On 2013-03-05 14:35:32 -0800, Rob said:

On 6/03/2013 1:08 AM, Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
Rob wrote:



The 70-300 is quarter the price. Half the weight 745gms/1570 gms

If that lens is satisfactory, then you have no need at
all for the new 80-400mm lens. But the 70-300mm is not
equal to the older 80-400mm AF-D lens, and is no where
near the same as the new lens.


I do have the 70-300 lens and find it light to carry and stay mobile,
running up and down a beach.

My old 80-400mm (bought in 2004 for $1400) has become a dust collector
and hasn't been a regular occupant of my bag since 2009. The 70-300mm
VR is a surprisingly good value and performer, and the only areas in
which the 70-300mm VR is not equal to the old 80-400mm is in the
80-400mm's unbelievably poor low light performance, slow focus and the
only performance benefit, the extra reach.
I certainly couldn't have made this capture with the 80-400mm.
http://db.tt/6SuM0WTp


I have no doubt that the new 80-400 is a far superior lens to its old
counterpart, just the AF-S alone. I can't imagine that Nikon would
release a new lens which was an inferior replacement.

I hate lugging weight around nowadays, I'm over that and having all the
toys with me, just in case.

I hate lugging weight I might never use, in this case the 80-400mm. I
usually have these in my bag, or on the camera, but mostly it is just
the D300S + 18-200mm VRII for basic walk-around and spontaneous
shooting;
18-200mm VRII
70-300mm VR
35mm f/2.0
Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8
Extra battery
My G11
....and if I think I might need it an SB-800.

The 80-400mm sits at home unless I have some odd notion that I might
need it for a long shot such as this one taken so long ago it was shot
with my D70.
http://db.tt/U3bG5A3W



--
Regards,

Savageduck