I am so glad that I found your explanation of this lens. It was driving me mad that my pictures looked so soft. My reds look pink and I couldn't figure out why. I wish I found this before I found this lens.
THIS IS NOT A SPORTS LENS!!! IT WAS MEANT TO BE A "HANDHELD" SUPER TELEPHOTO FOR WILDLIFE AND NATURE, NOT SPORTS!!! but yeah, it focuses really slowly, which isnt a problem to pros, only beginners, who probably wont use this lens.
wow and I thought the 24-120 f4 lens was the very worse lens in the Nikon Line up, this lens probably is even worse... I hope Nikon updates this one soon, since the range is useful in many areas. Thanks again for the info!
Dude, I want to sell mine soooooooo badly. I think I paid about $2400 for that sucker. It was great for shooting distances, but it's irritatingly huge.
i agree with pypjoyce. it depends on what you shoot. For this is perfect for wildlife. I dont find the quality bad, its pretty good actually. i don't know why are you so bias against this lens.
What lenses for the same price? I really want to get out to 400mm and beyond for wildlife but can't afford the 200-400mm especially the VRII version and forget the cost of the 500mm and 600mm VR lenses. Even the AIS models are still ridiculously high. So again, what lenses are available to the non "pro" ?
Nikon 300mm ƒ/4.0D AF-S ED-IF with a Nikon Teleconverter TC-1.4EII. With the combo, you will get 420mm on FX / Film or 630mm on DX. The maximum aperture will be decreased to F/5.6 but use F/8.0 for maximum image quality.
@Lilkiwiguy87 Paid $800.00 for this ebay ...love this lens for day time football game / distance shooting pictures are very sharp and super nice if correct techniques are used but as far a carry around lens no way. It works great on my D300s...Love the extra reach campare to my nikon 80-200mm f2.8D
@stan1300 After watching the video and reading all the comment, I think it's useless to ask it, but... How do you think it would perform in CONTINUOUS AUTO FOCUS VIDEO MODE, with the D7000 for example? Thanks in advance! The lens is maybe useless, but the review was really useful! Keep it up
Continuous AF is the biggest problem for this lens as it struggles to catch up.
Since it uses noisy screwdriver AF, your camera's built-in microphone can pick up unwanted grinding noise coming from the lens as it auto focuses. You're better off with AF-S lenses for silent and continuous auto focusing if you plan to do video exclusively.
@Lilkiwiguy87 I understand, thank you very much for such a quick answer! How do you think the Sigma 120-400mm F4.5-5.6 APO DG OS HSM would perform? It is for Air Show video and I really need to know if a lens perform pretty well in this area before purchasing it.What about the Sigma 70-200mm F2,8 EX DG APO OS HSM? Thanks in advance!
We can't speak into details about Sigma lenses however we can safely tell you this: don't expect too much. Sigma lenses' IQ is nowhere close to Nikkors. Yes, Sigma's HSM is an equivalent of Nikon's AF-S (HSM = Hyper Sonic Motor), which offer quieter and faster auto focusing operation.
70-200mm range is too short for air shows. Lenses with a focal length that is longer than 300mm (on DX camera) is good enough to start with.
If this is for rare occasions, you can just rent a telephoto lens.
Sorry to disappoint you, yes, useless lenses do exist. Lenses with similar ratings are good for people who do not care about image quality (i.e. family photos, traveling, pets, etc.). But for ones who are critical about image quality, this lens is, of course, useless.
Everyone has been begging for a 80-400mm replacement for... *counts fingers* Seven years now. It is real when Nikon themselves make the public announcement, which hasn't happened yet.
I agree this is the worst lens I did buy, I used this lens on my D2X Nikon and tried it for many time, this lens lick sharpness by all means, I tried all means to over come this problem even focusing manually, still I would say Nikon fooled me with their VR in this lens, nothing makes this lens focus correctly it is just a waste of money, I can explain this further if some one interested and could email me on
why is this the worst lense ever? i only just started photography 8 or 9 months ago so could you reccomend a good telephoto zoom lense it can be third party i dont really mind. thank you for your time.
ive used it and much prefer the 70-300mm vr next to this , you lose out on the long end but its much sharper and focus is swift and pretty bang on most times, not ideal for lowlight but hey its 400 pounds!! no biggie, next step for me is a nikkor 500mm f4 vr and 1.4 tc... :)
this lens is not so bad, i used it to take both portraits and landscapes, all producing good images, as long as your shutter speed is high enough (1/500) and have VR turned off. I don't see CA problems on all my photos, even shooting at extreme back light objects.
i have this lens..it is amazing.. but it is not Afs .... but i always get sharp images at the 400 mm .. it is amazing.. but slow focusing .. thanks for the clip
Aw c'mon! :D ... got this in 2003 and IMHO while its not great its not as bad as your review makes it out to be!!. I have used it in the sunshine+humidity no problems at all and its quite sharp when its bright, focus is ok in bright light, nowhere as great as my 70-200VR but still I love it for its versatility for hiking...a bit low on contrast but with minor PP its ok... it has its faults... but I wouldn't say it blows...!
Keep up the good work here... look forward to more reviews! cheers!
I bought this lens about two months ago and am fairly happy with it. Picture quality is sharp from 135 to 300. At 400 it is ok. I use it with a D90 body. Auto focus hunt is frustrating in low light. I am a hobbiest photographer who is trying to get into nature and wildlife.
This lens seems to be one of the few choices for a moderately priced long telephoto. I wish I could justify a 600mm f/4 but I don't have an extra 8 grand laying around.
Shitty lens, and ugly too. <3 my 70-200 2.8 VR II
dan007iel 2 months ago
beautiful
AbdulAziz348 2 months ago
@AbdulAziz348 beautiful paperweight, doorstop, and engine starter? indeed!
superkiwizorro 2 months ago
Hi Lilkiwiguy87
Do you Think this Lens Will be upgraded soon
Regards
Joe
PhotographyEquipment 4 months ago
@PhotographyEquipment lol no, nikon wont update a crappy lens that no one likes.
superkiwizorro 4 months ago
I am so glad that I found your explanation of this lens. It was driving me mad that my pictures looked so soft. My reds look pink and I couldn't figure out why. I wish I found this before I found this lens.
ptpop 4 months ago
@ptpop that's what happens when you rush and buy the lens without researching. :]
superkiwizorro 4 months ago
THIS IS NOT A SPORTS LENS!!! IT WAS MEANT TO BE A "HANDHELD" SUPER TELEPHOTO FOR WILDLIFE AND NATURE, NOT SPORTS!!! but yeah, it focuses really slowly, which isnt a problem to pros, only beginners, who probably wont use this lens.
NIBIR98 7 months ago
Heard of manual focusing at low apertures?
Lilkiwiguy87 7 months ago
what ugly lens!
apfotocanada 7 months ago
wow and I thought the 24-120 f4 lens was the very worse lens in the Nikon Line up, this lens probably is even worse... I hope Nikon updates this one soon, since the range is useful in many areas. Thanks again for the info!
estudio100rafa 7 months ago
Dude, I want to sell mine soooooooo badly. I think I paid about $2400 for that sucker. It was great for shooting distances, but it's irritatingly huge.
TheMusicSpeakstoMe 1 year ago
Not just huge — It is terribly ugly, awful image quality, and extremely slow.
Lilkiwiguy87 1 year ago
@TheMusicSpeakstoMe Slow like you would or wouldn't believe haha. I want the 24-70mm to replace it.
TheMusicSpeakstoMe 1 year ago
I Know Someone Who Got This Lens.. LOL.. *Pity Him*.. :P
shonasam840 1 year ago
@Lilkiwiguy87 You said that for the same price people will have much better luck with other lenses. I am curious of what other lens?
GymMatt12345 1 year ago
Take a look at the comments just below.
Lilkiwiguy87 1 year ago
i agree with pypjoyce. it depends on what you shoot. For this is perfect for wildlife. I dont find the quality bad, its pretty good actually. i don't know why are you so bias against this lens.
sgdevilzz 1 year ago
Uhm, for the same price as 80-400mm, people will have much better luck with different lenses. In other words, not worth the price.
Lilkiwiguy87 1 year ago
@Lilkiwiguy87
What lenses for the same price? I really want to get out to 400mm and beyond for wildlife but can't afford the 200-400mm especially the VRII version and forget the cost of the 500mm and 600mm VR lenses. Even the AIS models are still ridiculously high. So again, what lenses are available to the non "pro" ?
tailpipesmoke 1 year ago
Nikon 300mm ƒ/4.0D AF-S ED-IF with a Nikon Teleconverter TC-1.4EII. With the combo, you will get 420mm on FX / Film or 630mm on DX. The maximum aperture will be decreased to F/5.6 but use F/8.0 for maximum image quality.
Lilkiwiguy87 1 year ago
@Lilkiwiguy87
Thanks, I completely forgot about this lens.
tailpipesmoke 1 year ago
@Lilkiwiguy87 Paid $800.00 for this ebay ...love this lens for day time football game / distance shooting pictures are very sharp and super nice if correct techniques are used but as far a carry around lens no way. It works great on my D300s...Love the extra reach campare to my nikon 80-200mm f2.8D
stan1300 11 months ago
@stan1300 After watching the video and reading all the comment, I think it's useless to ask it, but... How do you think it would perform in CONTINUOUS AUTO FOCUS VIDEO MODE, with the D7000 for example? Thanks in advance! The lens is maybe useless, but the review was really useful! Keep it up
iloveairfrance 8 months ago
Continuous AF is the biggest problem for this lens as it struggles to catch up.
Since it uses noisy screwdriver AF, your camera's built-in microphone can pick up unwanted grinding noise coming from the lens as it auto focuses. You're better off with AF-S lenses for silent and continuous auto focusing if you plan to do video exclusively.
Lilkiwiguy87 8 months ago
@Lilkiwiguy87 I understand, thank you very much for such a quick answer! How do you think the Sigma 120-400mm F4.5-5.6 APO DG OS HSM would perform? It is for Air Show video and I really need to know if a lens perform pretty well in this area before purchasing it.What about the Sigma 70-200mm F2,8 EX DG APO OS HSM? Thanks in advance!
iloveairfrance 8 months ago
We can't speak into details about Sigma lenses however we can safely tell you this: don't expect too much. Sigma lenses' IQ is nowhere close to Nikkors. Yes, Sigma's HSM is an equivalent of Nikon's AF-S (HSM = Hyper Sonic Motor), which offer quieter and faster auto focusing operation.
70-200mm range is too short for air shows. Lenses with a focal length that is longer than 300mm (on DX camera) is good enough to start with.
If this is for rare occasions, you can just rent a telephoto lens.
Lilkiwiguy87 8 months ago
hahaha! You're right, this lens is useless! It's so useless I forgot it even exists.
canonsucks 1 year ago
I saw digital-rev guy use this and the shots actually looked pretty good.
JD95 1 year ago
Sure, until you take a closer look, haha.
Lilkiwiguy87 1 year ago
@Lilkiwiguy87
yeah, you're right:) I've only seen his shots on youtube.
But I like the design of the lens:) Thanks for the reply.
JD95 1 year ago
: There's no such thing as a useless lens. It's just the matter of how you use it and the perspective you see it from.
pypjoyce 1 year ago
Sorry to disappoint you, yes, useless lenses do exist. Lenses with similar ratings are good for people who do not care about image quality (i.e. family photos, traveling, pets, etc.). But for ones who are critical about image quality, this lens is, of course, useless.
Lilkiwiguy87 1 year ago
is this lens up for an update any time soon?
CODxKILLA 1 year ago
Nah.
Lilkiwiguy87 1 year ago
@CODxKILLA
Yes i saw some pic of 80-400 with big N (Nano crystal)
rafael145pl 1 year ago
*imitates Dr. Evil*
R-r-r-right.
Everyone has been begging for a 80-400mm replacement for... *counts fingers* Seven years now. It is real when Nikon themselves make the public announcement, which hasn't happened yet.
Lilkiwiguy87 1 year ago
This is the worst I have experniced so far but again all of the other Nikon lenses I have are as bad as this one.
a65cw 1 year ago
I agree this is the worst lens I did buy, I used this lens on my D2X Nikon and tried it for many time, this lens lick sharpness by all means, I tried all means to over come this problem even focusing manually, still I would say Nikon fooled me with their VR in this lens, nothing makes this lens focus correctly it is just a waste of money, I can explain this further if some one interested and could email me on
a65cw 1 year ago
If you don't like it, you can give it to me. :P
key00992233 1 year ago
You've made the claim that it's Nikon's worst, but you haven't substantiated that claim in the video. Why not? What makes it the worst?
breukelenman 1 year ago
Why did you watch the beginning then ask a question that could be answered by finishing the video? Watch the video again.
Lilkiwiguy87 1 year ago
why is this the worst lense ever? i only just started photography 8 or 9 months ago so could you reccomend a good telephoto zoom lense it can be third party i dont really mind. thank you for your time.
fadeddreemz 1 year ago
Watch the video again because your explanation is right there.
No, we can not recommend any lenses because you have to rent them out to decide for yourself since you are the photographer after all.
Lilkiwiguy87 1 year ago
ive used it and much prefer the 70-300mm vr next to this , you lose out on the long end but its much sharper and focus is swift and pretty bang on most times, not ideal for lowlight but hey its 400 pounds!! no biggie, next step for me is a nikkor 500mm f4 vr and 1.4 tc... :)
quickshooter100 2 years ago
this lens is not so bad, i used it to take both portraits and landscapes, all producing good images, as long as your shutter speed is high enough (1/500) and have VR turned off. I don't see CA problems on all my photos, even shooting at extreme back light objects.
simonlam234 2 years ago
i have this lens..it is amazing.. but it is not Afs .... but i always get sharp images at the 400 mm .. it is amazing.. but slow focusing .. thanks for the clip
maqdesy 2 years ago
Aw c'mon! :D ... got this in 2003 and IMHO while its not great its not as bad as your review makes it out to be!!. I have used it in the sunshine+humidity no problems at all and its quite sharp when its bright, focus is ok in bright light, nowhere as great as my 70-200VR but still I love it for its versatility for hiking...a bit low on contrast but with minor PP its ok... it has its faults... but I wouldn't say it blows...!
Keep up the good work here... look forward to more reviews! cheers!
DougHKG 2 years ago
I bought this lens about two months ago and am fairly happy with it. Picture quality is sharp from 135 to 300. At 400 it is ok. I use it with a D90 body. Auto focus hunt is frustrating in low light. I am a hobbiest photographer who is trying to get into nature and wildlife.
This lens seems to be one of the few choices for a moderately priced long telephoto. I wish I could justify a 600mm f/4 but I don't have an extra 8 grand laying around.
jbilly24 2 years ago
I borrowed this lens once.. It sucked.. Using it made me love my 80-200 ED (Push Pull) Even more..
pthedevil 2 years ago
long range lens always suffers in photo quality.
danielpaco2000 2 years ago
hat lens is just.... ugly!
bmxmyway 2 years ago
nikon's...WORST lens in the planet .. lol!
PhotoRelax 2 years ago