Has anyone downgraded from 200-400 f4 to 80-400 AF-S VR or similar

rob-nikon

rob-nikon

Messages
7,085
Name
Rob
Edit My Images
Yes
Has anyone downgraded from 200-400 f4 to 80-400 AF-S VR or similar lens?

I currently have a 200-400 f4 that hasn't seen as much use as I would have liked since I purchased it last year, this has got me thinking if it's time to let it go and get something cheaper. I'm only a hobbyist so maybe having a £3k+ lens is a bit overkill and the money could be spent better elsewhere. Some of the time it's weight and size has limited it's use and I've chosen to use the lighter 70-200 f4 instead. A lighter lens may mean I'm more likely to use it more often or carry it with the 70-200 f4. One thing that stops me is thinking about the loss of the 1 stop of light (f4 to f5.6) and whether this is an issue. I use a d750 so I could probably up the ISO a stop to compensate or swap to the 70-200 f4 for f4.

How good is the 80-400 at 400mm? How do they compare? Is a 1.4tceII able to be used with the 80-400, it would be 560mm f8 but is the AF and IQ useable for birds in flight at f8?

Other options would be the older sigma 120-300 f2.8 OS, nikon 300mm f4 (either version) or an older nikon 300mm f2.8 lens.
 
Hi Rob,
I have the 300mm (f2.8) vr2, the 80-400 (new one) & had the 120-300mm.

Sold the 120-300 as found that I was almost always at 300mm (or 420mm with the Sig 1.4) & it gets stomped on by the 300 vr2.

The 80-400mm I have only used a couple of times & must say that I'm 'not impressed' with it. I DO need to play with it & ck focus with it (or I may just be unrealistic with it) but at this point you would struggle to pry me away from the 300mm as I find that amazing...
 
Diving Pete said:
Hi Rob,
I have the 300mm (f2.8) vr2, the 80-400 (new one) & had the 120-300mm.

Sold the 120-300 as found that I was almost always at 300mm (or 420mm with the Sig 1.4) & it gets stomped on by the 300 vr2.

The 80-400mm I have only used a couple of times & must say that I'm 'not impressed' with it. I DO need to play with it & ck focus with it (or I may just be unrealistic with it) but at this point you would struggle to pry me away from the 300mm as I find that amazing...
Click to expand...

The 300 f2.8 is a great lens, I owned one prior to the 200-400 and it was good but just not as versatile as a zoom. Ive put on and taken off teleconverters whilst in front of animals before, once even when sitting in a foot of water! I've got too used to having a zoom and the ease of zooming in and out. The 300 f2.8 and 1.4/2x tc's was a great combination but it wasn't exactly lightweight either.

Maybe hiring for a few days would be my best option to make up my own mind whether it's a possibility. I don't expect it to be better than a 300 f2.8 or 200-400 f4 but as near as the cost difference can manage.
 
Ck your focal lengths & see what is most used....

That may help you more - if you find that most are at the upper end of your 200-400 then thats the length or greater you go for.
 
Having had a good look on lightroom it's brought up some interesting points. I've looked at use of a 300 f4, 300 f2.8 and the 200-400.

The Apertures I've used are:

<1% at f2.8, 50% at f4, 40% at f5.6, 10% at f8

Regarding focal lengths:

65% at 300mm
35% at 400mm

If only the 200-400 is taken into account I have used it:

20% at 200mm, 20% at 300mm, 60% at 400mm
41% at f4, 52% at f5.6, 7% at f8

This was a useful exercise as it told me the 80-400 won't suit me as I use f4 far too much, and it's something I would miss too much. It also showed I don't need f2.8 of a 300mm f2.8 either as I didn't use it very often, although I did use 300 f2.8 with the 1.4TC and 2xTC wide open quite often when I used a TC.

I going to look into my use of lenses with a full frame camera as it looks like I've mainly used the 200-400 at 400mm probably because of the loss of reach due to the move to full frame.

I'm now thinking if I do downgrade a 300mm f4 would be a more suitable option, especially if f5.6 at 400mm will be ok.
 
snap-happy said:
200-400 is a fantastic lens. Just get out there and use it.
Click to expand...

That is an option that I'm trying to do but I'm not getting out and using it. The problem is if going to walking about or hand holding then I nearly always go with the 70-200 f4 and maybe a 1.4tc for portability and ease of use.
 
Last edited:
I bought the 80/400 nearly a year ago and it has become my walk about lens, love it.
Don't find it any heavier then my 70/200 focusing is just as quick.
Does well in low low light, not had any problems with it so far, I use it on a D7100,
 
Hi Rob, if you do go for the 300f4 PF it is 95g lighter than your 70-200 so even more portable !
 
gary43 said:
Hi Rob, if you do go for the 300f4 PF it is 95g lighter than your 70-200 so even more portable !
Click to expand...
A friend hired one for our trip to Skomer, its very impressive for its size and its so small.

I've had a look at what apertures I used when at 400mm (200-400 @ 400mm, 300 f2.8 + 1.4TC @ 420mm) and it seems I use f4- 60%, f5.6- 40%. Although I used f4 at 400mm quite a bit, mainly whilst using a d7100, I think I could possibly lose the extra stop as its possible to up the ISO further on a D750 than it was on a d7100. On full frame I'm using f5.6 a little bit more due to the better ISO and differences in DoF. If I do change its looking like a 300mm f4 would be more suitable as I would priortise the faster f4 aperture over 100mm more focal length. I'm currently moving towards just getting out and make myself use the 200-400 more. Changing would be a last resort if its not used more.

The 80-400 does look like its a great lens but being restricted to f5.6 at the long end (300-400mm) does look like it would suit me as well but then again you just use the tools you have and adapt around their performance.
 
Hi Rob, have to say I would reluctantly go back to a bigger prime now having owned 300f2.8, 400f4, 500f4 and 600f4s in both Canon and Nikon fits in most cases. I also had the new Nikon 80-400 which I liked a lot. That said, I was never that keen on the 200-400 which I have only shot with a few times. Horses-for-courses as they say. I think I agree with you that you should get out and use what you are happy with and change only if you are unhappy in some respects.
 
gary43 said:
Hi Rob, have to say I would reluctantly go back to a bigger prime now having owned 300f2.8, 400f4, 500f4 and 600f4s in both Canon and Nikon fits in most cases. I also had the new Nikon 80-400 which I liked a lot. That said, I was never that keen on the 200-400 which I have only shot with a few times. Horses-for-courses as they say. I think I agree with you that you should get out and use what you are happy with and change only if you are unhappy in some respects.
Click to expand...

I can see where you are coming from, a lightweight setup is definitely more portable and useable. I've just had a look at your kit list and in some ways its quite similar to mine. I do think for a hobby I'm more likely to enjoy it without lugging so much weight about. On a recent stay on Skomer I did take the 200-400 but I didn't use it much (that said it wasn't really needed due to the closeness of wildlife), sometimes it stayed in the room if I knew I wasn't going to use it rather than carrying it about. My bag did weigh a crazy 15kg with everything in it!

Can I ask how you rate the AF on the 300mm f4PF with and without the 1.4 TC (if you have one)?
 
Hi Rob, the AF speed of the 300 bare is very fast both with and without the x1.4 TC. It is fast with the x1.7 and sluggish but still sharp and accurate with the x2.
 
Meant to add, if you are ever anywhere near Loughborough you are welcome to have a play with the 300PF
 
I have the 300mm F2.8 plus all three teleconverters and it's a combo that is hard to beat for small birds, but it's a lump to carry. I also have the 80-400mm VR2 which is sharp through the zoom range at f5.6 and tack sharp when stopped down to F6.3. If you consider one make sure you get the later version which has gold coloured VR lettering and the 'N' for nano-coating. AF is accurate and easily quick enough for birds or dragonflies in flight.You can add a 1.4x teleconverter - the type 3 works a little better than the type 2 but you won't shoot birds in flight with the combo as the AF isn't fast or accurate enough, at least not on my D7200. I had to dial in a substantial AF micro-adjustment for the lens + teleconverter. I used the 80-400mm for the Yeovilton air show yesterday and it performed very well. I'd have missed a lot of shots without being able to zoom right back to 80mm.
 
Last edited:
gary43 said:
Hi Rob, the AF speed of the 300 bare is very fast both with and without the x1.4 TC. It is fast with the x1.7 and sluggish but still sharp and accurate with the x2.
Click to expand...
micloi said:
+1 here for the pf with the 1.4x and 1.7x. My most used lens and there is nothing I miss from all the big primes I used in the past.
Click to expand...
It does sound like a great lens, my friend wax very impressed with the one he hired.

gary43 said:
Meant to add, if you are ever anywhere near Loughborough you are welcome to have a play with the 300PF
Click to expand...
Thank you for the offer.

eccles said:
I have the 300mm F2.8 plus all three teleconverters and it's a combo that is hard to beat for small birds, but it's a lump to carry. I also have the 80-400mm VR2 which is sharp through the zoom range at f5.6 and tack sharp when stopped down to F6.3. If you consider one make sure you get the later version which has gold coloured VR lettering and the 'N' for nano-coating. AF is accurate and easily quick enough for birds or dragonflies in flight.You can add a 1.4x teleconverter - the type 3 works a little better than the type 2 but you won't shoot birds in flight with the combo as the AF isn't fast or accurate enough, at least not on my D7200. I had to dial in a substantial AF micro-adjustment for the lens + teleconverter. I used the 80-400mm for the Yeovilton air show yesterday and it performed very well. I'd have missed a lot of shots without being able to zoom right back to 80mm.
Click to expand...
I previously had the 300 f2.8 but was always taking teleconverters on and off which become a pain and was one of the reasons I went with the 200-400.

The 80-400 vr2 sounds good, very sharp and a lightweight alternative. If I went with either it's going to be choice between f4 or zoom, both of which are useful to me.
 
Just a thought.

Couldn't you buy the new 300pf and 80-400vr2 if you sold the 200-400? it's got to be worth a few quid surely? You could then have the flexability of both. HDEW are showing both in stock and would come to about £2800 for both, would you get more for your 200-400 than the cost of both the 300pf and 80-400vr2?
 
Swanseajack said:
Just a thought.

Couldn't you buy the new 300pf and 80-400vr2 if you sold the 200-400? it's got to be worth a few quid surely? You could then have the flexability of both. HDEW are showing both in stock and would come to about £2800 for both, would you get more for your 200-400 than the cost of both the 300pf and 80-400vr2?
Click to expand...

I have thought of that, WEX have a used mint 80-400 and I could order a UK 300 f4PF for roughly the same as the 200-400. The only issue would be having two lenses and worrying that I'm using the right one at that time. The reason I swapped to a 200-400 was because of the swapping on/off teleconverters, its much easier using only the one lens.

I'm thinking it may be better to work out ways to carry the 200-400 more easily. It's a great lens but just too heavy to hand hold which the way I like to do it.
 
Last edited:
I thought you also had two bodies, you could have had one on each body was the reasoning behind my thinking (if going short disatnces) or take one if you know where your going or shooting.
 
Swanseajack said:
I thought you also had two bodies, you could have had one on each body was the reasoning behind my thinking (if going short disatnces) or take one if you know where your going or shooting.
Click to expand...
I currently have a d750 and d800 but the d800 is currently for sale. I was thinking of a spare body but I've not managed to justify it to myself. It would be great for remote shots. To be honest a 80-400 and 300 f4 pf would be about 1kg lighter than the 200-400.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top