Nikon 80 400Mm F 4 5 5 6G Vibration Reduction Review

I use it for production photography. BelAZ filmed from 600m. The video turned out great, on the FR 400 the stub works with a bang! At large tricks, it still smears, most likely the dirty air is the reason for this. It is problematic for a private person to buy.

I've been photographing nature for 20 years. I have used Sigmas, Tamron and the old 80-400. The first thing I did was put a protective lens coating on it. Necessary. Other than that, this lens is so good it's way better than all the others. It's super spicy! I have the 400 F2.8 AF-S 1 and at F5.6 both are very similar in image quality when shot with the D810's 36MP camera and viewed on a high-resolution Retina display at 100% zoom. I'm not talking test charts, I'm talking real close-up shots of

Well, it's not cheap. And it won't be the best choice for sports photography unless you're outdoors with lots of light, but then I bought it for scenes for the range. It's surprisingly sharp, and considering the price is a lot lower than the 200-400, this lens performs very well. Like others, I think Nikon could have done something with the tripod collar as it's not the best part of this lens. You're going to need it, because unless you're shooting at high ISO at midday, this isn't quite the…

I have several Nikon long prime lenses and love them. But they are relatively heavy and don't offer zoom flexibility. The old version of this lens was a dog lens and I couldn't recommend it - I tested it, couldn't buy it. Many years later, Nikon finally revised this lens and found success. It's taller and heavier than most zooms people are used to, but it's a fraction of the size/weight of the larger ones. In my early comparison shots with this, Primes and other zooms I'm familiar with, this…

The biggest downside to this lens for most people is the price. This is the most expensive zoom - hell, it's the most expensive LENS - in Nikon's lineup, excluding "big guns" like the 200-400 and telephoto lenses. But that's optics, and there's no free lunch. This lens weighs half the weight of the 200-400 (3.5 pounds versus 7.3 pounds). It's half the size (8 inches versus 14 inches) and half the price. But it's fairly sharp at 400mm, with fairly good autofocus performance (both shooting and…

In 2012 my wife and I traveled to Alaska primarily to photograph coastal brown bears, occasionally using a Nikon 200-400 handheld. These are great lenses and they have given great results, but when I got home I (really) had to go to physical therapy for my right shoulder. When we booked our August trip to South Africa earlier this year, I was determined to find a lighter, easier to carry and use alternative. I had an earlier version of the Nikon 80-400mm but it never impressed me. He hunted a…

This lens is a great compromise for the professional photographer. Sharpness and resolution can be exceptional in reasonable lighting, and it's light and compact enough to carry around all day. I used a very expensive 200-400mm f/4 Pro lens and I think I'll get more good shots with it just because it's used more. I don't know if it will be that long-lasting, but it will definitely be useful and fun. I bought this lens after refusing a non-Nikon 150-500mm product. Although my old lens was cheap…

I have owned one of the original 80-400mm lenses almost since its inception and it is my lens of choice for hiking and wildlife hunting. It performed fairly well, and while it had its flaws, the versatility and weight more than made up for them. Very little sarcasm in this lens.* Teleconverter required. And still has great autofocus and sharpness at 1.4x TC. The old lens doesn't work with TS.* Much sharper and richer in contrast. Wow. There's a fairly noticeable improvement in optical quality…