New Nikon 80-400mm officially released ($2799 MSRP)

[Steve Hood]

This is great new lens for birders as it will include improved optics and faster AF.  Price seems a bit rich for a slow zoom.  I am sure Canon will respond soon too with their update to the 100-400 lens.

http://www.dpreview.com/news/2013/03/05 ... R-telezoom

[Steve Hood]

Just noticed the new lens is 200g heavier now.

[Michael Tam]

The all-new Nikkor AFS 80-400 mm f4.5-5.6 VR II ED G lens is the successor to the original version of Nikkor AF 80-400 f4.5-5.6 D VR first introduced in January,2000.  It comes with a MSRP of $2,799. Compared to the current non-AFS version at $1,600 and the professional Nikkor AFS 70-200 f2.8 G ED VR II at $2,399, it is relatively expensive considering that the tripod collar may be optional at extra cost.

From the available information to-date, the lens barrel differs from the professional grade 70-200 f2.8 with the use of polycarbonate material.  There is unconfirmed rumor that this lens may not even be "Made in Japan" compared to other professional lens line-up.  However, from examining the MTF charts, the optical performance should be no less than stellar.  

For further detail on this all-new long awaited Nikkor zoom lens, please sit down to enjoy reading the following article:

http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/80-400mm.htm#rex

Good birding and photography.

[Michael Tam]

With the released of the new Nikkor AFS 80-400 mm f4.5-5.6 G ED VR with a MSRP of $2,799, there are discussions about a better alternative for the money spent.  The suggestion being that the combination of the Nikkor AFS 70-200mm f2.8 G ED VR II with a TC-20E teleconvertor may achieve the same end of 400mm f5.6 while acquiring a professional grade f2.8 fast aperture lens for a variety applications.  Naturally there will be the debate with regard to the final optical performance between the use of a tele-convertor vs. a 5x zoom at f4.5-5.6 aperture.  It is food for thought for a bird photographer not opting for the "big glass" prime tele route.

It would be worthwhile to examine the review of the original Nikkor AF 80-400 f4.5-5.6 VR by photozone with a limited level of performance:

http://www.photozone.de/nikon_ff/552-nikkorafd80400vrff

Then review the newly released Nikkor AFS 70-200 mm  f4 G ED VR by photozone with a stellar "highly recommended" performance together with a MSRP of $1,449. One may attempt to deduce that the new breed of Nikkor lens designed for FX application may follow a similar pattern of improvement:

http://www.photozone.de/nikon_ff/782-nikonafs702004vrfx

Finally, coming back to the original suggested alternative with the Nikkor AFS 70-200 mm f2.8 G ED VR II by photozone which also sports a stellar "highly recommended" performance. The MSRP at $2,399 while the TC-20E at $579.  This professional grade f2.8 aperture lens sets a benchmark as seen below:

http://www.photozone.de/nikon_ff/511-ni ... 20028vr2ff

Good birding and photography.

[Michael Tam]

According to the editor at dpreview, the new Nikkor AFS 80-400 f4.5-5.6 G ED VR does come with the tripod collar for the relatively expensive MSRP of $2,799:

http://www.dpreview.com/articles/720567 ... 56-g-ed-vr

Good birding and photography.

[Steve Hood]

The 70-200 with 2x teleconverter will not do well compared with this new 80-400m at the long end.  Take a look at the MTF chart for 400mm to see why.

http://photographylife.com/nikon-80-400 ... nouncement

"To those who are wondering between a 70-200mm f/2.8G VR II + TC20E III versus the 80-400mm f/4.5-5.6G for reach at 400mm, don’t even go there – the 80-400mm will be far better optically. The 70-200mm + 2x combo requires stopping down the lens to f/8 to get acceptably sharp images – the 80-400mm will be very sharp wide open, as can be evidenced from Nikon’s MTF charts"

http://photographylife.com/nikon-80-400 ... -f4-5-5-6d

[newfoundlander61]

Its only money, no point of dying with it in the bank. Burn it up and get shooting.

[Steve Hood]

Its only money, no point of dying with it in the bank. Burn it up and get shooting.

I agree and the great thing about these long lenses is that they only get updated once every 10 years and don't depreciate like camera bodies.  But I will stick with what I have for this season as Canon will likely release their update soon too and both lenses will be in short supply for a while.  By the end of this year I'll have a better idea from reviews and online comments as to which system to move forward with for next season.

ps.  just noticed that the new 80-400 accepts the 1.4x TC for even more reach.

[Michael Tam]

It is absolutely correct that teleconvertor is always a compromise compare to the original optics.  However, there is a consideration with the fact that within a zoom optics, in particular with a long zoom design, the weakest link is at the longest end of the zoom coverage.  This is the case with the old version of the Nikkor AF 80-400 f4.5-5.6 ED VR.  

One way to decide for oneself whether a professional grade shorter zoom with a teleconvertor is acceptable to one's desire is to review the portfolio of a wildlife photographer who uses just that:

http://www.amoghavarsha.com/

Conversely, a photographer friend of mine who specializes in Bird Photography, employs only prime lens with full-frame bodies returns with astounding result as seen below:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/stewartho/

The moral of the story is whether a level of performance together with the specificity of subject matter that suits one's need or a combination of flexibility and quality of optics that  covers with a variety of subject matters be the necessary compromise.  At this early stage of announcement without any independent review other than the test results from the manufacturer, one would look forward to this new Nikkor AFS 80-400 f4.5-5.6 G ED VR following the footsteps of the newly released Nikkor AFS 70-200 f4 G ED VR II by earning a stellar review in the near future.

Good birding and photography.

[JW Mills]

"To those who are wondering between a 70-200mm f/2.8G VR II + TC20E III versus the 80-400mm f/4.5-5.6G for reach at 400mm, don’t even go there – the 80-400mm will be far better optically. The 70-200mm + 2x combo requires stopping down the lens to f/8 to get acceptably sharp images – the 80-400mm will be very sharp wide open, as can be evidenced from Nikon’s MTF charts"

The above quote is from a review by Nasim Mansurov.
 
He makes this statement in another review;
'I think the Nikkor 70-200VRII coupled with the TC20III is a winning combination.'
http://www.utopia-photography.ch/lenses ... he/q01.pdf
 
'a winning combination' and 'don't even go there' seem to me to be at different ends of the spectrum.
 I think I will take Mr. Mansurov's reviews with a grain of salt from now on.

[Steve Hood]

It is absolutely correct that teleconvertor is always a compromise compare to the original optics.  However, there is a consideration with the fact that within a zoom optics, in particular with a long zoom design, the weakest link is at the longest end of the zoom coverage.  This is the case with the old version of the Nikkor AF 80-400 f4.5-5.6 ED VR.  

I agree this has been the case for most zoom lenses, but according to the MFT charts for the new 80-400 it looks like Nikon designed the lens with more emphasis on the long end.  This is the first zoom I have seen that has been designed like this where the long end has slightly better IQ than the short end.  And about time too.  

[Steve Hood]

"To those who are wondering between a 70-200mm f/2.8G VR II + TC20E III versus the 80-400mm f/4.5-5.6G for reach at 400mm, don’t even go there – the 80-400mm will be far better optically. The 70-200mm + 2x combo requires stopping down the lens to f/8 to get acceptably sharp images – the 80-400mm will be very sharp wide open, as can be evidenced from Nikon’s MTF charts"

The above quote is from a review by Nasim Mansurov.
 
He makes this statement in another review;
'I think the Nikkor 70-200VRII coupled with the TC20III is a winning combination.'
http://www.utopia-photography.ch/lenses ... he/q01.pdf
 
'a winning combination' and 'don't even go there' seem to me to be at different ends of the spectrum.
 I think I will take Mr. Mansurov's reviews with a grain of salt from now on.

To be fair this review was from 3 years ago when the only other option was the older 80-400mm and certainly the 70-200 + 2xTC was a viable solution.  Also, the quote 'a winning combination' was from someone else he was just requoting.

[Steve Hood]

Some more pictures including a comparison with the old lens.

http://www.ephotozine.com/article/nikon ... view-21514

[Michael Tam]

There is much mention of MTF in the discussions above in reference to the quality of optics.  So what is MTF?  The term MTF, Modulation Transfer Function, illustrated in the form of a chart, depicts the variance of contrast loss when light enters the optics.  The following two articles offer the essential understanding in the interpretation and the limitation of the MTF chart in any lens review:

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutor ... -mtf.shtml

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/mtf.htm

Good birding and photography.

[Steve Hood]

Lensrental compared the new 80-400 against the old version and the Sigma 50-500mm.

http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2013/03 ... -80-400-vr

They also compared it with the 70-200 VR II + 2xTC.
http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2013/03 ... comparison