This is a strange academic question for folks who have used some very good to great telephotos and the new Nikon 80-400 - how does the new 80-400 VR at 400mm compare to those lenses? The comparison can be arbitrary - based on what you remember - and can be roughly on a grade scale 1-10 with the new 80-400 arbitrarily graded as say 7. Or the comparison could be very subjective - lots of words.So some lenses I would like as comparison purposes (parenthesis will mention why the comparison may be useful):1) Nikon 500mm f/4 AF-S whichever version you may have used (because 400 and 500 are close - and 500 is "comparatively" light super tele - particularly the AF-S II version with no VR around 3400 g)2) Nikon 200-400 f/4 whichever version you may have used (because both can go to 400mm - and people do justify the new 80-400 by saying at least its way cheaper & lighter than 200-400 - but don't mention whether the 200-400 is significantly better)3) Nikon 300 f/2.8 VR (say II) + TC 1.4 (because its 420mm equivalent which is nearly same view as 400mm and one of the "lighter" exotic options)4) Canon 400mm f/4 DO IS (this is an interesting comparison because weight wise the Canon 400mm f/4.0 DO IS is just 1.94 kg vs 1.59 kg for the new 80-400mm)5) Canon 400mm f/5.6L  (again this is an interesting comparison because weight wise the Canon 400mm f/5.6 is just 1.25 kg vs 1.59 kg for the new 80-400mm; because Canon 400mm f/5.6L is very well regarded even compared to exotic telephoto lenses - and because you could get a Canon 7D + 400mm f/5.6L for the price of the new 80-400mm)Not included above is Nikon 300mm f/4 AF-S + 1.4 teleconverter - mainly because many folks have already talked about this comparison. Most of the comparisons above are ignoring the price difference (except the last one - Canon 500mm f/5.6L)You can also add the older Canon 500mm f/4.5L or Sigma 500mm f/4.5 to the mix if you prefer.Again this is an academic question - not too much practical considerations.

By Sigma 500mm f/4.5 I mean whatever is the current version (its also among the lighter super teles at 3.09 kgs). The Canon 500mm f/4.5L is also "just" 3 kgs.

Don't forget the SONY 70-400G, it is a fantastic lens - some say the best of its kind. A comparison of it with the new AF-S 80-400 would really be interesting.

I shoot a 300vr,400vr,500vr, the old 80-400 (it's for sale) and the new 80-400.The little the 80-400 gives up in image quality is more than made up for in flexibikity,

Great pictures, Ralph! In your opinion, is the new NIKON 80-400 a vast improvement in IQ over the old one?

As Dirk said great pictures taken with the new 80-400.

whoosh1 wrote:2) Nikon 200-400 f/4 whichever version you may have used (because both can go to 400mm - and people do justify the new 80-400 by saying at least its way cheaper & lighter than 200-400 - but don't mention whether the 200-400 is significantly better)At close ranges the 200-400 is slightly superior at f5.6.  At longer distances I think the 80-400 is slightly better.  Too close to call over all.3) Nikon 300 f/2.8 VR (say II) + TC 1.4 (because its 420mm equivalent which is nearly same view as 400mm and one of the "lighter" exotic options)That combo is superior is all but the best shooting conditions. If it's a 10 the 80-400 is a 9.54) Canon 400mm f/4 DO IS (this is an interesting comparison because weight wise the Canon 400mm f/4.0 DO IS is just 1.94 kg vs 1.59 kg for the new 80-400mm)I owned this lens and mine was very sharp but it lacked the micro contrast/color of the 80-400.  Overall IQ a draw.5) Canon 400mm f/5.6L  (again this is an interesting comparison because weight wise the Canon 400mm f/5.6 is just 1.25 kg vs 1.59 kg for the new 80-400mm; because Canon 400mm f/5.6L is very well regarded even compared to exotic telephoto lenses - and because you could get a Canon 7D + 400mm f/5.6L for the price of the new 80-400mm)A draw IMHO.  Hard to compare given the higher MP count of the Nikon bodies vs the Canon I used this lens with.  Handling wise the 80-400 is on par with this lens and that's saying a lot!Not included above is Nikon 300mm f/4 AF-S + 1.4 teleconverter - mainly because many folks have already talked about this comparison. Most of the comparisons above are ignoring the price difference (except the last one - Canon 500mm f/5.6L)You can also add the older Canon 500mm f/4.5L or Sigma 500mm f/4.5 to the mix if youI had a 500 f4.5L and it was on par with the 300 VR2 + 1.4 and probably a tad better then the 300 VR2 + 1.7.  Great lens for the $ if you can find one.  I bought it for $2200 and sold it a year later for $3600 (kinda wished I'd kept it but if the things breaks it's worthless.)prefer.Again this is an academic question - not too much practical considerations.

I have old and new 80-400.  Plus the 300F4 with Nikon 1.4TC-EII.    The new 80-400 is better than both at maximum range.    Clearly better than the old 80-400, slightly better than the prime + TC.I suspect the new 80-400 is also clearly better than the old one at shorter ranges, but I haven't shot it much yet to compare.   But the old one was a lot better at 80-300 than it was at 400, so I suspect differences will be smaller.However, the AF is lightning quick on the new one, and leisurely on the old one.   The new one is a lot like a 24-70 or 70-200 in AF speed.   It's just plain fast.    VR is a lot better, but I don't have enough experience with it yet to know where it works best and where I shouldn't expect too much from it.  (Shutter speed limits).Both my 80-400's got used almost all the time between 300 and 400, and usually right at 400.   The new one smokes the old one there, particularly wide open.

One more thing to add, my 200-400 was a VR2 version.I'm noticing a glut of 200-400s on ebay and more then normal on FM B&S.  When I bought the 200-400 I owned last year there were none on Ebay or FM and I had to wait to find a reasonable deal finally on Ebay.  I counted 15 of them used on ebay the other day and there has been 2 or 3 on FM.  I have to think the 80-400 has something to do with this.Anyhow anyone looking for a great deal on a 200-400 you probably won't find a better time to buy!

Dirk W wrote:Great pictures, Ralph! In your opinion, is the new NIKON 80-400 a vast improvement in IQ over the old one?Thanks Dirki still have the old one and I always thought it was a great lens so I'm not sure yet if the new one is better IQ but the new one focuses very very fasthere's a shot from the old one

whoosh1 wrote:As Dirk said great pictures taken with the new 80-400.thanksbtw my real name is randy and you can see alot of my reviews and pics on the nikoncafe.com for the 80-400 and d7100

Looks like you really like the new 80-400 VR - and have a high opinion about it even against the best of the telephoto lenses.

http://www.flickr.com/groups/2194516@N21/pool/with/8575779933/#photo_8575779933

The new 80-400 has a great VR and was recently tested by a reknown photo magazine, at 80 mm, it's truly excellent, unfortunately, IQ decreases with focal and is just average at 400 mm.It's an OK lens, but when you buy a 80-400, you buy it for the 400 end more than the 80 mm end where other lenses do the job.Just wait for more tests to show up before buying...

jetstream wrote:The new 80-400 has a great VR and was recently tested by a reknown photo magazine, at 80 mm, it's truly excellent, unfortunately, IQ decreases with focal and is just average at 400 mm.It's an OK lens, but when you buy a 80-400, you buy it for the 400 end more than the 80 mm end where other lenses do the job.Just wait for more tests to show up before buying...Could you post a link to the review - thanks!

Sorry, but it's a paper magazine and it's in French... they ran the DxO tests and the main drawback is IQ at tele end, the tripod collar is not that great either. I'd be waiting for other tests and a price drop, it's not a bad lens but way overpriced given all this...

jetstream wrote:The new 80-400 has a great VR and was recently tested by a reknown photo magazine, at 80 mm, it's truly excellent, unfortunately, IQ decreases with focal and is just average at 400 mm.It's an OK lens, but when you buy a 80-400, you buy it for the 400 end more than the 80 mm end where other lenses do the job.Just wait for more tests to show up before buying...What is "average" at 400mm. In other words what did they compare it to? Yes it's no 400 f2.8 but mine is a bit better overall when compared to my 200 f2 & 2XIII stopped down. If one needs fast, accurate AF what other choices are there in Nikonland?

whoosh1 wrote:1) Nikon 500mm f/4 AF-SI have an older 500 f/4 P and it has a wonderful rendition. If the new 80-400 was arbitrarily a 7, then I'd put the old 500 f/4 at a 9.2) Nikon 200-400 f/4I don't have this.3) Nikon 300 f/2.8 VR (say II) + TC 1.4 (because its 420mm equivalent which is nearly same view as 400mm and one of the "lighter" exotic options)My 300 f/2.8 VR without a TC has to be the prettiest output of most lenses I own. I'd rank it a 10 on your scale. With a 1.4 converter, a 9 and with a 1.7 converter an 8.4) Canon 400mm f/4 DO ISNever tried it.5) Canon 400mm f/5.6LI've used this lens some and would consider it about what the new 80-400 AFS is, a 7.One lens you've not mentioned is the Canon 100-400 USM IS which is in direct competition with Nikon's offering. I have used it a good bit and I think it was superior to the old Nikon 80-400, but the new model Nikon goes at least one giant step past this lens. I'd rate it a 6 or less.It's kind of hard for me because you placed the new lens at a 7. I keep wanting to bump it up to an 8. LOLGood luck and have fun.

I just picked up the 80-400 this weekend and tested it against my 500 f/4 AFS, 200-400 f/4 VRII, and 300 f/2.8 on a D4 and D7100.  I bought the 80-400 for its flexibility and weight to shoot birds from the kayak, so my hopes were for fast AF  -on par with primes with TCs.Overall thoughts  -  I was very satisfied with AF performance on both bodies in good lighting conditions.  The primes win in low-light early AM bird shooting, but by 9AM there were no issues.To address your questions:1. 500mm f/4 AFS = 9.5  +1.4TC = 8.5  This wins hands down for both AF speed and sharpness.  Also produces better bokeh w/ and w/o TC2. 200-400mm f/4 = 8-9 depending on distance to subject.  The value here is f/4 @ 400 for low light shooting.  I think this lens is a bit over maligned and does not deserve its reputation for long distance shooting vs the super-teles.  Its not as good but its only a point lower than the 600/500/300 - not 3 points.  I found the new 80-400 to be nearly as good, but the weight and flexibility advantages make it the preferred option in mind  -  especially if you already own the 500 or the 300.3. 300mm f/2.8 VRII = 10  w/ 1.4TC = 9.0  I have gotten some of my best images with this combo.  Its easy to shoot handheld and produces sharp images with great bokeh.  (Focuses a bit faster than the 500).  The 80-400 will not displace this as my first choice for birds from the kayak.This summer the 80-400 will be on my d800 and the 300 f/2.8 + TC will be on the D7100 when I hit the water.  This lens offers the flexibility when you can get close to your subject to allow for some better framing while still producing great quality images.  Do I wish it were a bit less expensive  - of course.  Does it serve an unmet need for my style of shooting yes.  Hence I bought it.  This lens will largely displace my 200-400 for all but large mammal shooting.  Its a solid 7.5 overall (7 in lowlight, 8 on a sunny day) which is acceptable given the flexibility that it affords relative to other options.whoosh1 wrote:This is a strange academic question for folks who have used some very good to great telephotos and the new Nikon 80-400 - how does the new 80-400 VR at 400mm compare to those lenses? The comparison can be arbitrary - based on what you remember - and can be roughly on a grade scale 1-10 with the new 80-400 arbitrarily graded as say 7. Or the comparison could be very subjective - lots of words.So some lenses I would like as comparison purposes (parenthesis will mention why the comparison may be useful):1) Nikon 500mm f/4 AF-S whichever version you may have used (because 400 and 500 are close - and 500 is "comparatively" light super tele - particularly the AF-S II version with no VR around 3400 g)2) Nikon 200-400 f/4 whichever version you may have used (because both can go to 400mm - and people do justify the new 80-400 by saying at least its way cheaper & lighter than 200-400 - but don't mention whether the 200-400 is significantly better)3) Nikon 300 f/2.8 VR (say II) + TC 1.4 (because its 420mm equivalent which is nearly same view as 400mm and one of the "lighter" exotic options)4) Canon 400mm f/4 DO IS (this is an interesting comparison because weight wise the Canon 400mm f/4.0 DO IS is just 1.94 kg vs 1.59 kg for the new 80-400mm)5) Canon 400mm f/5.6L  (again this is an interesting comparison because weight wise the Canon 400mm f/5.6 is just 1.25 kg vs 1.59 kg for the new 80-400mm; because Canon 400mm f/5.6L is very well regarded even compared to exotic telephoto lenses - and because you could get a Canon 7D + 400mm f/5.6L for the price of the new 80-400mm)Not included above is Nikon 300mm f/4 AF-S + 1.4 teleconverter - mainly because many folks have already talked about this comparison. Most of the comparisons above are ignoring the price difference (except the last one - Canon 500mm f/5.6L)You can also add the older Canon 500mm f/4.5L or Sigma 500mm f/4.5 to the mix if you prefer.Again this is an academic question - not too much practical considerations.

jetstream wrote:The new 80-400 has a great VR and was recently tested by a reknown photo magazine, at 80 mm, it's truly excellent, unfortunately, IQ decreases with focal and is just average at 400 mm.We must be reading french in a different way: the magazine states "performances at 400mm are slightly worse (than between 80-250mm), but not much. They remain largely superior to the old model". Overall performance is rated 4stars out of 5. The main critisism towards the new model is its new (much increased) price!Frenchie