Nikon 80-400mm f/4.5-5.6 lens: Opinions?

Anyone own or have much experience using the Nikon 80-400mm f/4.5-5.6 lens? It's a great focal length range but I'm curious to hear general thoughts on build quality and most importantly, image quality. I would use it primarily to photograph landscapes and adventure w/ the occasional wildlife thrown in for good measure.

What say y'all?

Hi Bret,

I've used this lens a great deal for wildlife and experienced good success with it. Keep in mind this is the original VR application for Nikon and the lens is "old" and long overdue for replacement/upgrade. The IQ is quite good from 80 mm to about 350 mm but a bit soft at 400 mm. The VR functions well. The autofocus seems slow but if you're doing landscape that shouldn't be a problem Why not rent one and get your own first impressions - it's not expensive to rent

http://www.lensrentals.com/rent/nikon/lenses/telephoto/nikon-80-400mm-f4.5-5.6-ed-af-vr

I don't think I'd buy at this point - it could/should be replaced at any time (we've been saying that for about four years now).

Doug Beezley
Snellville, GA

I've rented one a few times. One thing to remember is don't go past f/11 with the lens. Gets soft. I've gotten to the point that I take several shot at different focal lengths and stack in Helicon pro. I'm holding out purchasing one until an upgrade is made same with the 300mm f/4. By the way aren't you a Canon guy?

Thanks for the feedback. Wonder if I'd do better with a 70-300mm lens? Obviously, a 70-200 would be even better but I actually use 200-350'ish quite often for landscape work.

George: Yeah, I use Canon gear but the D800 is making me seriously consider jumping ship.

I once held the 80-400 in my hands, and felt it was pretty heavy. My travel zoom has been the 70-300mm (115-450mm on a DX body), which is light and convenient aside from the relatively slow apertures.

But, I'm not sure either of these zooms would really resolve all the way to 36m pixels. Read bythom.com or Diglloyd.com. To really acheive full resolution I think you need to look into prime lenses, which might mean Zeiss manual at the wide end, and Nikon super-teles at the large end. The 300mm f/2.8 is a spectacular entry to telephoto, and works with a teleconverter. If you need zoom, I think the 70-200mm is better recommended than the 70-300mm, and it does work with a teleconverter.

Just picked up my D800 last week. Put my name on the waiting list at the local camera store expecting a 2 month wait. They called my the next day that they got some in. Not really what I wanted to hear. Pretty much emptied my slush fund. Guess I'll have to wait till next fall to go to Zion and Bryce. Hope to see you in February 2013.

Bret, I have used the 80-400 and found it inferior to the new 70-300 VRII. Minus between 300-400mm. A 300f4 AFS may be a better option if you want to use it just for wildlife. it is WAY sharper, about the same price and works with teleconverters. BTW, the D800 is spectacular! Ping me and I can send you some more info.

I haven't used that lens so I'm no help there. Come on over to the dark side though!

Jim: Thanks for the info. I'm not a wildlife photographer and would use this lens primarily for landscape and adventure photography. I'll check out the 70-300.

You can pick up the 70-300 used on sites like fred miranda all day for about $350. Well worth the money.

I've owned the 80-400 for 10 years or so and it's been reliable for environmental wildlife shooting and occasional landscapes. I don't carry it on hikes very often, generally leaning towards the 70-300 to save ~ 2 lbs. It's a super sharp lens when combined with perfect technique. Unless I'm shooting an animal wide open, I use a shutter cable release to be certain there's no movement. OTH, I've also had success with slow blurs of flying birds handheld. The AF is slow and the trick is to lock on to the subject early, then hold continuous focus. If I were just shooting landscapes, I'd get the 70-300. I am waiting to see what's new on the next gen. 80-400, a much cheaper alternative to the 200-400.

I've owned mine since 2002. I've used it mostly for the 300-400 range. Since it's a heavy lens I don't always carry it with me. I've been very happy with it but I've never really studied the image quality closely. I agree with Dave the AF is slow and can be a hindrance if you're in a hurry to capture a shot.

Thanks, Dave and Laurie. Based on all of the feedback from folks here and elsewhere online I'll wait to see if Nikon updates the lens if I do make the switch from Canon. The other option would be one of the 70-200 lenses. Not as much reach but generally sharper and lighter. For landscapes I could use it w/ a 1.4x converter for a little extra power, too. Really appreciate all the feedback!

Hey Bret...I'm thinking of doing the big switch later in the year and I'm not considering the 80-400 at all (I used to own one years ago when I shot with a D100). That lens is waaaay too expensive for what you get and was pretty darned soft beyond 300mm. As others have already said, you'd be much better off with the 70-300 until Nikon refreshes the 80-400 (as long as you can live without the 300-400 range for a while).

My recent addition is the older 80-200 2.8D. Pros of it are it's way less $ than the 70-200, and still very sharp. Cons are that it doesn't work with teleconverters and no VR. I've been pretty pleased with it thus far, something to consider.

$1100 on Amazon.
http://www.amazon.com/Nikon-80-200mm-Nikkor-Digital-Cameras/dp/B00005LEOH/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1342029037&sr=8-1&keywords=nikon+80-200+afd