DSLRUsers.com

A discussion forum - and more - for users of Digital Single Lens Reflex cameras.

Skip to content

80-400

Got a thin skin? Then look elsewhere. Post a link to an image that you've made, and invite others to offer their critiques. Honesty is encouraged, but please be positive in your constructive criticism. Flaming and just plain nastiness will not be tolerated. Please note that this is not an area for you to showcase your images, nor is this a place for you to show-off where you have been. This is an area for you to post images so that you may share with us a technique that you have mastered, or are trying to master. Typically, no more than about four images should be posted in any one post or thread, and the maximum size of any side of any image should not exceed 950 px.

Moderators: Greg B, Nnnnsic, Geoff, Glen, gstark, Moderators

Forum rules
Please note that image critiquing is a matter of give and take: if you post images for critique, and you then expect to receive criticism, then it is also reasonable, fair and appropriate that, in return, you post your critique of the images of other members here as a matter of courtesy. So please do offer your critique of the images of others; your opinion is important, and will help everyone here enjoy their visit to far greater extent.

Also please note that, unless you state something to the contrary, other members might attempt to repost your image with their own post processing applied. We see this as an acceptable form of critique, but should you prefer that others not modify your work, this is perfectly ok, and you should state this, either within your post, or within your signature.

Images posted here should conform with the general forum guidelines. Image sizes should not exceed 950 pixels along the largest side (height or width) and typically no more than four images per post or thread.

Please also ensure that you have a meaningful location included in your profile. Please refer to the FAQ for details of what "meaningful" is.
Write comments

80-400

Postby Greg B on Mon Nov 21, 2005 5:55 am

80
Image

400
Image

Great lens, great fun.
Greg - - - - D200 etc

Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see.
- Arthur Schopenhauer
User avatar
Greg B
Moderator
 
Posts: 5938
Joined: Fri Sep 03, 2004 7:14 pm
Location: Surrey Hills, Melbourne
Top

Postby birddog114 on Mon Nov 21, 2005 5:58 am

GregB,
It's sharp!,
Cheese! I took you more than 1/2 year to find out its sweet spot! :lol:
Birddog114
VNAF, My Beloved Country and Airspace
User avatar
birddog114
Senior Member
 
Posts: 15881
Joined: Sat Aug 07, 2004 8:18 pm
Location: Belmore,Sydney
Top

Postby BBJ on Mon Nov 21, 2005 7:29 am

Greg nice pics and yes this is a nice lens, i dont get to use mine much now days but i do like it lots and will get to use it again soon.
D3,D2x,D70,18-70 kit lens,Sigma 70-200mm F2.8EX HSM,Nikon AF-I 300m F2.8, TC20E 2X
80-400VR,SB800,Vosonic X Drive,VP6210 40
http://www.oz-images.com
User avatar
BBJ
Senior Member
 
Posts: 3651
Joined: Mon Nov 15, 2004 8:49 pm
Location: Mt Gambier South Australia-D70-D2X
Top

Postby Oneputt on Mon Nov 21, 2005 8:40 am

It is a good lens Greg - sharp images. However like BBJ I do not use it very much. However when you need it........you need it :wink:
"The good thing about meditation is that it makes doing nothing respectable"

D3 - http://www.oneputtphotographics.com
User avatar
Oneputt
Senior Member
 
Posts: 3174
Joined: Tue Jan 04, 2005 3:58 pm
Location: Stuck in traffic Maroochydore.
Top

Postby Glen on Mon Nov 21, 2005 9:50 am

Greg, one of the more perfect landscape and compositions to show the benefit of a long zoom. Sell the location to Nikon's marketing people :wink:
User avatar
Glen
Moderator
 
Posts: 11819
Joined: Sat Aug 07, 2004 3:14 pm
Location: Sydney - Neutral Bay - Nikon
Top

Postby glass eye on Mon Nov 21, 2005 10:29 pm

I was looking for a naked chick in the window hahaha silly me.

I was thinking of getting this lens but am considering the 70-200mm VR that sells for about $2700 and throwing a converter on it [2x].

Can anyone advise me on this if so i would appreciate it.

John
glass eye
Member
 
Posts: 72
Joined: Wed Oct 26, 2005 6:17 pm
Location: manly
Top

Postby PiroStitch on Mon Nov 21, 2005 10:57 pm

That's a crazy lens :D If you were pointing that lens last Thursday morning towards the top of the ANZ building (left tower), you'd probably see me looking out the window :p
Hassy, Leica, Nikon, iPhone
Come follow the rabbit hole...
User avatar
PiroStitch
Senior Member
 
Posts: 4669
Joined: Sat Mar 05, 2005 1:08 am
Location: Hong Kong
Top

Postby marcotrov on Mon Nov 21, 2005 11:01 pm

Nice sharp shots and good reach :) It shows the quality od this lens. I agree Greg its a nice bit of glass. I have been using mine regularly and am looking forward to experimenting a bit more with handolding technique to improve capture rate but all in all its a beautiful lens. CAn't wait till i get my canon 500D closeup lens from Birdy. Should be interesting then. I can only recommend this great value for money lens.
cheers
marco
marcotrov
Senior Member
 
Posts: 2577
Joined: Mon Feb 28, 2005 2:21 pm
Location: Cairns, Queensland, Australia
Top

Postby stubbsy on Mon Nov 21, 2005 11:12 pm

glass eye wrote:I was thinking of getting this lens but am considering the 70-200mm VR that sells for about $2700 and throwing a converter on it [2x].

Can anyone advise me on this if so i would appreciate it.

John

70-200 VR is sweeeet (eg see the first pic here or the flower pics here), but the TC 1.7 is better than the 2.0
Peter
Disclaimer: I know nothing about anything.
*** smugmug galleries: http://www.stubbsy.smugmug.com ***
User avatar
stubbsy
Moderator
 
Posts: 10748
Joined: Wed Dec 08, 2004 7:44 pm
Location: Newcastle NSW - D700
Top

Postby gstark on Tue Nov 22, 2005 10:56 am

glass eye wrote:I was looking for a naked chick in the window hahaha silly me.

I was thinking of getting this lens but am considering the 70-200mm VR that sells for about $2700 and throwing a converter on it [2x].

Can anyone advise me on this if so i would appreciate it.


John,

The question is: what would be your use for this lens?

If you absolutely need the reach, the 80-400 is the way to go.

If you don't have a need for that absolute reach, then the 70-200 plus the 1.7 TC will be your better choice.

For the first time ever, I could have used the 70-200 in preference to my 80-400 and 24-120 while shooting at the NAS production of Midsummer Night's Dream.
g.
Gary Stark
Nikon, Canon, Bronica .... stuff
The people who want English to be the official language of the United States are uncomfortable with their leaders being fluent in it - US Pres. Bartlet
User avatar
gstark
Site Admin
 
Posts: 22924
Joined: Thu Aug 05, 2004 11:41 pm
Location: Bondi, NSW
Top

Postby stubbsy on Tue Nov 22, 2005 12:09 pm

gstark wrote:
glass eye wrote:I was looking for a naked chick in the window hahaha silly me.

I was thinking of getting this lens but am considering the 70-200mm VR that sells for about $2700 and throwing a converter on it [2x].

Can anyone advise me on this if so i would appreciate it.


John,

The question is: what would be your use for this lens?

If you absolutely need the reach, the 80-400 is the way to go.

If you don't have a need for that absolute reach, then the 70-200 plus the 1.7 TC will be your better choice.

For the first time ever, I could have used the 70-200 in preference to my 80-400 and 24-120 while shooting at the NAS production of Midsummer Night's Dream.

Wow Gary. That's an impressive comment coming from you and knowing your thoughts on the 80-400. I take it that the factor for you was that you would have liked the 70-200's low light performance with the 80-400.
Peter
Disclaimer: I know nothing about anything.
*** smugmug galleries: http://www.stubbsy.smugmug.com ***
User avatar
stubbsy
Moderator
 
Posts: 10748
Joined: Wed Dec 08, 2004 7:44 pm
Location: Newcastle NSW - D700
Top
Write comments

Return to Image Reviews and Critiques
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
Copyright © 2005 - 2022 Gary Stark


Portal XL 5.0 ~ Plain 0.2