My 80-400VR Arrived!

W

wornish

Senior Member
The lens focusses very quickly even in low light and only starts to focus hunt when it gets really dark when just about any AF-S lens would struggle.
The actual camera its on is probably a bigger factor to consider when it comes to low light performance.
 
N

Nikonodian

Senior Member
Thanks guys. Excuse the cryptic question. I have been wanting a longer lens to go with my 70-200 classic, and I do a fair amount of low-light photography. It seems I won't need to be that concerned about shake and narrow field of view.
 
T

TedG954

Senior Member
Nikonodian said:
What is the general consensus for low-light snapping?
Click to expand...

I took mine out for sunrise this morning just to see. For me, it was hit or miss. Maybe with more practice I'll get better pictures, but I had a hard time getting a crisp focus 100% of the time. I bought mine for daylight use and if I was going to do low-light, I'd use my 200/2.8. For a low-light photographer, I'd look at something other than this 80-400. But that's just me.
 
T

TedG954

Senior Member
In reality, it was darker out than these photos show. I was a considerable distance away. And I was using a CP filter.

DSC_9666.jpg

DSC_9728.jpg

DSC_9723.jpg

Let me add that I am not pleased with these 3 photos and I am only posting them as examples. Could they have been done better. Yes.
 
Last edited:
D

DraganDL

Senior Member
Ted, you got yourself a GORGEOUS lens!:encouragement: Don't "do" these three any "better", please - they are great as they are! Dramatic colors, dynamic contrasts... The clouds on the third one could have been somewhat more visible, but the contrasty, bright sky adds to the drama in it's way too...
 
Last edited:
N

Nikonodian

Senior Member
I do a lot of action photography (soccer) and wintertime afternoons can be dismally overcast. Hence my concerns. However I feel this will be the lens for me. I don't have the spare cash for anything longer.
 
S

Sambr

Senior Member
Nikonodian said:
Thanks guys. Excuse the cryptic question. I have been wanting a longer lens to go with my 70-200 classic, and I do a fair amount of low-light photography. It seems I won't need to be that concerned about shake and narrow field of view.
Click to expand...

I have the new 80-400VRII & the 70-200VR 2.8 if you are going to be shooting indoors or low light like at dusk etc. DO NOT get the 80-400VR the 70-200VR will do a much better job & you will be happier in the end.
 
N

Nikonodian

Senior Member
Sambr said:
I have the new 80-400VRII & the 70-200VR 2.8 if you are going to be shooting indoors or low light like at dusk etc. DO NOT get the 80-400VR the 70-200VR will do a much better job & you will be happier in the end.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the heads-up. I already have the 70-200 and yes, it's a superlative lens. I was privileged to have Tarmac access at RAAF Pearce in Perth the other night, to see P3 Orion's returning from the search for MH370. This was taken with the 200mm
araqyqys.jpg
anuqeme5.jpg
lens. And as you can see there is absolutely nothing wrong with it, other than photographer intervention.
 
T

TedG954

Senior Member
WHEW!!!!!!!!!! After the last couple of days of testing out my new 80-400VR, I was kind of disappointed. I'm sure I'm not the only one that has made a purchase, only to realize it was the wrong choice. I was starting to think I had a fairly expensive boat anchor. But, I kept reading and studying about the lens. This morning I went out to an excellent area for landscape pictures and used the lens in the environment that I really got it for. EUREKA! I didn't make a mistake. This lens is everything I want it to be. It's not a low-light lens.... I got it for daylight shooting. It's not a sports lens...... I got it for static and semi-static subjects. It's only 400mm...... only? It's awkward....... I have a good tripod and remote. Here's the result.

LHP 80-400VR 2.jpg

Now, I'm going to the pool to congratulate myself on a very good choice!
 
Last edited:
Top