-
Welcome to BirdForum, the internet's largest birding community with thousands of members from all over the world. The forums are dedicated to wild birds, birding, binoculars and equipment and all that goes with it.
Please register for an account to take part in the discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
Nikon 300 f4 plus tc vs 80-400 vr (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter squidge
- Start date
I initially found the new 80-400 easier to use with low density FX cameras (D700) than high density FX (D800) or DX (D7100) - it takes a bit of getting used to.
The quality is really very good, once you get the hang of it - see Neil's examples here
This review may also be helpful
and for fun: http://youtu.be/3tJOff1u6jU
The quality is really very good, once you get the hang of it - see Neil's examples here
This review may also be helpful
and for fun: http://youtu.be/3tJOff1u6jU
hi Gerard,
Please have a look in my gallery- most recent shots are with d7100 and new 80-400 , photos from Black-throated thrush (march 2013) and before are with 300 and 300 plus 1.4. Definitely worth trying the actual lens you buy-I had to return my first copy of the new zoom-no amount of fine tuning would help,but my new copy is great-better than the 300 with 1.4 in my opinion(but not quite as sharp as the bare 300)
Mark.
Please have a look in my gallery- most recent shots are with d7100 and new 80-400 , photos from Black-throated thrush (march 2013) and before are with 300 and 300 plus 1.4. Definitely worth trying the actual lens you buy-I had to return my first copy of the new zoom-no amount of fine tuning would help,but my new copy is great-better than the 300 with 1.4 in my opinion(but not quite as sharp as the bare 300)
Mark.
Last edited:
Hi Gerard,
the 80-400 (new one) is a tad sharper than the 300 with a TC. Also it is sharp enough at f5.6 whereas the 300 and tc needs to be at f7.1 imo. Vr is quite useful too even for static birds. The AF of the new lens is stellar compared to a 300 with a tc too. I have both and never use the 300 now. Downside is that the focal length of the 80-400 is less but that doesn't seem to matter in practice.
Last edited:
Can't confirm. I never felt I need f/7.1 with the TC.
I rented the new 80-400G to see how it compares to my 300mm f/4 + TC1.4E.
I don't have the exactly same sets of images. I've seen pretty much the same thing as shown in this review (mouseover for the 300 + 1.4x):
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/...meraComp=614&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=1&APIComp=0
The new 80-400G is very good, but don't think it is much sharper than the prime with TC. And if then the difference is small. And when you take the TC off, the 300mm is better with one extra stop of aperture. The prime is crazily sharp and very consistent across the frame.
The VR on the 80-400G, faster focusing speed and flexibility of zoom is a very tempting. However, should I be buying now and if I wanted just the long end for birds, I would still get the proven 300mm + 1.4x combo. Mainly due to f/4 at 300mm and longer effective focal distance than the 80-400G. Even the naked 300m gives you similar angle of view as the 400mm at long end when focusing close. You'll only get closer to 400mm at infinity.
DFBHeron
Well-known member
I've used both for quite some time. The IQ at 420mm (with the TC 14e ii on the 300mm f4) is much better than the non-AFS 80-400VR at 400mm--at least in my experience. I've read that the new AFS 80-400mm has very good IQ at 400mm, but have no direct experience with this (yet). Zooms generally can't compete with primes for image quality and sharpness. If the new AF-s 80-400mm is as good as the Canon 100-400mm L, then it should be a definite hit for birders, and plenty sharp at 400mm!
The new 80-400 leaves the old one in the dust. No comparison (according to all reports and users of both). The VR is excellent too. It is also far better than Canon's 100-400L.
I have tried using the 80-400VR for birding but found the AF, IQ and f5.6 wide open doesn't compare to my bare 300/2.8VRII, or with the x1.4 TC on or with the 2.0TC either.
It's now consigned to do what it's best suited to IMHO, which is a general use lens (at which it excels) which comes on birding trips as an emergency back-up.
If you are serious about bird photography then, at the current price of the 80-400 VR, I think people should look for other options (e.g. an older 300/2.8), maybe even the new Tamron which won't be as good up to 400 but then it's much cheaper and reaches 600mm
DFBHeron
Well-known member
You mean the new AFS 80-400mm VR, at roughly $2500 dollars. I agree About going for an older 300mm f2.8 (exactly what I did, for $2800), but then you also need to have a lightweight but sturdy tripod (not cheap), and a quality ball head/Gimbal head (not cheap). Even so, this adds a lot of weight to carry around, as well as bulk. Birds notice when you're carrying around long tripod legs and lenses. Having a handheld set up can be the difference between being able to get closer to birds without frightening them--or not. But the 80-400mm non-AFS VR is so darn slow, it's barely worth bringing along in non bright light situations. So, I'm intrigued by the new AFS version, since years of playing hockey have taken their toll, and carrying around less weight would be welcome! That said, I'm looking to go 500mm AFS non-VR (less expensive). But still, I've got to try out the new AFS tele-zoom.
Still, I'd say that in the $800 range, the 300mm f4 is great.
Yes that is the one. Expensive (overpriced perhaps) isn't it.
I don't use a tripod, never have. I use a large, but light & very strong CF monopod, the Benro C49T @ 0.72kgs (ca. US$119) and a CF gimbal, Nest NT-530H @ 1.36kgs (ca. US$300). I used cheaper, smaller, gimbals (under US$100) for over a year and didn't have any issues so long as you get one that locks the lens in place. I can easily get very sharp shots, if absolutely necessary, at 1/50 and 600mm on the mono.
Benro : http://benro.eachshot.com/product/benro-monopod_carbon-fiber_36mm_5_twist/
Nest : http://billings.craigslist.org/phd/4363809906.html or http://www.nest-style.com/nt-530h-gimbal-head.html
The total weight of the rig above is 8kgs (D3s, 300/2.8VRII, TC, Gimbal and Monopod) but you don't really feel it when it's over your shoulder much of the time, I have just completed 50 mountain kms in a week with that rig. Certainly don't have any problem with birds coming close (though I'm sure that would not be the case with a tripod rig), much of it comes down to your fieldcraft and ability to walk slowly and stealthily and conceal yourself when in position - I'm still learning that side of it !
I have a Trip Report I'm writing in progress here (with lots of pics) taken with exactly that set-up :
http://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=279840 (I'm sure the link address will change as it's updated).
If I was Gerard I'd still with his 300/4 as you also suggest. If he wants to upgrade then maybe a 300/2.8 and TC20EIII is in his future
Last edited:
I mean't that the 300 and tc needs to be at 7.1 to equal the new 80-400vr at f5.6. AT f5.6 the 300 and TC is less sharp.
One thing that is underestimated is the need for extra steadiness with high resolution dx cameras like the D7100. Here the new 80-400vr really helps.
I have both lenses and tc's and only use the 80-400vr now.
Having said that the 300f4 and TC is a very good combination.
Well we would need to define what does it mean less sharp. I certainly don't feel any need to stop down the 300 f/4 with 1.4EII converter. f/5.6 is perfectly fine. In fact I have some good results with 1.7x converter wide open when the light is good. Even when looking 100%.
This is on 12mpx and 24mpx FX bodies. Not sure whether this could be any different on smaller sensors.
My only problem with 300mm f/4 is AF speed.
Check the studio comparison shots - 80-400 4.5-5.6G vs 300f/4 + TC14E (mouseover)
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/...meraComp=614&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=1&APIComp=0
If you look at these pictures, you can see that the new zoom has slightly better contrast in center compared at 400 vs 420mm, primarily due to chromatic aberration. At the same time the prime with or without converter is much better half frame and in the corners (and the difference is not small)
The best thing about the 300mm is that you can take the converter off and enjoy exceptionally good performance at 300mm @ f/4. At 300mm there is no competition - the prime is much better at every aperture.
I liked the AF speed on the 80-400G and VR. I would still prefer the 300mm prime for IQ and reach for birds (no focus breathing at short distances).
I am attaching 100% crop from 300mm with 1.4x converter wide open (f/5.6) to show that the output is OK.
Attachments
Last edited:
BillN
Well-known member
My Nikon 300mm f4 is a wonderful lens
but a little OT - I have just bought a used 300mm f2.8 VR - wow+++!!! is all I can say
(I have also got the TC 20E lll)
(the f4 is wonderful ……… and can be used hand held ………. BUT the f2.8 seems magnificent …… all I can say is I wish I had bought the f2.8 sooner, I now love my tripod even more - I know that it's greedy, BUT you need both)
I have also rediscovered my 70 200mm f2.8VR without a TC, (especially for none bird shots)
but a little OT - I have just bought a used 300mm f2.8 VR - wow+++!!! is all I can say
(I have also got the TC 20E lll)
(the f4 is wonderful ……… and can be used hand held ………. BUT the f2.8 seems magnificent …… all I can say is I wish I had bought the f2.8 sooner, I now love my tripod even more - I know that it's greedy, BUT you need both)
I have also rediscovered my 70 200mm f2.8VR without a TC, (especially for none bird shots)
Last edited:
