• 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.
ZEISS DTI thermal imaging cameras. For more discoveries at night, and during the day.

Nikon D7100 and new 80-400vr combo (1 Viewer)

RMWD

Well-known member
I have been using this combination almost exclusively for the last 2 months in order to really get to know what the camera and lens can do. I just thought I'd share my thoughts for any wondering about buying either or both.

I started off using these on a monopod but once I got the hang them i switched to handheld only with a blackrapid strap. Most of the images in the gallery below are handheld. There are near and far, still and fast, good light and bad light as well as birds in flight.

My first impression is that this is the best bird combination I have. When I first started bird photography I used a D90 and Sigma 150-500 with or without a monopod and enjoyed the freedom of relatively light weight gear and zoom flexibility. Since then I have used primes (300&500) with a D800 and almost always need a monopod.

This new combo has brought back some of the fun I had in the beginning which came from freedom of movement and light weight. It is almost as sharp as my primes both near, middle distance and far, has amazing DR and IQ, good low light capability, autofocus aquisition and speed close enough to the D800 and certainly fast enough for swifts, swallows and raptors. Unlike the Sigma it is sharp wide open at F5.6
The pixel on bird reach is about the same as the 500 f4 on a D800 in DX mode or a 300mm f4 on a V1. The only compromise is the aperture but the increase in iso ability of the D7100 over the D90/D300 generation gives a stop back.

I am so confident in them that i have decided to just take them on a trip to the Farne islands and feel sure I well get good puffin, tern and guillemot flight shots and the ability to back off with the zoom. I shall still use my other lenses and cameras while I am able but it is good to know that there is a combination that works well when these other lenses are too heavy or when I just want to travel light.

The D7100 set is here and mainly has images with the new 80-400
http://www.flickr.com/photos/brandon_birder/sets/72157633409947519/

or The 80-400VR afs set is here, mainly with the D7100
http://www.flickr.com/photos/brandon_birder/sets/72157633211093293/

I'd be happy to answer questions and also for this thread to be used for others with images or links from this combo.
 
I have been using this combination almost exclusively for the last 2 months in order to really get to know what the camera and lens can do. I just thought I'd share my thoughts for any wondering about buying either or both.

I started off using these on a monopod but once I got the hang them i switched to handheld only with a blackrapid strap. Most of the images in the gallery below are handheld. There are near and far, still and fast, good light and bad light as well as birds in flight.

My first impression is that this is the best bird combination I have. When I first started bird photography I used a D90 and Sigma 150-500 with or without a monopod and enjoyed the freedom of relatively light weight gear and zoom flexibility. Since then I have used primes (300&500) with a D800 and almost always need a monopod.

This new combo has brought back some of the fun I had in the beginning which came from freedom of movement and light weight. It is almost as sharp as my primes both near, middle distance and far, has amazing DR and IQ, good low light capability, autofocus aquisition and speed close enough to the D800 and certainly fast enough for swifts, swallows and raptors. Unlike the Sigma it is sharp wide open at F5.6
The pixel on bird reach is about the same as the 500 f4 on a D800 in DX mode or a 300mm f4 on a V1. The only compromise is the aperture but the increase in iso ability of the D7100 over the D90/D300 generation gives a stop back.

I am so confident in them that i have decided to just take them on a trip to the Farne islands and feel sure I well get good puffin, tern and guillemot flight shots and the ability to back off with the zoom. I shall still use my other lenses and cameras while I am able but it is good to know that there is a combination that works well when these other lenses are too heavy or when I just want to travel light.

The D7100 set is here and mainly has images with the new 80-400
http://www.flickr.com/photos/brandon_birder/sets/72157633409947519/

or The 80-400VR afs set is here, mainly with the D7100
http://www.flickr.com/photos/brandon_birder/sets/72157633211093293/

I'd be happy to answer questions and also for this thread to be used for others with images or links from this combo.

Great to see your post. This is exactly the combination I am considering so will watch with interest. I'll no doubt be back with questions once I've browsed your images!
All the best
Hobbes
 
Thankyou so, so much for posting this information - absolutely spectacularly gorgeous shots by the way.

I have been trawling the web for weeks, reading countless reviews & forums, trying to decide whether or not to upgrade my existing camera (different manufacturer), or to jump ship altogether. I've decided to jump ship for various reasons &, coincidentally, top of my list at the moment is the D7100 & the 80-400, so your real life field test is a godsend for me.

Given I'm about to change from another (familiar) brand, I'm still coming to grips with the different names/abbreviations with Nikon lenses, so please excuse my simple questions. I'm confused as to which 80-400VR lens you used exactly? From what I've read during my product trawling, I'm guessing the AF-S....G?

AF Nikkor 80-400mm f/4.5-5.6D ED VR
AF-S Nikkor 80-400mm f/4.5-5.6G ED VR

Is there any difference in quality of glass with these two, or is the AF.....D just an older (slower?) version without the Silent Wave AF?

I've read Nikkons explanations for AF/AF-S and D type/G type lenses, but I guess I'm really wanting someone to dumb it down further for me please - the creative side of my brain is overriding the intelligent bit I'm sure :-O Previously I only had to remember that my (current) 100-400 Canon lens was L series, and as much as I could afford at the time I bought it, a lot easier ;) Thanks!

Edited to add: How could I forget...I use my gear for wildlife photography, primarily birds. A daily hobby (or should that read "obsession") & my changeover budget is $4500 or less, (in case anyone has another suggestion, which is welcome) won't get much change I'm guessing, but will have a smile.
 
Last edited:
The new AF-S lens has a totally new design and is truly optically superior to the old.
It cost most $ but it is worth it.
 
The new AF-S lens has a totally new design and is truly optically superior to the old.
It cost most $ but it is worth it.

Would it be fair to say that it is an upgrade to go from a Canon 100-400mm IS to the new Nikkor 80-400vr?

If so, it might be helpful to understand the reasons, in simple terms, if possible.
Thanks
Hobbes
 
The Canon lens is a push pull one I believe, the Nikon isn't. The Canon one is more prone to dust , again, so I am led believe. Others might be able to answer better but you often find that Canon users don't read the Nikon posts and vice versa.I haven't owned the Canon one nor the new model 80-400 but it appears very good.
Rich, even 80mm on a 1.6 crop body will probably be a bit too much for a lot of Farne Islands shots, particularly the Terns that are moving quickly around your head and impossible to get fully in the frame. If you have one take a smaller lens too !
 
Last edited:
The Canon lens is getting quite old (>10 years) - and many Canon users are longing for a revised version.
Currently the new Nikon 80-400 is the best of the pack.
 
The Canon lens is getting quite old (>10 years) - and many Canon users are longing for a revised version.
Currently the new Nikon 80-400 is the best of the pack.

Thank you Pasquier and Dave. That is as I suspected. I shall need to save rather a lot of pennies though ;)
 
Thankyou so, so much for posting this information - absolutely spectacularly gorgeous shots by the way.

I have been trawling the web for weeks, reading countless reviews & forums, trying to decide whether or not to upgrade my existing camera (different manufacturer), or to jump ship altogether. I've decided to jump ship for various reasons &, coincidentally, top of my list at the moment is the D7100 & the 80-400, so your real life field test is a godsend for me.

Given I'm about to change from another (familiar) brand, I'm still coming to grips with the different names/abbreviations with Nikon lenses, so please excuse my simple questions. I'm confused as to which 80-400VR lens you used exactly? From what I've read during my product trawling, I'm guessing the AF-S....G?

AF Nikkor 80-400mm f/4.5-5.6D ED VR
AF-S Nikkor 80-400mm f/4.5-5.6G ED VR

Is there any difference in quality of glass with these two, or is the AF.....D just an older (slower?) version without the Silent Wave AF?

I've read Nikkons explanations for AF/AF-S and D type/G type lenses, but I guess I'm really wanting someone to dumb it down further for me please - the creative side of my brain is overriding the intelligent bit I'm sure :-O Previously I only had to remember that my (current) 100-400 Canon lens was L series, and as much as I could afford at the time I bought it, a lot easier ;) Thanks!

Edited to add: How could I forget...I use my gear for wildlife photography, primarily birds. A daily hobby (or should that read "obsession") & my changeover budget is $4500 or less, (in case anyone has another suggestion, which is welcome) won't get much change I'm guessing, but will have a smile.

Hi Ruby, and thanks for your kind comments. Yes it is the AFS G.
It is sharper than the older lens and particularly is sharp fully open at 400mm unlike the older which needs to be stopped down to 8.
It is very fast at focussing handling birds in flight with ease. It also is capable of getting much out of the new high resolution sensors.
I believe it is sharper than Canon's 100-400L but only on other peoples comments. L is Canons equivalent of ED but the glass and coating technology of the canon is much older.

Hope this helps.

Rich
 
The Canon lens is a push pull one I believe, the Nikon isn't. The Canon one is more prone to dusk , again, so I am led believe. Others might be able to answer better but you often find that Canon users don't read the Nikon posts and vice versa.I haven't owned the Canon one nor the new model 80-400 but it appears very good.
Rich, even 80mm on a 1.6 crop body will probably be a bit too much for a lot of Farne Islands shots, particularly the Terns that are moving quickly around your head and impossible to get fully in the frame. If you have one take a smaller lens too !

Dave, thanks. I'll take an 18-105 vr with me too.
 
Very pleased to see that you have got some excellent results from this lens. My experience, though, was very different and I was disappointed with the majority of images I got at 400mm. After 2 months of use both with the D7100 and D800, I decided to sell it - at a great loss - and revert back to my old tried and tested combination of the 300mm f4 and 1x4 converter. Results are now consistent and I've got back the sharpness and feather detail that I was rarely getting with the zoom.

Looking at the DP Review web site where you regularly post, yours are amongst the very few of the images posted where I would be genuinely happy with the results.

Whether I had a 'bad copy', I don't know and for those of you who would take advantage of its zoom capabilities, then I am sure it is worth considering and buying but if, like me, you are only going to use it at 400mm, I would urge caution especially at the price.

Jon

http://s981.photobucket.com/user/JonTaverner/library/
 
Very pleased to see that you have got some excellent results from this lens. My experience, though, was very different and I was disappointed with the majority of images I got at 400mm. After 2 months of use both with the D7100 and D800, I decided to sell it - at a great loss - and revert back to my old tried and tested combination of the 300mm f4 and 1x4 converter. Results are now consistent and I've got back the sharpness and feather detail that I was rarely getting with the zoom.

Looking at the DP Review web site where you regularly post, yours are amongst the very few of the images posted where I would be genuinely happy with the results.

Whether I had a 'bad copy', I don't know and for those of you who would take advantage of its zoom capabilities, then I am sure it is worth considering and buying but if, like me, you are only going to use it at 400mm, I would urge caution especially at the price.

Jon

http://s981.photobucket.com/user/JonTaverner/library/

Jon,
thanks for your kind comments and sorry your experience was so different.
There have been others that have not got on with the 80-400 and looking at your images it's not lack of experience on your part. i suppose it may have been a poor lens. Of course the 300 f4 and TC is almost as good on paper at f8 but clearly perfect for you. You are right about the price though. To me it's worth it for the freedom it gives me back.
Thanks for posting.
 
Thanks for your post and feedback.

The feedback I've seen generally indicates the 80-400 AFS is a big improvement over the earlier version. AF was the biggest issue on the earlier version, and AF on the new 80-400 is quite fast. Image quality is very good - much better than the earlier 80-400 which was pretty good.

As far as comparison with other lenses goes, the general consensus is the prime lenses are still better than zooms but the gap has closed on image quality. The new 80-400 comes in just behind the Nikon 200-400. The 200-400 is just behind the 300 f/4 AFS. And the 300 f/2.8, 400 f/2.8, 500 f/4, and 600 f/4 are a little better.

With all these lenses the price is a pretty good indicator of ranking. The 300 f/4 offers value because it is a little older design and does not have VR. The new 80-400 is a nice compromise between the 70-200 and 200-400.

We're also hearing the 80-400 is a much better choice than the 70-200 with a teleconverter. While the 70-200 by itself is good, if you really need 300mm or more the 80-400 is a better choice.

One note of caution. The 80-400 with a teleconverter may not be as good. You get the expected drop in quality with the teleconverter, but there is also a difference with AF. Depending on your camera body, the 80-400 may not autofocus. The D7100 only provides AF with the center sensor above f/5.6, and the other Nikon cameras have a reduced number of sensors that provide AF above f/5.6.
 
Thanks for your post and feedback.

The feedback I've seen generally indicates the 80-400 AFS is a big improvement over the earlier version. AF was the biggest issue on the earlier version, and AF on the new 80-400 is quite fast. Image quality is very good - much better than the earlier 80-400 which was pretty good.

As far as comparison with other lenses goes, the general consensus is the prime lenses are still better than zooms but the gap has closed on image quality. The new 80-400 comes in just behind the Nikon 200-400. The 200-400 is just behind the 300 f/4 AFS. And the 300 f/2.8, 400 f/2.8, 500 f/4, and 600 f/4 are a little better.

With all these lenses the price is a pretty good indicator of ranking. The 300 f/4 offers value because it is a little older design and does not have VR. The new 80-400 is a nice compromise between the 70-200 and 200-400.

We're also hearing the 80-400 is a much better choice than the 70-200 with a teleconverter. While the 70-200 by itself is good, if you really need 300mm or more the 80-400 is a better choice.

One note of caution. The 80-400 with a teleconverter may not be as good. You get the expected drop in quality with the teleconverter, but there is also a difference with AF. Depending on your camera body, the 80-400 may not autofocus. The D7100 only provides AF with the center sensor above f/5.6, and the other Nikon cameras have a reduced number of sensors that provide AF above f/5.6.

Eric, I agree with your understanding of the 80-400. Regarding using it with a TC, i don't recommend it either. At range it will give you a record shot and up close the sharpness drop off is imo too noticeable. That's wher e with the D7100 the extra crop is better for a small bird though no different from cropping in post except file sizes.
 
Would it be fair to say that it is an upgrade to go from a Canon 100-400mm IS to the new Nikkor 80-400vr?

If so, it might be helpful to understand the reasons, in simple terms, if possible.
Thanks
Hobbes

Having 100-400L IS, I will have reservation. 100-400 at my hand is very sharp and it has minimal focal length breathing.
 
The Canon lens is getting quite old (>10 years) - and many Canon users are longing for a revised version.
Currently the new Nikon 80-400 is the best of the pack.

I have to say Sony 70-400G II is the best for it is sharper at 400mm end and it has less focal length breathing. It is less expensive as well
 
Warning! This thread is more than 11 years ago old.
It's likely that no further discussion is required, in which case we recommend starting a new thread. If however you feel your response is required you can still do so.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top