) This is about as sharp of a lens as you can ask for!
-Matt-
As is customary with my lens tests, here's an un-edited D70 image file (You can tell from the characteristic yellows / greens that AWB will give without any custom settings, which I do reccomend. Read my review on the D70 for more...) This is about as sharp of a lens as you can ask for!
-Matt-
in this box:
New comment: Requires approval