Nikkor lens

[uplander]

Went to a photo equip show today and got to play with a Nikkor 200-400 f/4 lens with vibration reduction. This was beyond my wildest dreams. I was unable to get a rotten shot with it. But unfortunately, the price was :shock: beyond my wildest dreams too.

Then they showed told me the Nikkor 80-400 f/4.5-5.6, also with VR. I was wondering if anyone has this baby or has tried it out. I'm guessing it would be pretty decent and versatile for aviation photography, which I'm just trying to get in to.

If there are no replies, I'll just assume everyone here's Cannon :roll:

[NIKV69]

If there are no replies, I'll just assume everyone here's Cannon

Don't ever think that! There are fellow Nikon men here! Whatever you do don't listen to Tommy on this issue.

I own the Nikkor 80-400VR. It's a good lens for what you want to do. Just keep in mind that it focuses slow and can be a little soft when you zoom all the way out. Not sure what your budget is but you will get much better results with the 80-200 2.8. Only drawback is you have to get closer to the action. You will get much better results and it is so much more versatile and focuses lighting fast.

[cancidas]

have it, love it! i don't know what nick is talking about slow focusing for, he's been telling me that for some time now but still won't let me play with his 80-200...

please oh please nick!! i promise to be gentle....

[NIKV69]

but still won't let me play with his 80-200

Well Matt you actually have to go to the airport and shoot if you want to use someone's lens! You can try mine anytime you know this!

BTW the 400 is a pig when it comes to AF. Just ask Royal Scott King, he uses this lens to keep his back screen door open. Right Art?

[cancidas]

that's not what you said last time nick... but i apprecieate the offer!

[NIKV69]

I have no idea what you are talking about Matt. If you are with me shooting you can always try my lens. When did I say this?

[uplander]

Hmm, interesting replies. Thanks for the tips. Also glad there are other Nikoners here.

So the 80-400 is a little slow focusing and a little soft at full zoom. But I don't think I'd get an 80-200 at this point. Sure it must be a fabulous piece of glass at 2.8, but I bet it's $$$. And I have the 18-200, so I've got that range covered.

So cancidas, you love this lens, right? So why to eager to try out the 80-200? Maybe as eager as I am to try out the 80-200. Could you point me to some shots taken with this lens?

[NIKV69]

I'll help you out there since I think it's been 2 years since Matt's camera has made it out of his house.

Here is a shot I took with my 80-400 where I was almost zoomed all the way out.

http://www.airliners.net/open.file/0929521/L/

Here is one I took with my 80-200

http://www.airliners.net/open.file/0957352/L/

[uplander]

Thanks for showing these. Both are great shots. I'd say you had a bit of help with the sunlight on the 80-200 http://www.airliners.net/open.file/0957352/L/

But I'll also guess that the VR on the 80-400 helped.

[NIKV69]

Well I try to shoot with the sun in the proper spot at the right time. Makes things much easier for capture. Just saw this on anet. Check the equipment he used. So awesome!

http://www.airliners.net/open.file/1134244/L/

[Winglets747]

A year ago I was beginning to upgrade my cheapo (although very good) 70-210 lens and was debating between the 70-200 VR and 80-400 VR.

I went for the 70-200 and love every moment with it. One of my main reasons to go for the 70-200 was how the 80-400 can get soft while the 70-200 VR is sharp very consistently.

You said you have -200 lens, and while I'm not sure which one exactly, you may want to consider going for the 70-200 VR. My old lens was 70-210 (non VR), and what I lost in 10mm with the VR I gained many times over in quality.

This is, of course, subject to what you ultimately want: a better lens in general, or a lens that can zoom more. If you're just getting into spotting, you may want to go for quality first, provided the airports you plan to shoot at will give you good results with the 70-200.

-Will

[NIKV69]

So many Nikon guys! Can you feel the love!

I went for the 70-200 and love every moment with it. One of my main reasons to go for the 70-200 was how the 80-400 can get soft while the 70-200 VR is sharp very consistently.

Yep, so right.

You would prob be better off getting the 200 2.8 and a good 1.4 TC. This combo would prob work just as good as the 80-400 and when you get close to the action you can just use the 200 and get great results.

[Winglets747]

Would you recommend the 1.4 TC or the 2.0 TC? I went to Ken Rockwell's site and it seems he favors both TCs for the 2.8 70-200, but favors the 2.0 slightly more.

Other thoughts on the TCs?

[cancidas]

2 years is a little far fetched nick, but thanks. actually had it out at work yesterday all day. hopefully something worthwhile came out of it.

[uplander]

Winglets747 wrote:

You said you have -200 lens, and while I'm not sure which one exactly, you may want to consider going for the 70-200 VR. My old lens was 70-210 (non VR), and what I lost in 10mm with the VR I gained many times over in quality.

It's the 18-200 VR, and so for I'm extremely pleased with it. The VR works great with hand-held pans. I was just thinking of something that would allow me to shoot from up to a mile away. That's why I thought of the 80-400.

The Ken Rockwell site was suggested and so I went there and read the 80-400 review. Turns out not so positive, especially due to the slow focusing and the focus mechanism. I guess I'd have to actually try out out for myself to see.