Nikon AF-S FX NIKKOR 80-400mm f.4.5-5.6G ED Vibration Reduction Zoom Lens with Auto Focus for Nikon DSLR Cameras

Background:I use Nikon D800 and D600 Cameras, and mostly shoot wildlife around the Rocky Mountains region. I was never happy with my old AF 80-400D image quality, so I purchased an AFS 200-400 f4 vrii. The 200-400 is an amazing sharp lens with the price tag and Size/Weight to go with it. I love the lens, but I underestimated the weight issue and It was getting to be a hassle to carry the lens on the trails and even more hassle traveling with the beast.When Nikon came up with the new AFS 80-400 vr, I was exited but then I was knocked off my feet when I saw the price, However I decided to get one and told myself: "If it is not tack sharp, it will go back".Well, Happy to say that this thing is as sharp as my 200-400 f4, and it is so much sharper than my old AF 80-400D that I think I may have had a bad copy of the old one and just did not have any thing comparable to check it against. So If you are upgrading from the old lens you maybe in for a big surprise with this new one. Specially if you shoot with recent cameras.A side from being sharper the new lens has a zoom lock button that is very helpful on the trail. The old one always would creep and the lens would extend while you would walk. With this one you can lock it at 80mm and it will stay put and short. Otherwise the they are similar.Now a few observations;1- The built quality is Nikon prosumer and not the Sherman tank pro quality. It is good but not impressive at this price.2- The auto focus speed is not as snappy as my 200-400 which itself is no speed demon either.3- The auto focus accuracy is great in good light but it gets confused very easily in low contrast and very high contrast areas. One bad habit it has is to go to infinity and stay there and refuse to come back unless you give it some really shiny object to focus on. Every lens has a bad habit and I think I my have found this ones.4- Some reviews mentioned tripod collar not being good, I find it to be acceptable, maybe not for the price but it is functional and works fine. I always change my tripod collars with after market ones since they are more comfortable to hand cary and also have built in Arca-Swiss plates which is great a convenience and lowers the weight. But I have not find it necessary for this lens. If I were to get one it would be the Kirk model.5- This lens is a dust pump, it pushes air and dust in to your Camera's sensor chamber. But it is not a big deal if you keep your lens and the back lens cap clean.6- Finally, If you get one of these lenses and it is not tack sharp at 400mm, (granted, you know what your doing with your technique) you have a bad sample, return it and get a replacement. It appears that some bad copies are floating around. Most importantly beware of "open box deals" or "used like new" ones from third party vendors. It may be a bad one that was returned. Amazon has a 30 day return policy for their used lenses so I would not be worry about Amazon but for others, make sure they have a good return or exchange policy.Knowing what I know now the price doesn't seams to be as bad, even though I think Nikon USA is playing the "soak the early adopter game" and the real price would be around $2000 next year or even this christmas, Which is too bad since it only penalizes their best and loyal customers.However, I would say that the sharpness of this lens makes me forgive Nikon's sins and the lenses minor flaws. It is a keeper.I hope this helpsUpdate 7/31/2013I tested the Tele-convertors with this lens today, here is the skinny (I am using a D800, The Autofocus may behave differently with your camera):1- TC14E ii, It works like a charm, no issues with Image quality or Focusing. Just remember it becomes a 560mm f8, and that would not give you much head room for shutter speed, so even though it works I am not sure how practical it would be in real world.2- TC17E ii, To my surprise theD800's Autofocus worked with this unit. According to Nikon it should not, I am not sure that it will continue to auto focus in lesser light conditions.The image is a little soft and loses some contrast. It is usable with some tender loving/care in Lightroom. Again I am not sure how useful a 650mm f9.5 is in real world, but it works if you are up to the challenge of mastering the techniques needed to use such a long and slow lens.3- TC20E iii, Obviously you lose Autofocus, but the image is still usable for Facebook posts, a little softer a little less contrast, and since you are at 800mm, f11 the only practical way to use it is to jack up the ISO, so a little more noise you get the idea.All three worked functionally but I would say that I only would be using the TC14E ii.Also, As a side note while I was working with tele-convertors I notice that this lens has more Lens breathing than my old AF 80-400 D. Which is too bad, considering the $1000 premium. If you are going to use this lens just for Flowers, butterflies and other small subjects that you photograph from less than 20 feet, you may want to make sure that you can live with this or consider a prime lens like 300mm f4, you will be happier and $1300 richer. All zoom lenses have some level of breathing but this lens is really bad considering it's price.It is still a keeper for my applications, Did I say it is sharp, Sharp lens is like a rich date, it makes you over look a lot of ugly.Update 12-6-2013A new discovery, at least new to me. I found out that using this lens, handheld and, at higher shutter speeds, over 1/1000 sec. or so, and with VR on, the VR actually degrades the image rather than improving it. I did some testing after I noticed that some of my images are softer than others even thought they were shot at higher shutter speeds. At first I thought I had missed the focus points but the images had a different look than missed focus or hand shake blurs. They had a very distinct look to them, looked like they have been taken through a dirty screens. That is why I decided to test for it. It seems that the VR actually softens the images at 1/1000 sec. or faster. (The 1/1000 sec is an educated guess on my part I don't know at what point exactly the VR does more harm than good, but I tested it around 1/1000 sec.)This may not be limited to this lens and something general with all VR lenses. I repeated my test with the 200-400 f4 and got the same result. I thought I pass it on.

I use it with a D7100 and a D800. The results are really good. Better than you probably expect.So why only 4 stars? Because of the crappy collar and mediocre packaging.How can a company with so much experience making lenses get it so wrong.A $2,700 lens deserves more protection than a $10 soft sided pouch.And the collar is a joke... small and flimsy.The collar that comes with Sigma's 150-500mm ($1,100) is fantastic. You can easily grip it and it's built like a tank.Nikon could learn something from Sigma. When it comes to simple things like collars and pouches, you are left scratching your head wondering who at Nikon would make these decisions. And the only answer is; the bean counters.In spite of the Nikon's cost-savings, the lens itself is a pleasure to use.If you are into sports or nature photography, this lens is more of a need than a want.A week after you buy it, you'll forget about the cost.If there is no way to afford the lens, find a way. But if you really can't, consider the Sigma 150-500mm, it's an excellent 2nd choice.

I don't consider myself a Nikon "fan boy." However, I currently use Nikon DSLR's and lenses in most of my photography pursuits. In the film days I've used Canon 35mm, Fuji medium format and Nikon 35mm. Like many of you I'm a nature photographer and mostly shoot landscapes but now and then I enjoy shooting wildlife, birds in particular. My primary wildlife lenses are the Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8G VR (the older VR-1 Model) and Nikon 300mm AF-I f2.8D (from the early 1990's and no VR) both of which I usually match up with a Nikon TC-20e III. While the 70-200mm fits nicely in my camera backpack along with my other lenses, the 300mm does not and like all of Nikons 300mm f2.8 lenses it's a beast--big and heavy. That necessitates planning ahead. Ever since this new 80-400mm came out, I've been intrigued by the possibility of replacing the 70-200mm and 300mm with it. And because it size is similar to my 70-200mm, it will fit in my backpack. I'm not bothered by the slower aperture of f4.5-f5.6 because I almost always use a tripod. And with a TC-20e, both the 70-200mm and 300mm become f5.6.I took the plunge but then I had to find out how this new 80-400mm stacked up with the other two. The first thing I did was replace the tripod collar with a Really Right Stuff (RRS) LC-A13 collar and foot replacement. As many reviewers have already stated, the standard Nikon collar does not hold the lens solidly when mounted on a tripod. The RRS collar is solid as a rock and its nice having a lens foot that is already ARCA quick release compatible.I tested all three lenses using a Nikon D7100, my primary wildlife body. All photographs were shot at f5.6 which theoretically gives the 70-200mm and 300mm a slight advantage since they are both f2.8 lenses and unlike the 80-400mm, not being shot wide-open. I used objects in my yard rather than a test chart because I wanted to simulate the types of subject I actually photograph. These included an agave, a very spiny cactus, and a piece of wood with rough grain so I could see how well the each lens picked up the texture and detail of the subjects. Using an ISO of 100, all of the lenses were tripod mounted and the camera was fired using the Nikon ML-L3 wireless remote in mirror up mod to eliminate any vibration. I tested the 70-200mm against the 80-400 set at 200mm and the 300mm against the 80-400mm set at 300mm. And remember, on the D7100 the actual focal lengths are 300mm and 450mm.Frankly I was astounded by the results because the difference in sharpness between these lenses was very hard to see when viewed at normal magnification. At 100% view the 80-400 is slightly softer but not much. Since I usually use a teleconverter on the 70-200mm and 300mm to get them to around 400mm's or more, the 80-400mm is at least as sharp if not sharper at those focal lengths. On a D7100 set to 1.3x crop mode, the 80-400mm becomes a 156-780mm lens. I also found the lens is sharpest at f8-f10. At f11 the lens is still sharp but it begins to be diffraction limited.I also tested the 80-400mm with a TC-14e and the lens performed pretty well. Images are softer but they are definitely usable. On the D7100, the addition of a teleconverter changes the AF system to a single focus point and focusing hunts a little more. With the addition of a teleconverter I found that the lens consistently "front focused." That was easily fixed using AF fine-tune in the D7100's menu.We all have different photography styles and you're needs may be different than mine. But for me the combination of Nikons latest VR, excellent AF all in a package that is small and well balanced really makes this lens a pleasure to use. And now I don't have to decide whether to carry the 300mm f2.8 or not. According to DXO lab, the 80-400mm is even sharper on a D800 so it can double as a landscape lens when longer focal lengths are needed.