Lens Replacement

[Michael Hogan]

I have freed up some cash and I was wondering if it would be worth replacing my Tamron 200-500 with a Nikon 80-400. I use the tamron for bird and wildlife photography and find it very good. Is it worth going to the Nikon to get the VR or not and will I miss the extra 100. I have tried a Tenko 1.4 converter on the Tamron with mixed results so will expect the same with the Nikon.

[postcardcv]

A friend of mine recently made a similar change (went from a Sigma 170-500 to a 100-400 IS) and is very pleased that she did. She has found that although she sometimes misses the extra reach the IS means she gets far more keepers when the bird is in range of the 400mm. I have no experience of the Nikon 80-400 VR but if it's in the same league as the Canon 100-400 IS then I think it would be worth it.

[Canis Vulpes]

The 80-400VR Nikkor is not the best 'ED' lens although VR does work very well. It has quite a narrow band of good sharpness approx f8-f11 but fairly acceptable depending on body and application outside this region. 80-400 is a variable aperture lens from f4.5 to 5.6 and will not accomodate a TC unless you are prepared to manual focus.

[Gidders]

Similarly, although I've not got one, I understand that the Canon 100-400 IS is not the sharpest L series lens. An alternative less expensive option could be the Sigma 80-400 which has stabalisation

[steve2005]

Originally Posted by Stephen Fox

80-400 is a variable aperture lens from f4.5 to 5.6 and will not accomodate a TC unless you are prepared to manual focus.

I have this lens and have had no problems using it with a 1.4x or 2x Teleplus TC with full autofocus.