In this article, I will compare the new Nikon 80-400mm f/4.5-5.6G ED VR and its predecessor, the Nikon 80-400mm f/4.5-5.6D VR. Since the lens has just been announced, I have not had the chance to use it and compare it with the older 80-400mm lens. I am planning to expand this comparison further, once I have both lenses in my hands later this year. For now, I will go over specifications and compare both lenses side by side using information provided by Nikon, as well as MTF charts. First, we’ll get started with specifications:
Lens Specifications and Comparison
Feature | Nikon 80-400mm AF-S | Nikon 80-400mm AF-D |
---|---|---|
Mount Type | Nikon F-Bayonet | Nikon F-Bayonet |
Focal Length Range | 80-400mm | 80-400mm |
Zoom Ratio | 5x | 5x |
Maximum Aperture | f/4.5-5.6 | f/4.5-5.6 |
Minimum Aperture | f/32-40 | f/32 |
Format | FX/35mm | FX/35mm |
Maximum Angle of View (DX) | 20° | 20° |
Minimum Angle of View (DX) | 4° | 4° |
Maximum Angle of View (FX) | 30°10′ | 30°10′ |
Minimum Angle of View (FX) | 6°10′ | 6°10′ |
Maximum Reproduction Ratio | 1/5.7x (1/5.1x in MF) | 1/4.8x |
Lens Elements | 20 | 17 |
Lens Groups | 12 | 11 |
Compatible Format(s) | FX, DX, 35mm Film | FX, DX, 35mm Film |
VR (Vibration Reduction) | Yes | Yes |
VR Technology | 2nd Generation | 1st Generation |
Diaphragm Blades | 9 | 9 |
Distance Information | Yes | Yes |
Nano Crystal Coat | Yes | No |
ED Glass Elements | 4 | 3 |
Super ED Glass Elements | 1 | N/A |
Super Integrated Coating | Yes | Yes |
Autofocus | Yes | Yes |
AF-S (Silent Wave Motor) | Yes | No |
Internal Focusing | Yes | No |
Minimum Focus Distance | 5.74 ft. (1.75m) | 7.5 ft. (2.3m) |
Focus Mode | Auto, Manual, Auto/Manual | Auto, Manual, Auto/Manual |
G-type | Yes | No |
Filter Size | 77mm | 77mm |
Accepts Filter Type | Screw-on | Screw-on |
Dimensions | 3.8 x 8.0 in. (Diameter x Length), 95.5 x 203mm (Diameter x Length) | 3.6 x 6.7 in. (Diameter x Length), 91 x 171mm (Diameter x Length) |
Weight | 56 oz. (1570g) | 47 oz. (1360g) |
Supplied Accessories | HB-65 Lens Hood, LF-4 Rear Lens Cap, LC-77 Snap-On Front Lens Cap, CL-M2 Ballistic Nylon Lens Case | HB-24 Hood, CL-M1 case, 77mm lens cap, Rear lens cap |
Let’s go over the differences between the two now. The very first major difference between the two lenses is obviously the optical lens design. The new 80-400mm lens has a completely new optical formula, with 20 elements in 12 groups, while the older version has 17 elements in 11 groups. So we are not just talking about new tweaks to the lens – this is a whole new design. Here is the comparison of lens construction on both lenses:
While the front part of the lens more or less retains a similar layout, there are some differences in spacing of elements and the inclusion of a thicker Super ED element. The middle and rear section of the lens is where we see the most changes, with more optical elements to minimize different types of optical aberrations. Changes in the rear part of the lens are quite obvious – the last optical element has moved deeper inside in order to accommodate teleconverters. As you may already know, the older 80-400mm did not work with any of the Nikon teleconverters, while the new 80-400mm is designed to work with all of them. Now keep in mind that while you can physically attach any teleconverter to the new 80-400mm AF-S, only the 1.4x TC-14E II will autofocus with this lens, if you are using one of the latest Nikon DSLRs that can support autofocus at f/8 (D7100/D600/D800/D4). With the TC-14E II, the lens becomes a 112-560mm f/6.3-8.0 lens, which makes it the only budget Nikon lens to go beyond 500mm with a teleconverter. While I personally would not want to experiment with anything other than the TC-14E II for any serious work with this lens, the TC-20E III could potentially be suitable for things like moon photography (probably better than trying to stack multiple Kenko filters). Although at 800mm and f/11, you would have to pay some serious attention to camera shake and shutter speed.
Which brings a rather hot topic for the 80-400mm lenses. The old 80-400mm had a notoriously bad tripod foot / collar, similar to the one on the Nikon 300mm f/4. I replaced mine right away with one from Kirk, which works a world better than the detachable Nikon collar. Just looking at the image of the 80-400mm f/4.5-5.6G ED VR, it looks like Nikon again failed at providing a stable tripod collar for this lens. If you are planning to use this lens on a tripod in low light situations, I would replace the foot as soon as Kirk or RRS release their versions.
Next, we have Vibration Reduction. Looks like the 80-400mm was designed a little earlier than the Nikon 70-200mm f/4G that we reviewed earlier, because it comes with the older VR II technology, versus VR III on the 70-200mm f/4G. While it is still better than the original VR on the 80-400mm AF-D, it is unfortunate that Nikon could not get this one updated to the latest version. Still, 4 times shutter speed compensation is pretty effective for a lens this long when hand-holding it.
Another important difference is in the type of lens elements and coating used on the new 80-400mm. First, the number of extra low dispersion elements went up from 3 to 4, which should reduce optical aberrations. Second, this lens is one of the few Nikkor lenses to sport a Super ED element, which has even lower refractive index than ED elements. Hence, the lens should produce very sharp and contrasty images compared to its predecessor. Let’s take a look at MTF charts between the old and the new lens and see how the lenses should compare optically (Left: Nikon 80-400mm AF-S, Right: Nikon 80-400mm AF-D):
Looking at the short end of the zoom range (80mm), the positive changes in optical design are pretty obvious. The new 80-400mm not only has higher contrast, but it can also resolve details much better. Look at how the scale on the right side first curves and then rapidly falls off, which indicates field curvature and inferior performance in the corners. Field curvature is practically non-existent at wide end on the new 80-400mm, and it should be very sharp even in the corners on full-frame cameras. But most importantly, look at how the dotted lines run right next to the straight lines – this indicates absence of astigmatism! From this MTF chart, it looks like the lens is even better than the 70-200mm f/4G VR on the wide end. Now let’s take a look at the telephoto end (400mm):
As expected, performance drops a little, but it is still pretty impressive. Again, there is very little astigmatism and the lens has plenty of contrast and sharpness. Looking at the sagittal lines, the drop in sharpness is very minor in the corners, with even better mid-frame performance than at 80mm. This is obviously worse than what the Nikon 70-200mm f/4G can do at 200mm (which is superb), but it is way better than the old version, as evidenced from the MTF chart above. So when I said that the 70-200mm f/2.8G + TC-20E III will resolve less detail wide open in my earlier article, you can now see why (obviously, real tests for the upcoming review will show the actual difference). What I am curious about, is how well the 80-400mm will work with the 1.4x TC and how its AF performance will compare to the Nikon 300mm f/4 AF-S. I will conduct some specific tests to measure AF speed for photographing birds and wildlife, so I should be able to compile a good report on AF performance for my upcoming review.
As for other features, the lens has Nano Crystal Coat, which not only reduces flare, but also enhances colors produced by the lens. Internal design and Silent Wave Motor mean that the lens does not change in size when focusing and the focus motor should provide faster, smoother and noise-free autofocus. This also means that autofocus will work on any modern Nikon DSLR, even entry-level cameras like Nikon D3200 (the previous version only worked with cameras that have built-in focus motor). Minimum focus distance has also been drastically reduced from 2.3 to 1.75 meters, which is good news for close-up work.
All these new features come at an expense of a longer lens and heftier body – the new 80-400mm is wider, 3 centimeters longer and weighing over 200 grams heavier. At 1570 grams, it is slightly heavier than the Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8G VR II (without a teleconverter), but significantly lighter than say the 200-400mm f/4G or the 400mm f/2.8G (which weigh 3,360 and 4,620 grams, respectively).
More to come in the upcoming Nikon 80-400mm f/4.5-5.6G VR review, so stay tuned!
Hi Nassim!
I googled Nikkor 80-400 D G comparison, and see who I found :)
so, I understand I should go for the 2nd generation then!
I still owe you an article (it has been a long time). I promise I will take care of that!
Hope we will meet again soon.
Best regards my friend.
Hi every body
Hi Nasim and all friends
Nasim i have a question:
I have a Nikon D750 plus 2 problems ! first one is about ultra wide, i cannot choose between 18-35 AF-S and 20 mm 1.8
I have 50 mm1.8 and 85 mm 1.8 and the second problem is here: 70-200 2.8 VRII + TC or the new 80-400 AF-S?
i cannot ignore the fantastic 2.8 and its AF speed
I am a landscape man and super sharpness fan!
Nasim as you noticed i cannot spend a lot but i want max from min!
Look at these Nasim :
s3.picofile.com/file/…CF3019.JPG
s3.picofile.com/file/…CF3119.JPG
s6.picofile.com/file/…CF3121.JPG
s6.picofile.com/file/…CF3125.JPG
these pix are taken by Fujifilm HS10 and look at the white head mountain and the distance and the blurry landscape,
i want grab these perfectly and don’t forget I am not Pro not even close to pro! :)
Now suggest me beyond 80 mm which can bring me sharpness
Thank you so much in advance and thank you again because you share your knowledge and experiences here with all of us.
Hi,
Theres a lot of talk about the faster AF & I understand that it is better. What if we take that out of the equation. I always use manual focus for sports & am happy with that. Bearing in mind that the new lens is over twice the price, is it twice as sharp.
Sharpness is more important to me than autofocus speed so with that in mind would you think its significantly sharper (centrally – dont worry about edge fall-off as I vignette slightly anyway in post) with the new lens?
Would appreciate any thoughts
Ron
Ever since nikon have been producing lenses in Thailand the quality is not so good.
My 80-400mm made in Japan .
Well made , good elements of materials
Had two of the older version , which I feel are super lenses at the price.
More robust and sharper.
I likehave Nikon 80-400mm
I like have Nikon 80-400mm ?
thanks for your review. I am excited about the new lens and really being able to test it out. I have had the old lens for several years and have been very excited about it. My new version looks really good and have been happy with initial photographs. More will come with more field tests.
best, tom
Hi Nasim Mansurov,
Please advise.
The latest Nikon advisory list of lenses for my Nikon 800E do not recommend using this 80 400 lens. Is it REALLY good enough to use?
Thanks for a brilliant site and the lots of advice which I find very helpful.
Hi Chris,
I too saw that the 80-400 mm af-s ii was not mentioned. I found it interesting that the 85 mm PC-E TS mm micro was mentioned. I have the 85 mm PC TS micro lens which I believe has the same optics as the PC-E version. On my D800E, I find the image quality of the 80-400 mm af-s vr ii similar to if not better than the 85 mm PC lens. I base this on shooting a test chart at f5.6 with both lenses and viewing photographs I made with the two lenses. My real image observations are consistent with the mtf curves published by Nikon (allowing, of course, for the fact that the f-stop on the 80-400 is f4.5 at 80 mm while that on the micro is f2.8. The 85 mm PC micro will have higher mtf curves at 4.5).
Before I purchased the 80-400 mm af-s vrii, I rented it for 3 days from the local camera shop Pro Photo Supply here in Portland, Oregon. I used FocusTune software to find the optimum af adjustment (it was -2).
I shot a test chart containing many USAF 1951 test patterns mounted on a 30×40 board with both the 80-400 mm af-d and the 80-400 mm af-s lens at 80 mm and 400 mm and f-stops. The distance was set so that the test chart filled the frame. Live view was used to focus the lens. The af-s version was clearly superior, but I had to look hard to see the difference. In the center, there wasn’t much difference and it could be argued that the af-d was slightly sharper.
The comparison is complicated by the fact that the real focal lengths of the two lenses set nominally at 400 mm are slightly different. In my tests I kept the camera in the same position and did not move it to compensate for the difference in focal length. As has been noted in the past, the af-d is pretty sharp. Differences in sharpness were easier to spot as targets near the edge and corner were examined. My test chart results for both lenses seemed consistent with the Nikon published mtf curves. CA in the af-d was more noticeable than in the af-s.
What really impressed me about the af-s version was the increased contrast and clarity in real images. Color seems to pop more without needing as much a post processing increase of clarity, vibrance or saturation.
I also found that I liked the balance of the af-s lens on my D800 (no grip). The new shape of the barrel makes the lens much easier to hold. I found the combination of the extra weight and the balance to make hand holding more stable. I like the feel of the larger diameter barrel. I also found that the vr was significantly improved.
In addition, I was impressed by the sharpness of the af-s lens at f5.6. Sharpness did not seem to increase much at all as the f-stop was increased.
After using the lens I liked the af-s 80-400 so much I traded in my af-d lens the next day and bought a new 80-400 af-s.
I shot the test charts again with the new lens and compared them to my previous results. I could not find any significant difference. To me both copies of the 80-400 mm af-s were essentially the same.
Virtually any lens will be better on the D800E than on a lower resolution camera because of oversampling. Consequently it is questionable to say that a lens is not good enough for use on the D800.
One thing to note about the mtf curve for the 80-400 af-s is that there is virtually no astigmatism at 400 mm. This means that the images can take stronger sharpening than images taken with a lens that has more astigmatism.
Our eyes are naturally attracted to the heavier solid lines in an mtf chart which are usually better than the dotted line mtf curves. But the dotted lines are just as important. When comparing lens mtf charts, I like to pencil in the average mtf that’s halfway between the s- and m-curves to get a better feel for the comparison. A more conservative position would be to compare the worst of the mtf curves. Unwanted blur is bad whether it is longitudinal or radial.
I own the 80-400 lens for outdoor use where I often need both hands free. Consequently, I use the ThinkTank skin belt system. For those who are interested, the 80-400 mm af-s vrii (lens hood reversed) attached to a D800E (no grip) will fit into the Digital Holster 20 v2.0 with an l-bracket on the camera and an arca-swiss plate on the lens. It’s a very snug fit and does not allow for a quick draw, but it works for me.
When outdoors, I’m carrying an 18-35, 85 mm PC TS and the D800E with the 80-400 attached. In the day, I’ll toss in a 1.4 teleconverter and at night I’ll replace that with the 50 mm f1.8. I also frequently carry a Gitzo3540XL with a gimbal head in a sling. Both hands are free and I don’t have to set anything on the ground to use any of the gear.
I’ve been using the lens for a month now and enjoying the images I’ve captured with it. I don’t regret the purchase. It remains my most used lens.
Hi George,
Thanks so much for taking the time to give such a full reply. I have just read it quickly and will read it again as so much information is well worth remembering & using to advantage.
Your paragraph starting ‘Virtually any lens will be better on the 800E has made me think again as I was wondering if the 800E was resolving too much detail. Maybe you think that impossible.
My big criticism with my 24-70 is that it has no VR as I get older I find it more difficult to hand hold successfully so your comments are helpful.
Thanks again and all the best.
Hi Nasim,
Are there well developed methodologies for measuring focus speed of a lens? When you review the new 80-400 lens I’d be very interested in seeing a lot of attention paid to comparing the focus speed and focus accuracy of the old and new 80-400mm lenses. Also what effect will light level have on focus speed and accuracy? I use a D800 camera body.
Thanks.
Rich Reich
Hi Nasim,
Am eagerly waiting for your review of the new 80-400 AF-S, after using it, as promised. Mainly bcos I am renting this lens for my forthcoming Kenya trip and would like to know how it behaves on the field, ESP when hand held.
Hope you try it and I get to read it soon ! Thanks !! Your views mean a lot to me.
Nalini again,
I use a D600 body. Also have a D80. Would like your comments in relation to these.
Thanks
Hi Nalini,
You might find this sequence shot with the new 80-400 af-s vrii lens on a D800e of interest:
www.flickr.com/photo…otostream/
Thank you George, it is very inspiring !