OFF TOPIC.. NIKKOR 80-400VR owners

HI all.

Please forgive this off topic (underwater) question.

I'm going to borneo next year to visit some orangutans in Sabah, then onto Kapalai/Sipadan/Mabul.

I'm fine for underwater equipment but i'm looking for a nice telezoomer to use with my D70

The nikkor 80-400VR is my perfered choice of equipment, however there are lots of mixed reviews on the net regarding its SLOW focusing..

Does anyone on list have one they may like to comment on...

I read that its like most older lenses that use camera motor to drive focus, so this leaving the lens somewhat slow.

I have a nikkor 60mm Micro and it seems to me that this could be the same system, but i don't really class that as SLOW, yeh compared to AF-S but otherwise it's fine to me.

Thanks as always

Craig

I have this lens and like it. With it I only have to carry one long lens. It is not as fast as the S lenses but does okay for the way I shoot it. The comparison with the 60 micro is a good one. It is not that fast of a lens. I would think it would be a good lens for orangutans. It would depend upon how close you can get to them. I might look at the 70-200VR and a teleconverter if I was buying today.

I use this lens and have been very happy with it....I read that it's slow, but it's met everything that I've thrown at it....I'll add that I don't shoot sports, but I do shoot sharks at the surface, etc.

Karl

Craig,

I have the 80-400 and it’s a nice lens. With the D70 you will have a 35mm equivalent of a 600mm, and this will allow getting pretty decent shots of far away subjects. You can also handhold the lens because the VR works fine.

The autofocus is slow compared with the AF-S, but it’s not the end of the world. If you want to shoot racing cars, sports and flying birds, this is not the ideal lens. But for me I think the aufofocus is ok for most of static or slow moving wildlife (in your case the orangutans). My advice is that you use the central focus sensor in the D70, it will improve accuracy in low light situations. If you plan to have only one telephoto lens, I think this is the best choice.

Best regards,

Marcelo.

Chiming in, yes the autofocus on the 80-400VR isn't super-fast, but it's not that bad, and it works better on some cameras (D2X, F5 or F100) than others (older Nikons). More to the point, this is also a relatively slow lens, so you can probably forget freezing birds on the wing or a big cat bringing down its prey at 1/1000 anyway, unless you're willing to kick your camera into the ISO equivalent of 1600 or 3200. So what do you need superfast AF for?

If your main interest is underwater photography (in which case you're already going to be overweight with photo and dive gear on your flight to Kota Kinabalu), do you really want to bring a f/2.8 400 weighing 3 kg (or a 600 mm f/4 weighing 6 kg), plus a big tripod steady enough to support it with all the rest of your gear, or shlep it with you trekkiing through the Borneo jungle? Not me.

At 1.2 kg (without the tripod collar), the 80-400 VR, for what it is and what it does, is incredibly small and light. You really can hand hold this lens at 400 mm, which is pretty amazing. Even at f/4.5 or f5.6, you'll probably be shooting at 1/125 or even slower, so the optimal subjects are going to be fairly static - birds perching rather than on the wing, an orangutan peering down at you from the trees rather than freezing a big cat running or in mid-air. You'll learn to live happily with that, and you probably won't be bothered by the slower AF. In low light, you'll probably want to use MF anyway.

Lilac-breasted roller, Kruger National Park, SA. 80-400 VR.

Cheetahs, Hluhluwe Game Reserve, SA. 80-400 VR.

Frogfish (Robert Delfs)

The newspaper has one of these on the equipment shelf. It is an orphan; nobody takes it anywhere.

OTOH, everybody uses a TC-14 with the 70-200. If I need the reach, I'll use a 400 2.8 and a sherpa.

All the best, James

Thanks everyone.

I dont need a AF-S lens, Orangs are not the fastest things on the planet are they..

i've the 18-70 AF-S and plan on getting the 80-400 that will cover the whole range just fine for land use.

Reviews are difficult things to judge... If the person posting is used to spending $4000 on a 2.8 300mm or larger, it's obvious that a cheap little $1000 lens is not going to live up to the might of its $$$ brothers.

It is nice to know that that you guys are using them and are completely happy.

All i'm really bothered about is getting nice sharp images, the VR will be a bonus as its going to be dark in the jungle & i cant be bothered with tripods, I'll take my trusty mono..

80-400 VR it is then

thanks

Craig