Thinking about a Nikon 200-400.

[Martin]

Is it good at f4, not much light up here so wide open is used lots, and with a 1.4 tc is stopping down to f8 needed for good results?

Just doing a price check, I would save a thousand dollars buying from the us, how does this affect my warranty?

Martin

[Keith]

talk to Andreas :rolleyes: :D

I would personally buy a 400mm af-s version 1 f2.8, might save a dollar if you can find one in mint condition.............I have heard good things on the 200-400mm, I personally wasnt a big fan after playing with it for some time, then again I am a prime fan. I opted going back to the 500mm af-s f4.

[Jonathan]

What is your planned interest for using the lens? While I dont have any experiance with supertele's my research has led me too the 500 F4 soon.

[David Cramer]

Martin - this is an exceptional lens in many ways. I've seen many beautiful images produced by it. When I owned it, I found it did not fit my style. I tend to hike around a great deal, and it was too heavy for me for that task. I also had difficulty getting good bif shots with it (and I live in an area with strong light). It's reach was short so often it needed a tc, which seems to really mess with it's focusing. I'd say if you are able to get close enough to your subjects, and you plan on shooting them perched rather than flying, it's a wonderful lens. I opted for the 300 2.8vr, which I found to have much better focus capture, even with the 1.7tc, than the 200-400 had without a tc. And I can hike with it. Others have had different experiences, so I hope they post here as well.

[Roel]

It is a great lens... I had one for my recent trip to Africa. I was surprise how quick it was to focus - even with a TC-14E on it. The images are gorgeous and VR works well. I sold it when I got back - it was a hard decision to make. I am a wedding photographer and don't need anything longer than 200mm. Can you imagine me pointing the 200-400 in a bride's face? (hee hee)

Seriously, if you have the $$$, get it. Some people prefer primes - zooming from 200-400 was really handy and IQ was fantastic.

[Kevin]

Eric (Desert Rat) shoots a lot with this lens. Maybe shoot him a PM and ask his opinion as well. I tried it only briefly but found with a 1.4tc it was good but tracking a bif with a 1.7 was difficult at best and produced soft results.

[Martin]

Great thanks for the replies and info, I will study this very carefully.

Martin

[merlin50]

I shoot wildlife. I have both the 200-400 and 500 f4. If I have to choose to bring only one long lens it will always be the 200-400. I think this is one of the best lenses Nikon has come out with in a long time. It's fast, versatile, covers a lot of territroy and I've never had an issue using at least a 1.4 TC. I can't comment on the 1.7 only because I haven't used it in that combo very much. OTOH, I only own one prime and that is a Sigma 150 macro. The 85 is calling my name though!

I do routinely walk with this lens attached to my D2x on a Gitzo 1325 with a Wimberly head. I can't say I enjoy it but I will say that it's worth the effort, at least IMO.

Dave

[retief]

Martin, I don't know if you have made any decisions yet, but I now have the 200-400 and the 400 f2.8, and I love them both, but if I was forced to part with one it would be the 200-400.

I live in Washington State, and often our light is, to say the least, sub-optimal. The 200-400 works great at f4, if you'd like I can point you to some of my images or you can just browse my website. All the EXIF should be present. I mostly carry the 200-400 on one body, the 400 f2.8 on the other. The 200-400 can be shot handheld, I do it all the time and I'm old and out of shape ... ;), although you can't walk around and shoot it like a 70-200. It does work well with the 1.4, but you are then looking at an f5.6 lens wide open, so you need good light. The two advantages over the 400 are that you can hand-hold much easier, and you have the zoom. While the 1.4 is fine with the lens when you have the light, I don't like it with the 1.7.

Now, on to the 400 f2.8. I most often shoot this with the 1.7 TC attached, and I love the combo. This is one of the few lenses that works well with all 3 TC's. So, with this I have:

400 f2.8
560 f4
680 f4.8
800 f8

My TC's are modified so they can stack, I have even been able to AF, although it would suck for a bird in flight, with the 1.4 and the 2.0 stacked.

I used to shoot with a Sigma f4.5 HSM, which I still think is a incredible bargain, but I don't miss it now, except that the 400 weighs a bit more.

So, if you need the "short" end, below 400, I think the 200-400 is the way to go, or if you need to hand hold often. If not, do what I did and find a great deal on a 400 f2.8 AFS-1.

Let me know if you would like pointers to some samples.

[Keith]

Bill, do you have a little blue wagon like Harv to carry all your lenses around :biglaugh:

[retief]

Nope, I went him one better. I was using a fold-up cart that I used for carrying stuff to my boat, but it was a pain as I had to drag it behind me. Then I saw some "specialty" carts for hauling Skeet Shooting stuff that had 3 wheels and you push. Then there was a thing called a Beach Rolly that some folks bought. But, for one reason or other, I didn't like those, mostly because I didn't like the cost.

So, one day I'm in Costco and they have these Jogging Strollers on sale for about a hundred dollars. Three bicycle type wheels and tires, folds up flat, has a brake, wheels and tires (or tyres if you must) big and sturdy enough for going "off road". I pulled off the cover, cut out the "hold the baby straps", added some "hold the camera" straps and Voila!, I can now go anywhere. Works a charm and folds up nice in my trunk. I have had several people make comments like "You should be using that for Babies", to which I reply, "These ARE my babies ....." :)

[Martin]

Bill and everyone else thanks for the information.

What I ended up getting is a 400 2.8 af-i, very heavy but I really like it, I almost always use a tripod do it fits my style nicely.

Like Bill the light here can be very dim part of the year so a fast lens can make a difference and the 400 focuses great even with the 1.4 and 2x tc's that I have, even when the light is marginal, next I will have to get a 17.

I shoot a lot of small things so I also wanted a close focus distance and the af-i has a close focus distance of ten feet so it really pull in the small birds.


Thanks.

Martin

[retief]

Good choice, Martin. If memory serves, the AFS-1 that I have will only focus to 13 feet, and it sure is a beast.

I'll have to go and look for some of your shots, I can only guess they are superb.

Bill and everyone else thanks for the information.

What I ended up getting is a 400 2.8 af-i, very heavy but I really like it, I almost always use a tripod do it fits my style nicely.

Like Bill the light here can be very dim part of the year so a fast lens can make a difference and the 400 focuses great even with the 1.4 and 2x tc's that I have, even when the light is marginal, next I will have to get a 17.

I shoot a lot of small things so I also wanted a close focus distance and the af-i has a close focus distance of ten feet so it really pull in the small birds.


Thanks.

Martin

[Rudi]

Wow! That 200-400 is PRICEY! I just checked how much they cost... ouch! :nah:

A lot of people in Canon-land like the idea of a 200-400mm f/4 zoom, but couldn't see myself spending that sort of money on one. (I did spend the money for a 100-400L, but that is a much more portable, versatile lens, and I bought it for that reason). Funnily enough, I am quite prepared to spend more than that on a 400mm f/2.8 L IS when the time comes! :)

[Desert Rat]

Well based on what everyone else is writing regarding the 200-400 seems like the verdict is they do not like the lens...

As for my own opinion.. I have had the lens now for one year and am thrilled with it... To me it focuses fast..

well just noticed you got the 400/2.8 instead so forget what i wrote...

[Desert Rat]

I shoot a lot of small things so I also wanted a close focus distance and the af-i has a close focus distance of ten feet so it really pull in the small birds. But the 200-400 focuses down to 6feet for its closest focus...:wacko: :wacko:

[David Cramer]

If anyone is still in the market, Gordon at NC has a 200-400 up for sale for a great price.

[retief]

Well based on what everyone else is writing regarding the 200-400 seems like the verdict is they do not like the lens...

As for my own opinion.. I have had the lens now for one year and am thrilled with it... To me it focuses fast..

well just noticed you got the 400/2.8 instead so forget what i wrote...


I'm not sure who the "everyone" is, but you sure can't count me in that camp. Having both the 400 f2.8 and the 200-400 f4 is a great combination for me, as I can handhold the body with the 200-400 while the 400 is stuck on a tripod, and when those birds decide to come in nice and close, I can complain that I was too slow in picking up the 200-400 :arghh: :arghh: