I've been using this lens for at least 4 years. I have it on a D850 now. It is such a versatile lens that it stays on my camera most of the time. I use it for everything except the warbler migration. I have a 500mm F 4 G lens that I use for those itty bitty birds at distance. I paid about $2300 new for my 80-400 from B&H. Didn't realize they had gone up to $2700. Still worth it, but I would look for a used one first. Versatility and quality make this a must-have lens for me.
That's if you shoot without any VR. So he should take photos at 1/400th but since the lens is rated to 3-4 stops of shake reduction you can take it well below that shutter speed.
I will buy this lens. It is not a lens for beginners, Nikon recommended the Nikkor 80-400mm AF-S VR even for the Nikon D800: this means that the lens is EXCELLENT and capture a lot of details. Also: this lens gives the best at 400mm. GREAT LENS!
berto1999 i imagine your face when viewing the first images.. did you really enjoy that lens? many say its really soft at 400mm.. canons 100-400 ii is much better than the nikon and its only 2000$..
that's true - versatility is a big issue I also had in mind. I bought the 70-200/TC combination just today and tested the combination. good choice - from portraits to wildlife pictures - that's versatility. Thx bowhunterxxx
I am very tempted to sell my 70-200 and TC to buy this lens. It is very sharp and fast AF. The VR is a bonus. CA is very low, but vignetting is a bit high for my liking. It is about $700 overpriced IMO. In my tests it beats the 70-200 with the TC and the 70-300 in overall quality.
It's half magnesium and half plastic, but the plastic part is really well made! got my hands on this lens today, go to a shop and see for your self it's not that bad
For that focal range to me a better buy would be the Tamron 70-300mm DI VC f4-5.6 for about $550. On a DX body that would be 105-450mm, with great VC and very sharp.
The 70-200 f/4 is a great lighter tele lens too. And, though it doesn't have the same reach, at $1400 new, looks like the steal of the century compared to this.
That would leave you with 140-400 f5.6 with the sharpness degrading by the teleconverter. Compare that to a sharp 80-400 f4.5-5.6 which has a much larger zoom range and a somewhat larger aperture. This lens has it's place, sports photography for example where a large zoom range at long focal length can be needed in one lens.
Not sure if this is any indicator but the price of the lens has dropped in the UK by about £400. That could just be a move to bring it closer to the price of the US version, which is still $300 cheaper even after the UK price cut.
Hi Jared. What would be an all rounder lens for a D610 please? I like to shoot landscapes and sports mainly. I was thinking something F4. Really like the 70-200 F2.8 nikon but to expensive. What are your thoughts on the 70-200 F4? Your input is truly appreciated. Budget in hand is $1,700 US. Thanks.
Jared, nice video. Could you recommend this lens for pro wildlife and bird flight photography? I need a lens for a Nikon D500 and it needs to be fast focusing and plenty sharp. How does it compare to the new 300 f4 Vr lens, the 150-500, the 200-400? Thanks in advance for your answer.
Hey mate I have recently purchased a d500 can't wait for it to come ! What lens did you end up purchasing I am having the same debate. ? 200-500 gives more reach and cheaper! Or this 80-400 or new 300f4
but why better? ok its a good alternative, but nevertheless you would have to carry 2 instead of 1 equipment with you and after attaching the converter to the 70-200 objective and the body,... it is no longer safe from dust and water due to missing rubber stuff on the TC. Today, I am exactly confronted with that problem: either the new 80-400 (2500€) or the 70-200 2.8 + converter TC-20E III (2320€) - 7% savings. What's YOUR recommendations folks???
i have zero use for this lens, especially with 5.6 at 200mm. Backpackers, maybe press photogs, I could even see wedding photogs liking it. $2700 is pretty rich, though.
Answer to the topic question emmmm no. Just another of the many many over priced lenses from Nikon. Sigma and Tamron are really upping their game lately. Good for us.
jared I don't understand you, you do an unboxing of the 55-300 and you hate it because it's f4.5 to 5.6 it even has vr. And now you do this unboxing and a non consisted aperture is completely fine wile this lens is $2200,- more expensive!
Just about anything with the word "NIKON" stamped on it is over priced. (especially accessories) You just have to decide what you want, what you need, what you can afford and what you are willing to pay.
I think at 400mm its VR only about 2.2 f-stop effectively, just like what it advertised. UP TO 4 stops which is only at 80mm not at 400mm. Anyway, It still toe to toe with CANON 100-400mm L IS in terms of image quality and image stabilization at 400mm in most of copies. It is indeed $1300 overpriced and will need to be down to sane level below $2k to be popular enough.
I need a suggest plz.. I'm going to a safari in Africa and i have to buy a lens for this.. Do you suggest the 80-400 or the 70-200 f2.8 vrII with a converter 2x for my D800E?? Thanks
You want the 80-400, for the reaching power. Provided if you are shooting in bright light. Because the lenses was made for beginners. Very slow F5.6. Or get the Sigma 120-300/2.8. 70-200/2.8 is useless when you are in a jeep.
@Stefano Montipò Nikon recommended the Nikkor 80-400mm AF-S VR even for the Nikon D800(36MP sensor): this means that the lens is EXCELLENT and capture a lot of details. You know, Nikon recommends only the BEST lens, for the Nikon D800. And if you don't have the Nikon D800, this lens remains one of the BEST lenses, also for your camera. Also: this lens gives the best at 400mm. For your Safari, the new Nikkor 80-400mm AF-S VR is perfect! The "70-200mm" is not enough for a safari.
Thank You all!! btw i think i gonna take the 70-200 f2.8 vrii with the tc 20iii. maybe at 400 is worst than 80-400 but i think i'm gonna use more the 70-200 focal length.
Stefano Montipò Of course if you are interested in portraits, the Nikon 70-200mm is better. Nikon 80-400mm ist for Safari. The Nikon "TC-20E III" perform GOOD with the 70-200mm f/2.8G VRII.
For $2700, it is supposed to be build with ALUMINUM/Magnesium Alloy, to be same level of build quailty of 70-200mm F/2.8 VR II. Plastic build is so disappointing.
Over $2,800.00 for a beginner lenses. That is not cheap for a F5.6 lenses. Why many reviewers are claiming it is sharp. Because the lenses is F5.6. No one will tell you that 50/1.4 is sharper than a 50/2.8 lenses. But many will buy the 50/1.4, just to get that lousy depth-of-look and speed. You can tell the beginner lenses, they all have the Viagra effects when zooming.
its expensive cuz its nikon and its 400mm, now to your question if it is soft, no... at F5.6 it is sharp definitely sharp. you are comparing apples to oranges, you pay extra for a glass if it is fast aperture cuz you get the extra stops of light which is useful in low light situations and for extreme sport even in broad daylight to freeze the action. But don't be fooled that F5.6 lens is not sharper compare to F2.8 lens.
I've been using this lens for at least 4 years. I have it on a D850 now. It is such a versatile lens that it stays on my camera most of the time. I use it for everything except the warbler migration. I have a 500mm F 4 G lens that I use for those itty bitty birds at distance. I paid about $2300 new for my 80-400 from B&H. Didn't realize they had gone up to $2700. Still worth it, but I would look for a used one first. Versatility and quality make this a must-have lens for me.
Picked up the 80-400 lens refurb for 1795.00. Works great with my D500. Going to try it with my wife's A6000. Should be a fun experiment.
That's if you shoot without any VR. So he should take photos at 1/400th but since the lens is rated to 3-4 stops of shake reduction you can take it well below that shutter speed.
I will buy this lens. It is not a lens for beginners, Nikon recommended the Nikkor 80-400mm AF-S VR even for the Nikon D800: this means that the lens is EXCELLENT and capture a lot of details. Also: this lens gives the best at 400mm. GREAT LENS!
berto1999 i imagine your face when viewing the first images.. did you really enjoy that lens? many say its really soft at 400mm.. canons 100-400 ii is much better than the nikon and its only 2000$..
This lens is extremely soft at 400mm. I bought it and I’m really disappointed and planing to switch to an 70-200 instead
Nice video! Just picked up that lens in excellent condition for $500! You confirmed it was the right lens for me! Thanks!
that's true - versatility is a big issue I also had in mind. I bought the 70-200/TC combination just today and tested the combination. good choice - from portraits to wildlife pictures - that's versatility. Thx bowhunterxxx
I am very tempted to sell my 70-200 and TC to buy this lens. It is very sharp and fast AF. The VR is a bonus. CA is very low, but vignetting is a bit high for my liking. It is about $700 overpriced IMO. In my tests it beats the 70-200 with the TC and the 70-300 in overall quality.
Great to see you back at Allens Camera :-)
It's half magnesium and half plastic, but the plastic part is really well made! got my hands on this lens today, go to a shop and see for your self it's not that bad
I've tested it for myself last week. Of course I would not give that money for it, but I must admit, this is a great and powerful glass.
WOW! I just moved to Levittown from California! I didn't know this place was here!!! Definitely checking out the camera shop(:
For that focal range to me a better buy would be the Tamron 70-300mm DI VC f4-5.6 for about $550. On a DX body that would be 105-450mm, with great VC and very sharp.
Nice! I like when you do the videos at Allen's
Yes, I personally got a cheap 70-300 from Tamron with VC and saved the money to spend on primes/24-70
I'm actually looking at a offer on this lens. It's going for 999,00 EUR. Would be a nice lens...but I doubt I actually have any need for it.
The 70-200 f/4 is a great lighter tele lens too. And, though it doesn't have the same reach, at $1400 new, looks like the steal of the century compared to this.
I'm noticing lot's of Nikon 200-400 lenses selling very cheaply on E-Bay. Could this lens be the reason?
I thought your focal length should always match your shutter speed or close to it. Why was that photo shoot at 1/160 sec at 400mm?
That would leave you with 140-400 f5.6 with the sharpness degrading by the teleconverter. Compare that to a sharp 80-400 f4.5-5.6 which has a much larger zoom range and a somewhat larger aperture. This lens has it's place, sports photography for example where a large zoom range at long focal length can be needed in one lens.
Would be nice if you can compare this new 80-400 to the sigma 50-500 OS in the future.
I had a 50-500 OS for a while. Got rid it!! Got the 80-400 and have been really thankful I didn't wait to do it.
Not sure if this is any indicator but the price of the lens has dropped in the UK by about £400. That could just be a move to bring it closer to the price of the US version, which is still $300 cheaper even after the UK price cut.
Hi Jared. What would be an all rounder lens for a D610 please? I like to shoot landscapes and sports mainly. I was thinking something F4. Really like the 70-200 F2.8 nikon but to expensive. What are your thoughts on the 70-200 F4? Your input is truly appreciated. Budget in hand is $1,700 US. Thanks.
Great review, Jared, thanks! I will definitely be getting one of these used at some point!
I think that is not a general rule nowadays with superb VR and IS -systems.
I'd really like to see a Canon lens similar to this, me being a Canon user obviously.
Jared, nice video. Could you recommend this lens for pro wildlife and bird flight photography? I need a lens for a Nikon D500 and it needs to be fast focusing and plenty sharp. How does it compare to the new 300 f4 Vr lens, the 150-500, the 200-400? Thanks in advance for your answer.
Hey mate I have recently purchased a d500 can't wait for it to come ! What lens did you end up purchasing I am having the same debate. ? 200-500 gives more reach and cheaper! Or this 80-400 or new 300f4
I have not bought yet, but I don't think it will be the 80-400.
Steinar Knai
Jared Polin Would getting a 70-200 2.8 and using it with the D750s in-camera crop mode or a teleconverter be a better option?
How does it compare to the older non AF-S version (besides the obvious slower/louder focusing)?
Overpriced definitely. Only Nikon can make a lens go from $1400 to $2700 in one generation.
but why better? ok its a good alternative, but nevertheless you would have to carry 2 instead of 1 equipment with you and after attaching the converter to the 70-200 objective and the body,... it is no longer safe from dust and water due to missing rubber stuff on the TC. Today, I am exactly confronted with that problem: either the new 80-400 (2500€) or the 70-200 2.8 + converter TC-20E III (2320€) - 7% savings. What's YOUR recommendations folks???
Thanks mate, nicely how much right now ?
I have a nikon d90 and I'm using a 70-300 afs. I mainly take pictures to do with Motorsport I'd like abut more zoom is this the lens for me ?
Don't think it's better. Most that have tried say no. A workable solution though for sure.
@bowhunterxxx No, the 2x converter would make it really soft.
i have zero use for this lens, especially with 5.6 at 200mm. Backpackers, maybe press photogs, I could even see wedding photogs liking it. $2700 is pretty rich, though.
I just bought one Used but mint in UK for £399 good price I think
Well put. Reason I love your videos.
Answer to the topic question emmmm no. Just another of the many many over priced lenses from Nikon.
Sigma and Tamron are really upping their game lately. Good for us.
WOW haven't been here for a while (Allen's Camera).
I will go to 70-200mm 2.8
jared I don't understand you, you do an unboxing of the 55-300 and you hate it because it's f4.5 to 5.6 it even has vr. And now you do this unboxing and a non consisted aperture is completely fine wile this lens is $2200,- more expensive!
You're paying a hefty premium for the 300-400mm range....
400*1.5 = 560 >>> jared math
hahahahaha , thanx man
Just about anything with the word "NIKON" stamped on it is over priced. (especially accessories) You just have to decide what you want, what you need, what you can afford and what you are willing to pay.
good video...thanks
I agree. Its a rental type of lens.
I think at 400mm its VR only about 2.2 f-stop effectively, just like what it advertised. UP TO 4 stops which is only at 80mm not at 400mm. Anyway, It still toe to toe with CANON 100-400mm L IS in terms of image quality and image stabilization at 400mm in most of copies. It is indeed $1300 overpriced and will need to be down to sane level below $2k to be popular enough.
That seems like a Rental Lens, not one to be owned.
Really expensive compare to the 100-400L Canon ...
Buy more beginner photo programs so Jared can afford this lens.
anybody tried to use this lens on a dx?
nope
I say it's not worth the money. For 2700, you can get a D7100 and a Nikon 70-300 and you still have 1000$ or so.
Well review 👍
Slightly overpriced*
The current price of this lens is 999EUR. Either it's cheaper in Europe or the price has been reduced a lot (probably thanks to this video :P )
Seriously...what's the point of doing this lens review if you don't try shooting wildlife or sports with it!?
Wow kinda pricey, huh
I just realized this is the full frame version of the 55-300mm lol.
I need a suggest plz.. I'm going to a safari in Africa and i have to buy a lens for this.. Do you suggest the 80-400 or the 70-200 f2.8 vrII with a converter 2x for my D800E??
Thanks
thank you
You want the 80-400, for the reaching power.
Provided if you are shooting in bright light.
Because the lenses was made for beginners. Very slow F5.6.
Or get the Sigma 120-300/2.8.
70-200/2.8 is useless when you are in a jeep.
@Stefano Montipò
Nikon recommended the Nikkor 80-400mm AF-S VR even for the Nikon D800(36MP sensor): this means that the lens is EXCELLENT and capture a lot of details. You know, Nikon recommends only the BEST lens, for the Nikon D800. And if you don't have the Nikon D800, this lens remains one of the BEST lenses, also for your camera. Also: this lens gives the best at 400mm. For your Safari, the new Nikkor 80-400mm AF-S VR is perfect! The "70-200mm" is not enough for a safari.
Thank You all!! btw i think i gonna take the 70-200 f2.8 vrii with the tc 20iii. maybe at 400 is worst than 80-400 but i think i'm gonna use more the 70-200 focal length.
Stefano Montipò
Of course if you are interested in portraits, the Nikon 70-200mm is better. Nikon 80-400mm ist for Safari. The Nikon "TC-20E III" perform GOOD with the 70-200mm f/2.8G VRII.
better off going with the 70-200 2.8 this lens, i feel, is not worth it
calm down and stop shouting
Drastically overpriced !!!
So I found a used one for just over 140$ Should I get it guys?
No you didn’t. You found an as is quality D lens lol..
I have to laugh everytime he says "FroKnowsPhoto(.)com"!
I am, sorry if I insulted your boyfriend
you're obviously new here
your hair is too distracting, i cant concentrate in the lens
edededed
For $2700, it is supposed to be build with ALUMINUM/Magnesium Alloy, to be same level of build quailty of 70-200mm F/2.8 VR II. Plastic build is so disappointing.
Over $2,800.00 for a beginner lenses.
That is not cheap for a F5.6 lenses.
Why many reviewers are claiming it is sharp. Because the lenses is F5.6.
No one will tell you that 50/1.4 is sharper than a 50/2.8 lenses.
But many will buy the 50/1.4, just to get that lousy depth-of-look and speed.
You can tell the beginner lenses, they all have the Viagra effects when zooming.
its expensive cuz its nikon and its 400mm, now to your question if it is soft, no... at F5.6 it is sharp definitely sharp. you are comparing apples to oranges, you pay extra for a glass if it is fast aperture cuz you get the extra stops of light which is useful in low light situations and for extreme sport even in broad daylight to freeze the action. But don't be fooled that F5.6 lens is not sharper compare to F2.8 lens.
Just my opinion, but, I would not call this a beginner lens. Beginners are using kit lenses on a DX frame or the 70-300 on a FX frame.