Does Nikon make a lens like Canon's 100-400IS???

[SUITEFREAK]

A friend just showed me his 100-400IS Canon lens. We both take whale watching type photos where the extra 100mm focal length just works so much better than my 70-300VR lens. So do any of you know if Nikon makes a lens similar to this? Thanks for any info...

[erichlund]

Nikon makes an 80-400VR. It does not have AF-S, so it's a bit slower than some lenses focusing, but I'm aware of people that use it for birding, so it can't be that bad. The image quality is good, as far as I have heard.

[Rooz]

i've used the 80-400 a bit and was very close to getting one not long ago. its very similar optically to canons 100-400 but its nicer to use. the push pull motion of canons 100-400 is horrific.

as eric said, its pretty good optically but sorta slow on the AF for an af-s lens. whale watching in bright sun shouldnt be much of an issue though. they are pretty hard to find used and when you do find one they go for a high price so new may be the only option.

[RichNY]

Rooz- Funny how different people walk away with different impressions on things. I own the 100-400 and found the push pull action to be much nicer than the turn turn turn action of other lenses.

Considering how little time you have to shoot your whale image having a slightly shorter telephoto and cropping might allow you to get a better composition than trying to tightly frame one of those giant mammals.

[erichlund]

One thing the 80-400 does have is a switch for limiting focus range. If you know you are shooting long, you can select that, and it will limit focus to the longer part of the range, shortening focus time. Don't ask me exactly how that is implemented, I've never used it. But I've heard it helps.

[Rooz]

i wonder if a 300mm af-s f4 + 1.4tc would be another option for you. i reckon it'd be a bit cheaper and would produce a nicer image. obviously not the same flexibility but for long range stuff, you're getting 420mm at the tele end for the same aperture and a sharper image at that long end.

[erichlund]

Actually, at B&H the combo of 300mm + TC is $1475, and the zoom is $1430. The rest is valid.

[SUITEFREAK]

Hi guys thanks for the responses. I was wondering, would it be possible to use the TC with my 70-300VR? What would the aperture be in the long range if I did that and would the VR still work? Thanks...:)

[SUITEFREAK]

Oh yeah, one more question: does the 80-400 have VR in it? My friend who uses the 70-300 w/out VR isn't able to get any really decent shots out on the boat.

[Rooz]

yes you can use a tc with the 7--300 but it will be difficult for AF to work cos of the stops you will lose. depends on what tc it is. a 2x tc will be very difficult indeed. a 1.4 or 1.7 will work in very brght light. low light you will have some issues though. its generally not recommended to use a tc on 5.6 max aperture lens'.

yes, the 80-400 is a VR lens. it is first gen VR though, so not quite as effective as VRII.

http://www.bythom.com/80400VRlens.htm

and here it is compared to the canon 100-400. as you can see the IQ is relatively similar.

http://www.photozone.de/Reviews/Nikkor%20/%20Nikon%20Lens%20Tests/46-nikon--nikkor-aps-c/253-nikkor-af-80-400mm-f45-56-ed-vr-d-review--lab-test-report
http://photozone.de/Reviews/Canon%20EOS%20Lens%20Tests/204-canon-ef-100-400mm-f45-56-usm-l-is-test-report--review?start=1

[StuartN]

I've been quite happy with my copy of Nikon's 80-400mm f/4-5.6 VR lens. As other's have stated, the AF can be a bit slow but works pretty well. you can always turn on the focus limit to help prevent as much hunting when focusing.

I've found the VR does quite a good job, maybe not as good as the newer VRII, but I can still handhold shots that otherwise would;ve required a tripod.

At the far end, you may notice a slightly softer image than at 300mm and below. With my copy, it hasn't been anything that a little post processing sharpening can't improve.

I think it's a pretty decent lens for the focal length offered, as long as you're not expecting to use it for fast motion/sports subjects. It's really more suited to wildlife and/or stationary objects you can't get too close to. It's a full 1-2 stops slower than the 80-200 f/2.8 and the awesome 70-200 f/2.8 VR. But is is a bit cheaper (than the 70-200 f/2.8) and you get the extra length.

Overall a good piece of glass, that does have some limitations, but if you're aware of them, they shouldn't cause any headaches. And at a cost of about $1400 (US), it's price pretty reasonably compared to other 400mm offerings.

Stuart

[SUITEFREAK]

yes you can use a tc with the 7--300 but it will be difficult for AF to work cos of the stops you will lose. depends on what tc it is. a 2x tc will be very difficult indeed. a 1.4 or 1.7 will work in very brght light. low light you will have some issues though. its generally not recommended to use a tc on 5.6 max aperture lens'.

yes, the 80-400 is a VR lens. it is first gen VR though, so not quite as effective as VRII.

http://www.bythom.com/80400VRlens.htm...


Thanks for all that info Rooz.
I didn't realize that it would cost so much to get that extra 100mm. I'm wondering now if I should just learn to do PP and crop my photos, and/or save up to buy the 70-200 2.8 and 2x TC when I can afford it, OR look at 3rd party options. Whale watching season will be over soon anyway... I really think being out on the boat that I will need VR as using a monopod or tripod is not going to stop the motion of the waves. :(
I can't see paying that much for the 80-400...although on the photozone website it does say that it's full frame so would be 120-600mm on aps-c cameras. What do you think I should do? (Besides learn to do PP!) In addition to that, which do you think would be a better bet the 80-400 or the 70-200 w/ 2x TC or 3rd party options? (Any suggestions for those?)
Thanks to all who responded!:)

[SUITEFREAK]

I've been quite happy with my copy of Nikon's 80-400mm f/4-5.6 VR lens. As other's have stated, the AF can be a bit slow but works pretty well. you can always turn on the focus limit to help prevent as much hunting when focusing.

I've found the VR does quite a good job, maybe not as good as the newer VRII, but I can still handhold shots that otherwise would;ve required a tripod.

At the far end, you may notice a slightly softer image than at 300mm and below. With my copy, it hasn't been anything that a little post processing sharpening can't improve.

I think it's a pretty decent lens for the focal length offered, as long as you're not expecting to use it for fast motion/sports subjects. It's really more suited to wildlife and/or stationary objects you can't get too close to. It's a full 1-2 stops slower than the 80-200 f/2.8 and the awesome 70-200 f/2.8 VR. But is is a bit cheaper (than the 70-200 f/2.8) and you get the extra length.

Overall a good piece of glass, that does have some limitations, but if you're aware of them, they shouldn't cause any headaches. And at a cost of about $1400 (US), it's price pretty reasonably compared to other 400mm offerings.

Stuart

Thanks for the info Stuart. Since you say it's more suited to shooting wildlife and stationary subjects, I'm wondering how well you think it would handle shooting a breaching whale? That's definitely not stationary and they move fast! How long have you had yours and where did you get it, if you don't mind my asking? Thanks again!

[TheWengler]

I can't see paying that much for the 80-400...although on the photozone website it does say that it's full frame so would be 120-600mm on aps-c cameras. What do you think I should do? (Besides learn to do PP!) In addition to that, which do you think would be a better bet the 80-400 or the 70-200 w/ 2x TC or 3rd party options? (Any suggestions for those?)

All lenses get cropped on on APS-C bodies, even if they aren't compatible with full frame bodies. You might already know that, but it wasn't clear from your statement.

I would rather have the 70-200 f/2.8 VR. I'm not sure how the IQ holds up with a 2x TC but it would be way better for those time when you aren't shooting whales.

[Rooz]

Thanks for all that info Rooz.
I didn't realize that it would cost so much to get that extra 100mm. I'm wondering now if I should just learn to do PP and crop my photos, and/or save up to buy the 70-200 2.8 and 2x TC when I can afford it, OR look at 3rd party options. Whale watching season will be over soon anyway... I really think being out on the boat that I will need VR as using a monopod or tripod is not going to stop the motion of the waves. :(
I can't see paying that much for the 80-400...although on the photozone website it does say that it's full frame so would be 120-600mm on aps-c cameras. What do you think I should do? (Besides learn to do PP!) In addition to that, which do you think would be a better bet the 80-400 or the 70-200 w/ 2x TC or 3rd party options? (Any suggestions for those?)
Thanks to all who responded!:)

well a 70-200VR costs you more than the 80-400 anyway. maybe an 80-200f2.8, (non VR), with a 1.7tc and just keep your shutter speed up nice and high. if you shutter speed is high enough VR is irrelevant. or the 300mm f4 like i said above with the tc. or even a sigma 100-300 f4 with tc.

have you got any shots you can show us so we can get a look at the settings you used ?

for 400mm you wont get much under $1k. your mates 100-400 is around $1400.

[p.du.v]

Thanks from me for the info here too guys.
I'll be doing some surfing shoots over Winter here and was looking at options.
Good food for thought...

I'm also thinking a camera (point and shoot maybe, G9?) + watertight casing + a pair of flippers. As in, shooting from the beach, and shooting in the waves.
Anyone got experience with underwater (up to 5m I guess) photography? heh.

Sorry to hijack! (Just saves on yet another new thread)

[StuartN]

Thanks for the info Stuart. Since you say it's more suited to shooting wildlife and stationary subjects, I'm wondering how well you think it would handle shooting a breaching whale? That's definitely not stationary and they move fast! How long have you had yours and where did you get it, if you don't mind my asking? Thanks again!


I should have probably clarified that it's more suited to wildlife/stationary subjects due to it's max f/5.6 @ 400mm. Indoor sports can be quite difficult, if not impossible with limited/low lighting. If you have good lighting available you can still get some fast motion captures. I've also found by stopping down a stop or two, to f/8, f/11 you get better image quality.

I would think you could do well getting whale shots with this lens, and the VR will make a huge difference taking shots from a boat. I haven't had a chance to take shots on the ocean, being landlocked ;) but wouldn't hestiate to bring this lens along.

I picked up the lens around Christmas from B&H Photo. B&H are have good prices and are quite reputable for online dealers. I really wanted the extra reach of the 400mm buit without high cost ($5000 and up for a fixed like the 400 f/2.8 or the 200-400mm f/4). B&H has it for about $1400 new and $1100 used.

If you can, see about renting the lens to try before you buy. You can check out some of my pics here http://www.flickr.com/photos/stuartneil/ to some of my results.

Hope this helps...
Stuart