Nikon 80-400 4.5-5.6 AF-S

Hey everyone,

I'm leaving for Alaska in a few weeks and I'm thinking about renting this lens and I'm curious if anyone has ever shot with it. Specifically, I'm worried that it might be a little too big and heavy for handheld shots and lugging around. I'd like to take it on a whale watching tour. The extra reach sounds appealing but I'm concerned about the weight. My body is a D7100. Thanks!

Jim

It's a 3 lb lens. Personally, having lugged around and hand-held 9 pounders (without the body), it seems like a vacation to carry such a light lens.

Agreed. I've shot the Nikon 400/2.8G handheld before. Add the body and that's a 14 lbs combo. Granted that's a bit of an extreme case and I rarely shoot a lens that big handheld.

I do normally go on vacation with a D800E + MB-D12 grip and the 70-200/2.8G. That combination is 7 lbs. If I slap on my TC-20EIII teleconverter then it bumps it up by about another lb. I can carry that all day. The key is to have a good carrying system. I use a BlackRapid strap and it distributes the weight nicely. However, there's no hiding the bulk. Real world considerations include finding a place for the combination when you go to sit down to eat at a restaurant. Also bear in mind the weight and bulk of any other photography gear you might have. If you're just going to break out the lens for whale watching or in very photography-specific situations then I see no issues with it.

It's too bad that Tamron hasn't released their new 150-600mm in Nikon mount yet. I've been reading some fabulous reviews of the Canon-mount version. I understand it will be available sometime in July. The already available Tamron 200-500 might also be worth consideration and the rental prices on it are half of that of the Nikon 80-400G. What port are you sailing out of for Alaska? Check out BorrowLenses. They have pickup/dropoff locations in Seattle (Kenmore) at Kenmore Camera.

Thanks for the quick replies. I don't leave for about 6 more weeks so I have some time to try out some options. Gonna head to my local store and try out the Nikon. Also gonna check out the Tamron 200-500. Thanks for the heads up!

I always rent from BorrowLenses but we'll be sailing out of Vancouver instead of Seattle.

Jim

I think the 200-500mm might be too limited, unless you have something to cover the <200mm range, as well.

I think the 200-500mm might be too limited, unless you have something to cover the <200mm range, as well.

I was thinking that too, but the extra 100mm couldn't hurt! I also plan on bringing my Sigma 10-20mm and Nikon 24-70 2.8. Between those two and a long lens I should be covered. I was thinking about borrowing a friend's 18-300 for walking around the ports but figured the 24-70 was a much better option.

Jim

Have you checked out Sigma? They make two supertelephoto lenses, the 50-500mm & 150-500mm. I personally use the 150-500mm.

Sent from my iPhone using Forums mobile app

Real world considerations include finding a place for the combination when you go to sit down to eat at a restaurant. Also bear in mind the weight and bulk of any other photography gear you might have.

 

Check out BorrowLenses. They have pickup/dropoff locations in Seattle (Kenmore) at Kenmore Camera.

If the restaurant wants your business, they'll accommodate you regardless. We went to Whistler BC in January, and I'd rented the Canon 200-400/4 which I had on a monopod, plus a camera backpack. No trouble at all getting a seat and making sure my stuff was OK.

Kenmore Camera has a nice spiffy new store, very spacious. Glazers Camera in Seattle has gear for rent too...perhaps a little more "used", but often really good pricing (I rented the 200/2 for $45/day) because they don't have to account for shipping time.

 

I'm leaving for Alaska in a few weeks and I'm thinking about renting this lens and I'm curious if anyone has ever shot with it. Specifically, I'm worried that it might be a little too big and heavy for handheld shots and lugging around. I'd like to take it on a whale watching tour. The extra reach sounds appealing but I'm concerned about the weight. My body is a D7100.

I've used this combination (D7100 with Nikon 80-400 4.5-5.6 AF-S) and am quite pleased as it's very sharp with excellent image quality.

With the D7100's 1.5 DX crop factor, the reach becomes 120-600mm. The D7100 also has an optional 1.3 DX crop feature, making it 160-780mm.

The complete set up weighs 5 lbs. 6 oz. (body, lens, filter, lens cap, hood, and tripod collar). I've taken it on nature walks and it's not too heavy for handheld shots. As others have said, use a strap that distributes the weight comfortably. I use a Joby UntraFit Sling Strap that puts the weight over the shoulder rather than around the neck.

When I went whale watching, I used a Nikon 18-300 on a D5100 which was good, but no match to the 80-400 on a D7100.

Woody

With the D7100's 1.5 DX crop factor, the reach becomes 120-600mm. The D7100 also has an optional 1.3 DX crop feature, making it 160-780mm.

Technically the focal length remains the same. It'll still be an 80-400 lens no matter what camera you place it on. What you get with a DX crop factour is a narrower angle-of-view that when viewed from frame-edge to frame-edge makes it look as if the picture was shot with a 120-600mm lens on FX. Also, I think you have it backwards with the 1.3x crop mode. The angle of view changes to that of a 104-520mm lens on FX. Crop-factours only really make sense for comparing angle-of-view and field-of-view between different sensor formats such as DX or FX. The "extra reach" over a larger sensor format you get when shooting with a smaller sensor such as DX is achieved once you normalise the output size as this involves magnifying/enlarging the final image.

 

. . . Also, I think you have it backwards with the 1.3x crop mode. The angle of view changes to that of a 104-520mm lens on FX.

Thanks for the explanation.

As for the 1.3x crop mode on the D7100, does it matter that this optional mode is on a DX body?

Woody

Thanks for the explanation.

 

As for the 1.3x crop mode on the D7100, does it matter that this optional mode is on a DX body?

I take back what I said about the 1.3x crop mode on the D7100. The way Nikon expresses the 1.3x crop mode of a DX camera is non-traditional. You were right in that for a DX camera set to 1.3x crop, the angle-of-view through a 80-400mm lens is the same as that from a 160-800mm lens mounted to an FX body.

The crop factour is generally in reference to the traditional 35mm film size which is nominally 36mm x 24mm. This size also more technically called 135-format. And in the Nikon digital world is known as FX. An FX sensor is thus considered to have a 1x crop factour.

The DX sensor size is nominally 24mm x 16mm but actual size varies from sensor to sensor. Most Nikon DX sensors measure 23.5mm x 15.6mm. This size is also more commonly known as APS-C which bears its name and size from a short-lived film format called APS. The DX size is thus smaller by about 57%. Hence the 1.5x conversion between DX and FX and the associated narrower field-of-view.

However, as it turns out after doing a bit of reading, when Nikon talks about 1.3x crop on a DX body, they mean an additional 1.3x crop factour applied to the 1.5x crop inherent with DX. This is equivalent to a 2x crop factour when compared to FX. The sensor footprint being used in 1.3x DX mode is 18.8mm x 12.5mm.

My apologies for the confusion.

Back to the original question. The 80-400 AF-S is a much improved lens over the older AF-D version in several key areas, speed of focusing, image quality and modern coatings for lower flare, CA and better contrast. It is not terribly heavy but can be quite manageable if carried well, such as with a sling strap where the weight is removed from the neck and hands A good sling strap is the Black Rapid RS-5 which I used with my cameras that weigh more than your combination.

The D7100 is such a high pixel density camera that even with cropping, the number of pixels defining the scene will be high enough to print large. It has higher pixel density than my 36mpx D800.

You will probably end up using the wide angle more than the others, except when sighting a whale.

If weight is a real issue, the Sigma for wide and the 80-400 for animals/whales and leave the excellent 24-70 at home and borrow a fast 50, or buy a bargain 50 1.8G which is excellent when stopped down a bit. I have the 24-70 2.8 and really like it but except for snap shots aboard ship it probably will not get used as much as the shorter and longer glass

If weight is a real issue, the Sigma for wide and the 80-400 for animals/whales and leave the excellent 24-70 at home and borrow a fast 50, or buy a bargain 50 1.8G which is excellent when stopped down a bit. I have the 24-70 2.8 and really like it but except for snap shots aboard ship it probably will not get used as much as the shorter and longer glass

That's a good point about the 24-70. You're right, I'll probably be using a wide angle or telephoto for the vast majority of my shots. I do have a 50 1.8 that I'll bring and use as my "walking around the ports" lens.

It'd be nice if someone came up with a 10-600mm 2.8 that weighed 14 oz. and retailed for $200...:)

Jim