JuzaPhoto uses technical cookies and third-part cookies to provide the service and to make possible login, choice of background color and other settings (click here for more info).
By continuing to browse the site you confirm that you have read your options regarding cookies and that you have read and accepted the Terms of service and Privacy.
You can change in every moment your cookies preferences from the page Cookie Preferences, that can be reached from every page of the website with the link that you find at the bottom of the page; you can also set your preferences directly here
Do you want add your opinion? You do it by joining JuzaPhoto, it is easy and free!
There is more: by registering you can create your personal page, publish photos, receive comments, join discussions and you can use all the features of JuzaPhoto. With more than 251000 members, there is space for everyone, from the beginner to the professional.
The following opinions have been automatically translated with Google Translate.
Opinion:It was Nikon's first VR, and it cost an eye ... that I bought as soon as possible in 2002 to replace a bit of manual long optics including a 300 f2.8. In fact, then it was a decisive choice, making sports photos, the number of usable images (still and in focus) radically increased, instead of discarding 30 per roll, now I got at least 30 good for roll. Then came the digital ... the lens was slow and had a lower quality than that of an AFS 70-200 f2.8 with 1.4x. I sold it, and then bought back a used one a few years ago, to satisfy temporary work needs. On a D800, I got good images, not to scream, but still very worthy and well publicized. Then I got the AFS version and life changed for the better. It is used at a reasonable price and satisfactorily fulfills the role of a long lens and autofocus as needed, without major compromises on image quality. Personally I found it anyway better than the AF-S 70-300 f4.5-5.6G VR%2C in particular on the contrast, but this is only an opinion, more dictated by the conditions in which I found myself photographing that real and valid comparisons. VOTE 8 (but when he left he deserved a good 9).
Pros:Weight below two pounds, 80 to 250 crisp even at TA Robust and compact enough, filters 77 that also use other lenses. AF precision.
Cons:AF is not very fast, chasing a bird in flight is difficult. Plate of the attack to stand a little 'small.
Opinion:I was struggling with another zoom that started even shorter, then I bought this used to make "portrait and fashion" because many of the larger zoom in excess of 300mm. But I have not found an opportunity to use it this way, I had fun in the Camargue and Provence. Great for boating and water sports like sailing and kite surfing, or maybe was thought to these uses. The VR does not earn God knows what but I have yet to see if with the monopod should be removed or not, as I use it on the stand off the Vr. rnHo tried for a day the new version, she does well but does a bang more, a bit 'too much for such a lens. This retains its value in used thanks to its inherent strength.
Pros:Compactness, weight, colors, clear 80 to 300mm, stabilized, well built
Cons:Lose a bit to 400mm, af very slow with d80 and acceptable with d300s (but always slow compared to today's standard), a price a little high but with the takeover of the new 80-400 has become fair (about 1000 euros)
Opinion:The 80-400 was my first telephoto zoom. The first sample that I took was second-hand and the 2xxxx serial number went back to the first specimens produced by nikon. My first 80-400 did not satisfy me much: at 400mm it was really soft (even closing at f8) and from 80 to 300 it was discreet. However, it remained an excellent companion for photographs of landscape details. One day I read an article in which it was written that nikon in 2006 revised this lens from an optical point of view and introduced the new models with new 4xxxx serial numbers. On the article it was written that the 80-400 to 400mm, already at f5.6, was good to then become excellent at f8. At the beginning I was hesitant but then I decided to put 300 euros more than I had obtained from the sale of my used and I bought a new 80-400 (year 2011). How did it end? I did not believe it but at 400mm f5.6 it was clearer than the model I had (matr 2xxxx). From 80 to 300/320 is very good while at 400mm it is discreet (but closing one stop improves a lot).Regarding the af with the d300s is acceptable. It's really an optic that allows you to do a lot and with little space.
Pros:construction, rendering delicate range of focal lengths covered, good performance 80 to 300mm.
Cons:Unclear to 400mm, very slow in focus, very expensive for what it from.
Opinion:The Nikkor AF 80-400mm f/4.5-5.6 D ED VR, my first lens was a po'spinto, I needed a long lens to experiment with pictures of birds in those days had few pretensions and quality satisfy me even at maximum focal length, I was particularly enchanted by the delicate strokes of color and brilliant. where exactly was I was not nell'autofocus, far too slow, very difficult to pull a bird in flight. so, after some hesitation, I changed to the more powerful Sigma 50-500, which in addition to offering more than 100mm in the longer focal lengths, gave me a good speed in autofocus. rigurdando now the shots of the old 80-400 accustomed to yield 500 vr I seem particularly sharp, but this obviously can not be expected otherwise. I would only recommend if you need a zoom travel to photograph a bit 'of everything, with low space, but for a specific use in the fields of natural, is not great, definitely better 300f4. one final comment is reserved for the vr .. I did many tests with and without and I did not notice particular bebefici with vr on ... say that the new tecnlogia Vr II is quite another thing. optical urge a serious restoration.!
The following opinions have been automatically translated with Google Translate.
JuzaPhoto contains affiliate links from Amazon and Ebay and JuzaPhoto earn a commission in case of purchase through affiliate links.
