Hi All, I have a question regarding this lens, when I switch VR on for BIF either std or active there is fringing around most of the images taken, Is this normal as it does not occur with VR OFF. I have had this on D850 and now the Z9. It is very annoying when trying to also do video as it still can be seen. Any ideas has anyone else tried this. Would appreciate any feedback.
dpreview
December 12, 2020 5:08 pm
Leonard Shepherd • Forum Pro • Posts: 20,402 Re: Is your source worth listening to on this detail? In reply to pranavdesai • May 11, 2014 1
pranavdesai wrote:
This is what Nasim Mansurov says “”However, this lens has one serious flaw, which can get annoying very quickly – it has the same AF hesitation or “chatter” as some other AF-S zoom lenses, like the Nikon 70-300mm VR. I first noticed this when photographing my son in a park at a long distance zoomed all the way to 400mm.
Sorry but comments like this, unless supported by images to show a malfunction, are best treated as only suitable for the trash can
Lets not mess about, the 80-400 is f5.6 at 400 mm – and AF is generally less efficient at f5.6 than at faster apertures. In addition whatever camera was used the instructions say AF may not work well with fine detail low contrast subjects. A child in a park at a long distance with a 400mm f5.6 lens may not provide enough information for the AF system to detect the intended subject and to lock focus.
“Chatter” as described is usually no more and no less than the camera AF telling the photographer the subject detail is not good enough for AF to work. “Chatter” is usually accompanied by the viewfinder confirmation light flickering from side to side.
Whether it is “annoying” and a “serious flaw” that phase detect AF cannot work reliably with everything (partly a trade-off of tracking moving subjects fast) is a point of view. The 70-200 f2.8 can “chatter” when there is foliage under the sensor viewfinder rectangle.
It is probable a 400 mm f2.8 would not have chattered in the same situation, but the prime is f2.8 – and 3 times the price.
My 105 VR needs care in deciding between AF and manual focus when I photograph the very fine details of some flower centres. Outdoors in a breeze even on a tripod I prefer AF because it can track the movement of the flower – provided the flower detail is not too fine detail for AF to be accurate. Indoors with no breeze manual focus is usually a better choice.
Cameras and lens are to some extent a tool in a similar way as a violin in that some user skill is needed to get the best result. I get the impression Mansurov is against sometimes needing to take charge of the camera settings to get the best result.
Tracy
December 7, 2020 4:40 am
Hi Nasim, I have the old Nikon AF 80-400 f/4.5-5.6 D VR lens and 2 other older lenses. My D80 packed 3years ago in and was unfixable due to discontinued. What camera around max R10 000 is compatible and will work the AF VR should I buy? I don’t need video, just crave and drool to take stills again.
Mac Walter
October 27, 2020 9:27 pm
I bought the Nikon 80-400 when it first came out and loved it. I took it to Africa as the versatility made it possible to just use this lens. However 3 weeks of dry dust worked its way into the lens and it suffered. When home I sent it in to Nikon and they repaired it for free, still under warranty. However ever since then, it has never been the same. The main issue is lens chatter causing many images to be slightly out of focus. This is extremely frustrating as I would love to use this lens. I have sent it in 4 times since, the last just this year and payed nearly 500$ but still no avail. It chatters unless on a subject that is well isolated from the background. I do mainly wildlife esp. BIF and am quite good at it. I find myself going to my primes, the PF models which I have both. The 80-400 is barely acceptable on my D500 but not at all on my D850. I hang onto it because in theory it should be a lot better, like it once was. The AF is very fast, faster than any other lens I own. If anyone has any suggestions on how to fix this issues I am all ears.
Willie
July 15, 2020 9:32 am
I have had this lens now for a couple of years. I do see a problem with chattering. But, since I switched to back button autofocus I no longer get blurred images. I push the focus button and then release it, verify the image is sharp in the viewfinder and it almost always is, then snap the shot. Sometimes you can hear the chattering but the image almost always seems to end up in focus. No problem.
Burghclerebilly
January 25, 2019 4:24 pm
This review, like most from the PL Team is excellent.
However, I would strongly suggest an effort is made to compare the overall performance of lenses to each other as well as standalone, since the ratings are a bit out for this lens in my opinion. Such comparative rating could only be done if the same body was used, which means the ratings may have to be updated periodically.
The AF of the 80-400 AF-S is very good indeed. Nasim has some concerns about focus chatter, but that may be because he was using a fairly old body in this test. On recent bodies like D500, D750, D4S, this lens performs excellently. Similarly, the VR on the 80-400 AF-S is one of the best Nikon systems. I would say only the latest prime super-teles and the 70-200/4 are equivalent. It is certainly better than the VR on the 70-200/2.8 VRii, which has the older system that typically takes a few seconds to settle. The VR on the 80-400 Af-S settles and holds the frame very steady immediately, even when zoomed to 400mm, and the results come through with 1/20th second being readily hand-holdable. Having used most of the tele primes and zooms, and when comparing the 4.0 rating given to the 80-400 AF-S to other lenses’ ratings, I would suggest the 80-400 AF-S should be bumped up to at least 4.5 overall. The only problem I see is that the price is high, and probably going up!
“On recent bodies like D500, D750, D4S, this lens performs excellently.” NOPE – the same JUNK on D500 as well.
Burghclerebilly
February 7, 2018 4:03 pm
I tested this latest version of the 80-400 today, which was about the third or fourth time over the last few years. It certainly handles well, and I’m confident that it is sharp. However, I think we have to start being tough on Nikon so that they update it sooner rather than later and correct some major issues.
Firstly, as most people know, VR has two functions that can have equal importance: (i) steadying the viewfinder image making handling easier; (ii) steadying the image capture allowing longer shutter speeds to be used. [And when considering those functions, you can easily see why VR is fairly irrelevant for sports photography] The VR on this 80-400 is certainly not as good as that on any Nikon produced in the last few years. Of particular relevance, the 200-500, 70-200/4 and new 70-300/5.6 have very superior VR, both in terms of the viewfinder steadiness and the consistency of eliminating shake at long shutter speeds. So, if VR is important to you in a lens purchase in 2018, try some of the more recent Nikons as well as this model.
Now let’s get onto my main beef with this lens. As Nasim mentioned, there is significant close focus breathing, meaning that as a rough guess when focusing 3m away at an indicated 400mm, the lens actually has an effective focal length of about 300mm. This is a common problem with internal focusing lenses, also commented extensively on for the 70-200/2.8 VRii. Now, although I do see the desire for the 70-200/2.8 to be 200mm at close focus for portrait work , I don’t know of many instances where 400mm at very short distances in needed. This is essentially a wildlife lens, so the typical operating distance must be assumed to be in the 5-50m range. However, even within that range I am not sure that a true 400mm focal length is achieved! Comparing to my 300/2.8 and 300/4 in a brief test at 10 and 20m length estimate the 80-400 at 400mm to be only about 350mm. I think it would be very useful to know the effective focal lengths of this and other expensive zooms over the typical operating focus distances, since many people would only buy the 80-400 for the extra 100mm, and whilst the new 70-300/5.6 FX is about a third of the price and certainly has superior AF and VR.
After some more extensive use I need to update my initial findings with some thoughts of this lens’ relative performance in 2018. Overall, it is a very good lens. The focus breathing is certainly there, and similarly high to the 70-200 vrii at close range, but of course as a wildlife lens, it is not such a problem with most shots being over 5m focus distance. The VR is also better than I gave it credit, I would say it is at least as good as the VRii and almost up to 70-200/4 levels, Considering it works well out to 400mm (and 600mm equivalent on DX), the VR is really great.
I recently got tired of using the 300/4 in the field for BiF as I would always need to carry a 70-200 as well as a TC. So I thought I would give the new Tamron 100-400 F4.5-6.3 a try, since it is relatively good value and appeared to perform well at a local store. However, after two weeks use I can say that the old adage ‘you pays your money, you makes your choice’ is right. The Tamron seemed ok with reasonably fast AF and effective VR, but the results were never quite sharp. I had to dial in AF fine tune adjustments that were also not constant over the zoom range as far as I could tell, and the VR only really helped below 1/125 (except for steadying the viewfinder), making even still subjects blurry at faster shutter speeds. The 80-400 Nikon is currently about three times the Tamron’s price, so you can certainly expect it to be better, but it is just the consistency of performance that makes it a winner for me. The AF is very fast, and accurate even at long distances. I tracked a Mallard across a lake flying directly towards me (luck!) from about 150m to 30m away and every frame (about 15 in total) was nailed. This is very good since Mallards are quite fast, and this one started off very small in the frame. The key point I think which helps put Nasim’s 2013 review into perspective, is that I was using a D500 and D4S, both of which weren’t available in 2013. I have not seen any problems with focus-chatter as is mentioned as a big problem in the review. All I have seen is when the subject is indistinct there are some very rapid micro-adjustments but that is what all Nikon lenses do when your single AF point is on a curved subject with pattern. In BiF use, when you are tracking and need to jump onto a new subject quickly, the 80-400 is at least as good as the 300/4 when using a modern body. I have previously also owned the 200-500 and the 80-400 blows it away for AF performance, and the VR is just as good. The 200-500 is unwieldy, whereas the 80-400 balances fine in hand. Overall, I would say it is right up there with the 70-200s for consistent professional performance, and since a good second hand version can be bought at half the new price, and at a similar amount to a new 200-500, I would strongly recommend everyone gives it a try.
Thanks for your input, Burghclerebilly, particularly in respect to the Tamron 100-400mm. I have owned and used the Tamron and Sigma 100-400mm and found them to be very similar, and decent lenses for the price. I’ve also owned and used the Nikon 200-500mm, the Tamron 150-600mm, and Sigma 150-600mm C. I was never completely satisfied with any of them: a little disappointed with sharpness and inconsistency of the Tamron and Sigma lenses, and the Nikon 200-500mm, as you say, was a bit unwieldy and heavy for its limited zoom range. I now own the Sigma 60-600mm and I find it to be superb, all around in every respect—it’s a great lens. However, it is even heavier than the 200-500mm and it’s a bit much for hand-holding and hiking about on the beach or trail—8 lbs. with the D500—like carrying around a gallon jug of water. So I almost always use a tripod with it to good effect on either my D500 or Z7.
I also appreciate your references to the Nikon 70-200mm f/4, my favorite lens for many uses, and it is seldom mentioned and respected as highly as the f/2.8 version that is actually not quite as sharp, costs twice as much and is a beast in comparison.
Thanks to this review and your revised comments, I will go ahead with the purchase of a used copy of the Nikon AF-S 80-400mm. It’s still on the pricey side, but if it performs as well as you and others say, it will be worth it. After all, what price the pursuit of perfection?
Réal Courcelles
December 10, 2017 5:05 am
I read the review and I am interesting in bying a 80-400 G VR 4.5/5.6 to be used with a D500 for a safari in Namibia. I have also a 70-200 E FL VR f2.8. I order to reach 600mm. Howevr, I am considering 2 options: a) D500 + TC 20EIII+70-200mmE FL VR f2.8 or b) D500 + 80-400G 4.5/5.6 G VR. Does anyone have experienced any of these combination and can make recomandation?
for me it’s better if you buy the Nikkor 200-500. For safari the best combination is 70-200 + 200-500. I also have the TC1.7 but I do not like it and I never use it.
.I live in South Africa so often go on safari. I have a D7200 and used to own both the old and new versions of the 80-400. The new one is an excellent lens but I found it a bit too short for bird photos. I traded it in for the new 200-500. Am very happy with this lens. Also have a 70-200. Depending on the type of safari you are going on the 70-200 can be quite adequate for most animal shots as the vehicles often get close to the action. A good option is to also have a wide to standard lens to show off the environment you are in .
I have used both combos extensively and can say that 80-400 does not perform well with any TC. The 70-200 f2.8 latest version does but you will only get 400mm at f5.6. For Safari the 200-500 is a better option assuming you are not walking around too much. It is a heavy beast and poorly balanced but it does give excellent results. If you take the 80-400 on Safari be aware that it is a real dust pump and in my case the lens has never been the same since. I also have the Tamron 150-600mm f6.3 G2 lens and it is decent. Not as sharp as my primes or the 70-200 but every bit as sharp as my 80-400. Another option that does work well if you have a second body for zoom is the little 300pf which does great with the 1.4 TC iii. Very sharp and so light you can sneak it in your bag. Also you get 300mm at f4. My hands down favorite though is the 500mm pf. This guy is light, fast and very sharp. However for big stuff you need another lens. I like the 70-200 and maybe a TC or two. I find you don’t have to cover every mm of reach. A gap is OK. The last trip I took 3 lenses. 70-200 f2.8,500mm f5.6 pf and for general stuff a 28-300 f5.6. This lens is decent and can give surprisingly good results on anything but small birds. I use two bodies, D850 and D500.
Jack Ellis
December 5, 2017 12:26 pm
I read your review and learned more about this lens, even though I have owned this new version as weir as the older version. Yes it is expensive but you get a lens that is the same optical quality as your other Nikons and does not look different than those Nikons on photos taken on the same day and conditions. Numbers are not at all the whole story. As for the Sigma lens I have a friend that had the 150 to 500 version and the image quality was not close to the Nikon. The Nikon 300 f/4 is a good lens I’m sure as I have friends who own them and the Nikon quality is there. You are, however comparing a fixed focal length with a zoom wand that obviously is not really cricket. The other point you overlook is the fixed focal length is fixed. When I was at a raptor demo at a National Park the birds flew overhead and several in the audience had single focal lengths up to 600mm. As the birds zoomed overhead it would have been impossible for them to get the closer ranges in focus. All I did was zoom! Tis has been handy in other situations as well. Also, to include the 200-400mm that costs the down payment on a Mercedes is a little out of class. As you say “not cost efficient”. The article was very good though and I enjoyed it. Just felt I needed to express my own perspective. I love the lens and wouldn’t have bought anything else.
Lefteris Kritikakis
June 10, 2017 9:36 pm
The lens is very nice, excellent performance, BUT only central Nikon services (not authorized centers) can do any service on the lens. In a perfectly working copy I bought used, the second element had significant dust on the 2nd element, affecting image quality above 250mm, so I was forced to send it to Nikon where they asked $652.00 just to clean the second element (!), claiming a complete disassembly would be needed (still…). In other lenses one simply removes the first element from the top and cleans the surface of the second. This one, according to Nikon, is a “special case”. So I’m forced to return the lens, which is disappointing because I liked the practical reach and the excellent VR. The fact that only central Nikon services can do even routine maintenance is a severe flaw.
Hi All, I have a question regarding this lens, when I switch VR on for BIF either std or active there is fringing around most of the images taken, Is this normal as it does not occur with VR OFF. I have had this on D850 and now the Z9. It is very annoying when trying to also do video as it still can be seen. Any ideas has anyone else tried this. Would appreciate any feedback.
Leonard Shepherd • Forum Pro • Posts: 20,402
Re: Is your source worth listening to on this detail?
In reply to pranavdesai • May 11, 2014
1
pranavdesai wrote:
This is what Nasim Mansurov says “”However, this lens has one serious flaw, which can get annoying very quickly – it has the same AF hesitation or “chatter” as some other AF-S zoom lenses, like the Nikon 70-300mm VR. I first noticed this when photographing my son in a park at a long distance zoomed all the way to 400mm.
Sorry but comments like this, unless supported by images to show a malfunction, are best treated as only suitable for the trash can
Lets not mess about, the 80-400 is f5.6 at 400 mm – and AF is generally less efficient at f5.6 than at faster apertures. In addition whatever camera was used the instructions say AF may not work well with fine detail low contrast subjects. A child in a park at a long distance with a 400mm f5.6 lens may not provide enough information for the AF system to detect the intended subject and to lock focus.
“Chatter” as described is usually no more and no less than the camera AF telling the photographer the subject detail is not good enough for AF to work. “Chatter” is usually accompanied by the viewfinder confirmation light flickering from side to side.
Whether it is “annoying” and a “serious flaw” that phase detect AF cannot work reliably with everything (partly a trade-off of tracking moving subjects fast) is a point of view. The 70-200 f2.8 can “chatter” when there is foliage under the sensor viewfinder rectangle.
It is probable a 400 mm f2.8 would not have chattered in the same situation, but the prime is f2.8 – and 3 times the price.
My 105 VR needs care in deciding between AF and manual focus when I photograph the very fine details of some flower centres. Outdoors in a breeze even on a tripod I prefer AF because it can track the movement of the flower – provided the flower detail is not too fine detail for AF to be accurate. Indoors with no breeze manual focus is usually a better choice.
Cameras and lens are to some extent a tool in a similar way as a violin in that some user skill is needed to get the best result. I get the impression Mansurov is against sometimes needing to take charge of the camera settings to get the best result.
Hi Nasim, I have the old Nikon AF 80-400 f/4.5-5.6 D VR lens and 2 other older lenses. My D80 packed 3years ago in and was unfixable due to discontinued. What camera around max R10 000 is compatible and will work the AF VR should I buy? I don’t need video, just crave and drool to take stills again.
I bought the Nikon 80-400 when it first came out and loved it. I took it to Africa as the versatility made it possible to just use this lens. However 3 weeks of dry dust worked its way into the lens and it suffered. When home I sent it in to Nikon and they repaired it for free, still under warranty. However ever since then, it has never been the same. The main issue is lens chatter causing many images to be slightly out of focus. This is extremely frustrating as I would love to use this lens. I have sent it in 4 times since, the last just this year and payed nearly 500$ but still no avail. It chatters unless on a subject that is well isolated from the background. I do mainly wildlife esp. BIF and am quite good at it. I find myself going to my primes, the PF models which I have both.
The 80-400 is barely acceptable on my D500 but not at all on my D850. I hang onto it because in theory it should be a lot better, like it once was. The AF is very fast, faster than any other lens I own.
If anyone has any suggestions on how to fix this issues I am all ears.
I have had this lens now for a couple of years. I do see a problem with chattering. But, since I switched to back button autofocus I no longer get blurred images. I push the focus button and then release it, verify the image is sharp in the viewfinder and it almost always is, then snap the shot. Sometimes you can hear the chattering but the image almost always seems to end up in focus. No problem.
This review, like most from the PL Team is excellent.
However, I would strongly suggest an effort is made to compare the overall performance of lenses to each other as well as standalone, since the ratings are a bit out for this lens in my opinion. Such comparative rating could only be done if the same body was used, which means the ratings may have to be updated periodically.
The AF of the 80-400 AF-S is very good indeed. Nasim has some concerns about focus chatter, but that may be because he was using a fairly old body in this test. On recent bodies like D500, D750, D4S, this lens performs excellently. Similarly, the VR on the 80-400 AF-S is one of the best Nikon systems. I would say only the latest prime super-teles and the 70-200/4 are equivalent. It is certainly better than the VR on the 70-200/2.8 VRii, which has the older system that typically takes a few seconds to settle. The VR on the 80-400 Af-S settles and holds the frame very steady immediately, even when zoomed to 400mm, and the results come through with 1/20th second being readily hand-holdable. Having used most of the tele primes and zooms, and when comparing the 4.0 rating given to the 80-400 AF-S to other lenses’ ratings, I would suggest the 80-400 AF-S should be bumped up to at least 4.5 overall. The only problem I see is that the price is high, and probably going up!
“On recent bodies like D500, D750, D4S, this lens performs excellently.”
NOPE – the same JUNK on D500 as well.
I tested this latest version of the 80-400 today, which was about the third or fourth time over the last few years. It certainly handles well, and I’m confident that it is sharp. However, I think we have to start being tough on Nikon so that they update it sooner rather than later and correct some major issues.
Firstly, as most people know, VR has two functions that can have equal importance: (i) steadying the viewfinder image making handling easier; (ii) steadying the image capture allowing longer shutter speeds to be used. [And when considering those functions, you can easily see why VR is fairly irrelevant for sports photography] The VR on this 80-400 is certainly not as good as that on any Nikon produced in the last few years. Of particular relevance, the 200-500, 70-200/4 and new 70-300/5.6 have very superior VR, both in terms of the viewfinder steadiness and the consistency of eliminating shake at long shutter speeds. So, if VR is important to you in a lens purchase in 2018, try some of the more recent Nikons as well as this model.
Now let’s get onto my main beef with this lens. As Nasim mentioned, there is significant close focus breathing, meaning that as a rough guess when focusing 3m away at an indicated 400mm, the lens actually has an effective focal length of about 300mm. This is a common problem with internal focusing lenses, also commented extensively on for the 70-200/2.8 VRii. Now, although I do see the desire for the 70-200/2.8 to be 200mm at close focus for portrait work , I don’t know of many instances where 400mm at very short distances in needed. This is essentially a wildlife lens, so the typical operating distance must be assumed to be in the 5-50m range. However, even within that range I am not sure that a true 400mm focal length is achieved! Comparing to my 300/2.8 and 300/4 in a brief test at 10 and 20m length estimate the 80-400 at 400mm to be only about 350mm. I think it would be very useful to know the effective focal lengths of this and other expensive zooms over the typical operating focus distances, since many people would only buy the 80-400 for the extra 100mm, and whilst the new 70-300/5.6 FX is about a third of the price and certainly has superior AF and VR.
After some more extensive use I need to update my initial findings with some thoughts of this lens’ relative performance in 2018. Overall, it is a very good lens. The focus breathing is certainly there, and similarly high to the 70-200 vrii at close range, but of course as a wildlife lens, it is not such a problem with most shots being over 5m focus distance. The VR is also better than I gave it credit, I would say it is at least as good as the VRii and almost up to 70-200/4 levels, Considering it works well out to 400mm (and 600mm equivalent on DX), the VR is really great.
I recently got tired of using the 300/4 in the field for BiF as I would always need to carry a 70-200 as well as a TC. So I thought I would give the new Tamron 100-400 F4.5-6.3 a try, since it is relatively good value and appeared to perform well at a local store. However, after two weeks use I can say that the old adage ‘you pays your money, you makes your choice’ is right. The Tamron seemed ok with reasonably fast AF and effective VR, but the results were never quite sharp. I had to dial in AF fine tune adjustments that were also not constant over the zoom range as far as I could tell, and the VR only really helped below 1/125 (except for steadying the viewfinder), making even still subjects blurry at faster shutter speeds. The 80-400 Nikon is currently about three times the Tamron’s price, so you can certainly expect it to be better, but it is just the consistency of performance that makes it a winner for me. The AF is very fast, and accurate even at long distances. I tracked a Mallard across a lake flying directly towards me (luck!) from about 150m to 30m away and every frame (about 15 in total) was nailed. This is very good since Mallards are quite fast, and this one started off very small in the frame. The key point I think which helps put Nasim’s 2013 review into perspective, is that I was using a D500 and D4S, both of which weren’t available in 2013. I have not seen any problems with focus-chatter as is mentioned as a big problem in the review. All I have seen is when the subject is indistinct there are some very rapid micro-adjustments but that is what all Nikon lenses do when your single AF point is on a curved subject with pattern. In BiF use, when you are tracking and need to jump onto a new subject quickly, the 80-400 is at least as good as the 300/4 when using a modern body. I have previously also owned the 200-500 and the 80-400 blows it away for AF performance, and the VR is just as good. The 200-500 is unwieldy, whereas the 80-400 balances fine in hand. Overall, I would say it is right up there with the 70-200s for consistent professional performance, and since a good second hand version can be bought at half the new price, and at a similar amount to a new 200-500, I would strongly recommend everyone gives it a try.
Thanks for your input, Burghclerebilly, particularly in respect to the Tamron 100-400mm. I have owned and used the Tamron and Sigma 100-400mm and found them to be very similar, and decent lenses for the price. I’ve also owned and used the Nikon 200-500mm, the Tamron 150-600mm, and Sigma 150-600mm C. I was never completely satisfied with any of them: a little disappointed with sharpness and inconsistency of the Tamron and Sigma lenses, and the Nikon 200-500mm, as you say, was a bit unwieldy and heavy for its limited zoom range. I now own the Sigma 60-600mm and I find it to be superb, all around in every respect—it’s a great lens. However, it is even heavier than the 200-500mm and it’s a bit much for hand-holding and hiking about on the beach or trail—8 lbs. with the D500—like carrying around a gallon jug of water. So I almost always use a tripod with it to good effect on either my D500 or Z7.
I also appreciate your references to the Nikon 70-200mm f/4, my favorite lens for many uses, and it is seldom mentioned and respected as highly as the f/2.8 version that is actually not quite as sharp, costs twice as much and is a beast in comparison.
Thanks to this review and your revised comments, I will go ahead with the purchase of a used copy of the Nikon AF-S 80-400mm. It’s still on the pricey side, but if it performs as well as you and others say, it will be worth it. After all, what price the pursuit of perfection?
I read the review and I am interesting in bying a 80-400 G VR 4.5/5.6 to be used with a D500 for a safari in Namibia. I have also a 70-200 E FL VR f2.8. I order to reach 600mm. Howevr, I am considering 2 options: a) D500 + TC 20EIII+70-200mmE FL VR f2.8 or b) D500 + 80-400G 4.5/5.6 G VR. Does anyone have experienced any of these combination and can make recomandation?
for me it’s better if you buy the Nikkor 200-500. For safari the best combination is 70-200 + 200-500. I also have the TC1.7 but I do not like it and I never use it.
.I live in South Africa so often go on safari. I have a D7200 and used to own both the old and new versions of the 80-400. The new one is an excellent lens but I found it a bit too short for bird photos. I traded it in for the new 200-500. Am very happy with this lens. Also have a 70-200. Depending on the type of safari you are going on the 70-200 can be quite adequate for most animal shots as the vehicles often get close to the action. A good option is to also have a wide to standard lens to show off the environment you are in .
I have used both combos extensively and can say that 80-400 does not perform well with any TC. The 70-200 f2.8 latest version does but you will only get 400mm at f5.6. For Safari the 200-500 is a better option assuming you are not walking around too much. It is a heavy beast and poorly balanced but it does give excellent results. If you take the 80-400 on Safari be aware that it is a real dust pump and in my case the lens has never been the same since. I also have the Tamron 150-600mm f6.3 G2 lens and it is decent. Not as sharp as my primes or the 70-200 but every bit as sharp as my 80-400. Another option that does work well if you have a second body for zoom is the little 300pf which does great with the 1.4 TC iii. Very sharp and so light you can sneak it in your bag. Also you get 300mm at f4. My hands down favorite though is the 500mm pf. This guy is light, fast and very sharp. However for big stuff you need another lens. I like the 70-200 and maybe a TC or two. I find you don’t have to cover every mm of reach. A gap is OK. The last trip I took 3 lenses. 70-200 f2.8,500mm f5.6 pf and for general stuff a 28-300 f5.6. This lens is decent and can give surprisingly good results on anything but small birds. I use two bodies, D850 and D500.
I read your review and learned more about this lens, even though I have owned this new version as weir as the older version. Yes it is expensive but you get a lens that is the same optical quality as your other Nikons and does not look different than those Nikons on photos taken on the same day and conditions. Numbers are not at all the whole story. As for the Sigma lens I have a friend that had the 150 to 500 version and the image quality was not close to the Nikon. The Nikon 300 f/4 is a good lens I’m sure as I have friends who own them and the Nikon quality is there. You are, however comparing a fixed focal length with a zoom wand that obviously is not really cricket. The other point you overlook is the fixed focal length is fixed. When I was at a raptor demo at a National Park the birds flew overhead and several in the audience had single focal lengths up to 600mm. As the birds zoomed overhead it would have been impossible for them to get the closer ranges in focus. All I did was zoom! Tis has been handy in other situations as well. Also, to include the 200-400mm that costs the down payment on a Mercedes is a little out of class. As you say “not cost efficient”. The article was very good though and I enjoyed it. Just felt I needed to express my own perspective. I love the lens and wouldn’t have bought anything else.
The lens is very nice, excellent performance, BUT only central Nikon services (not authorized centers) can do any service on the lens. In a perfectly working copy I bought used, the second element had significant dust on the 2nd element, affecting image quality above 250mm, so I was forced to send it to Nikon where they asked $652.00 just to clean the second element (!), claiming a complete disassembly would be needed (still…). In other lenses one simply removes the first element from the top and cleans the surface of the second. This one, according to Nikon, is a “special case”.
So I’m forced to return the lens, which is disappointing because I liked the practical reach and the excellent VR. The fact that only central Nikon services can do even routine maintenance is a severe flaw.