I dunno, the one I tried out this week at the store had the mount, and B&H's website still shows the version wih the mount.I notice that the 80-400 as shown on the Nikonusa website no longer shows it with a tripod mount. It doesn't show it in supplied accessories either. I wonder if they have eliminated it? That is almost a deal killer in my eyes.
Most threads I’ve seen on the 80-400 end up with 50/50 either loving or hating the lens. It’s slow to focus, and sharp shots are a hit and miss for me. More of a miss. This lens has always been one of my least used lenses. It spends most of its time sitting on a shelf. If I was you, I’d add a 1.4 and or a 1.7 TC to your 70-200 for a lot less money than an 80-400, and probably about the same weight.Thanks everyone. I have a 70-200 f/2.8 VR, a 200 f/2 VR, and 400 f/2.8 AF-S II for primo long/fast (and heavy) glass, but was just looking for something I can walk around with all day without hiring a Sherpa. :smile:
that pictures was shot in low light on a consumer body with a slow AF motor. Precisely the conditions under which the 80-400 does not shine!
Give the lens some light and put it on a pro series body, and it can do remarkably well. And it is the smallest and lightest 400mm option out there - great for carrying it around.
What's film?i got my picture on F80 (film body), took me a whole roll of film for one half decent shot.
The 70-300VR is AF-S, has the latest version of image stabilization (vr2), and has more reach on a d300 than the 80-400 does on an f80. To top it off, it's about half the weight and a third the price of the 80-400.Part exchanged for D300, but if Nikon ever comes with AF-S version count me in.