See issues with soft images.

I have tested three and all on a tripod. This lens is not sharp at all.

Its a shame as its got such a great range and a good price, just doesn't perform well at all.

Someone in a london camera shop said it's Nikons worst lens. I wouldn't go that far.

I'll take the challenge:


Nikon D300
Bogen 3001/Manfrotto 190 tripod
Manfrotto 488RC ball head
Shot @ f/8, 1/8sec using a Phottix Cleon remote and M-up mode on the camera

Tack sharp even at 1:1, with moderate sharpening in LR3

If you've had poor results with three different samples, I'm tempted to suggest that it's the operator, not the equipment that's at fault. The really weak point of this lens is the tripod collar, it sucks big time and requires careful operation to avoid motion blur due to mirror slap, wind etc.

"Nikon's softest lens"? Have you tried the the 35-105 AIS? Or the 43-86?

No the first test i did was on a solid aluminium tripod, no wind, using mirror lock up and remote shutter release and using f8-11 as presuming this would yield the best results. The other two tests were very similar. Believe me i wanted this lens to be good thats why i tried others.

Well to be honest your photo cant really show me what i want to see, only the silhouette lines contrasting, but yes they certainly look sharp but can't tell with out seeing the original size. Have you got any shots in the daylight that i could look at?

I mean it's the softest out of all the afs lenses in my opinion. Hopefully its replacement will be a winner.

Right now my main PC is down due to a hard disk crash, but if you're interested, I can post a 1:1 crop when the computer up&running again.

Bad luck, i hope you have backup?

If you wouldn't mind posting a shot on here when you can, something in daylight and original size, sharpen it and do any adjustments you want just as long as i can preview the original size to take a closer look.

Thanks

I thought this was a soft dog of a lens too.UNTIL I shot it naked (the lens) without an accessory uv filter(hoya).Now it is very sharp.Give it a go you may be surprised at the difference this makes.


WITH FILTER( L) AND WITHOUT (R) all else equal. see image description for more details.

Bad luck, i hope you have backup?

Thanks for the sympathy, and yes, I have backup. I'm running in-cabinet RAID 1 (mirroring) plus NAS backup plus backup to a portable HDD stored somewhere else. I just don't want to use the computer while one of the RAID disks is corrupt. I've lost one of my layers of security & it's a darned hassle to reinstall OS and programs...

Rob thats incredible that it makes such a difference. Have you done any similar tests like this? Be good to see some. I must say its not very sharp though.

Størker, well you're more careful than i am, i just have my laptop hd and one external.

This lens can take reasonably sharp images, if there is lots of light. And, as already stated, I don't use a filter. This one is at at 300 mm, hand-held, using daylight streaming through a window.



Another, taken in full sunlight, at 330 mm, hand-held. I do like the bokeh from this lens.

Yes reasonable in perfect conditions. I can't really pixel peep as the full size is very small but they don't look very sharp. Smooth is the word i would describe them. The Bokeh on the bird one is very nice. When you take a photo like that you want to be able to see the texture of the feathers and the bull rush but this lens cant do that unfortunately.

Thanks for contributing.

Louis, I did say 'reasonably' so don't entirely disagree with you however, for myself, I'd classify the photos as 'acceptable'. Some days I'm happy with the lens; other days I'm thinking of trading it in, although the 400 mm reach is nice, as is the bokeh. The question is, replace it with what?

I've got a few shots with the 80-400 in my stream, but none are 1:1 (no pro account), and maximum sharpness is generally difficult to achieve under "not ideal" conditions, i.e. on a sturdy tripod with an unmoving subject. At least 99% of my shots which show less-than-ideal sharpness do so due to operator error, not equipment failure. Also, the moderate size of the 80-400 makes it more of a lens for hand-held shooting than for tripod shooting.

Nevertheless, I found two shots which were taken using a tripod and with a stationary subject. Both were actually in my photostream already, albeit downscaled. I've combined 1:1 crops of these two into a composite. For the top picture, note the slight difference in sharpness between the grass and the branches. It may be due to a slight focus error, or due to wind in the branches. Or because the lens is "soft".


PS: Both pictures were taken with a Hoya HMC UV filter mounted on the lens.

I don't know how sharp the OP thinks a lens should be, but these two shots are reasonably sharp to me. We could perhaps benefit from considering M. Cartier-Bresson's alleged statement that "Sharpness is a bourgeois concept". And a propos that, here, as a bonus, a shameless plug of another of my images:

That last one is a bit blurry -- keep trying. ;-)

(I refuse to write "LOL"...but I am...you just can't hear me.)

Størker,like your quote!
DLMorris and mtwin76, nice images!

I'm not sure how sharp is really sharp, but I find it to be plenty sharp for me anyway.

I just got this lens a few days ago and took some pics with it today. I must say I'm pleasantly surprised. I thought the resolution was OK and the VR works really well at 400mm. You can get quite sharp images with very low shutter speeds on this lens.

I know it's a bit slow to focus, but it wasn't as bad as people make it out to be. I think the range is just awesome and it's pretty compact for a large lens. Very happy with it.

This one was taken at 400mm, f/10, 1/60, ISO 400 on a D700



There are more high res ones here

www.flickr.com/photos/deang001/sets/72157625573758730/

Thanks for your comments. I agree with your assessment of this lens. And, to my eyes at least, this is sharp enough!

Check out some of my other shots in this group. I think there are a few examples of some sharp shots. Also, it takes a while to learn how to get the sharpest pictures with this lens. Took me a few weeks before I was getting the results I wanted.

Here is a shot taken at 270mm and cropped at 25%. It's sharper than uncropped shots taken at 400mm. I was also using a very good tripod (VR off). The secrets seems to reside in reducing the focal length and (if necessary) using a higher ISO:

Using the lens on a tripoid:
Might be including camera to heavy for the tripoid.
Use time delay 10 s might be okay.

Three more usefull hints:
You do not need to use VR if you go shorter than 1/250 s.
Do not use full range, if you don't need the focus in short distance.
Use 9, 11,21 or 51 AF-Points to focus.
All these hints speed up autofocusing.

The lens is sharp as shown here.
It might be a bit slow in comparison to modern SWM-lenses.

i find when taking alot of motorsport/ car photography with this lens a mono pod is helpfull esp at 400mm and pre focusing on something before the car/ subject comes along is very helpfull, but as been said its not the fastest lens in the world but its deffo not as bad as some people make out

great lens for the money i think.

as for soft images, ive never really had the problem to be honest i always put down to a bit of a blury image to my fault be that hand sake or what ever.

Here's my sharpest with this lens. It was handheld at a local wetlands while out birding. I was pretty impressed at the time although I admit the 80-400 takes some getting used to. The photo was posted in this group a couple of weeks ago. Great lens although I am still learning how to squeeze the best out of it.

Not to bad for a 1 second exposure.

Indeed! Great shot, anthemdr.

Many of my photos here were taken with this lens, including most of the bird photos, the flying butterfly photo, the canna flower and milkweed seed and hosta photos, and the seed pod close up photo:

www.flickr.com/photos/wcap/sets/72157602357199187/

Some are sharper than others, but I think many are quite sharp and all are hand held shots.


Here you can also see a large collection of test shots (including close crops) where I was comparing this lens to the 70-200 + 2X teleconverter and a few other lenses (including a few 105VR shots):

www.flickr.com/photos/wcap/sets/72157602352327628/detail/

A few are hand-held shots, but the peacock feather shots were all taken with the camera stable and using mirror lock up and the built in timer.

Thanks, Wcap07, for these very helpful resources for assessing the sharpness of this lens.

House Finch above, that's a really lovely shot. It just shows that even birds have a bad hair day.

Seen in the Nikon 80-400 group

For what I do (mostly wildlife), the lens has the perfect amount of sharpness - I've rented a 70-200 VRII and was bugged by an excess of sharpness - BUT I hated it on my D300 and only used it on my D700 until I finally figured out that it was back focusing on both (but much less on the D700). An hour spent micro-adjusting all my lenses and the problem was solved and the 80-400 became my most used lens.

I took this photograph at a local zoo in Chennai (India).

Gear used: Nikon D90 + Nikkor 80-400 VR ED AF

photographphil:

Like you, I've used the lens for motorsport, and very fast bikes. Also used it for magazine illustrations for articles on vintage auto restorations.
It isn't the fastest focusing lens, the VR is old technology, it takes a bit of persevering
I 've owned three, always seemed to go back to it when I had a specific job on.
Is it as sharp as an 300mm f2.8, nope. But its a lot less expensive, not as heavy and the insurance rates are lower.

I like it, I despair with it for BIF, but all in all, its a solid performer.

Another challenger.

So, what's the verdict? Have we seen enough sharp images with this lens? I purchased the newer version two days ago and today was the first time I tired it. It was a cloudy and rainy day, nonetheless the photos seemed plenty sharp for me. I also compared this one with my 300mm f/4+1.4Tx under very much the same condition; the new 80-400mm came on top with lot more keepers. On a day like today, the faster focus speed and VR of the new lens triumphed over the prime. Here are two cropped images from a few I took toady; both taken using a monopod. I am sure under better condition, the photos will be sharper.

Hi I have this lens and I fund that it was frond focusing some and I have adjusted it and is as sharp as it can bee. My bee you one is having a similar problem?

Regards

sue