Nikon 200-400 f4 VR

Phil White

Phil White

Messages
286
Edit My Images
Yes
Im looking at buying a new/used above titled lens for wildlife shots. I am asking on here if it's a good choice in general or would you recommend something different.

Thank you.
 
I've had the Mk1 and wouldn't want it again, the AF deteriorated at distance and it didn't really like TC's ... I think if I was looking at that range and f4 wasn't critical I would also consider the new 200-500 f5.6 and save some money into the bargain
 
I'd second what gramps says.

If you're shooting with a cropped sensor body, the 200-500 will give you equivalent to 300-750mm but if you need F4, you could maybe look out for a second hand 500mm.

Another option is the 300mm with a TC, or possibly even the newest 80-400mm if you need a zoom.
 
I've not used one but hear the mk2 version was much better than the mk1 ? But as both Roger and Carl said you might want to consider 500 f4 as that's a very popular lens with wildlife photographers as its better balanced than the 400 2.8 and 600 f4 (if you think 3.8kg is ok)
 
I have had the MkI and still have the MKII. I haven't had the problems that the others state. They have both been great lenses.

A friend of mine bought a MKI after using my lens. He had issues with it not being sharp. He sent it to Nikon and had it serviced/set up. He now raves about it. He also owns my old Nikon 500mm f4 and intends to keep the 200-400mm. He had the 200-500mm for a month or so. It wasn't anywhere near as good as the 200-400mm.Just didn't capture the fine detail that the 200-400mm did. He could of course, have had a bad example.

If I where you, I would hire one and see for yourself. :) There is a reason that the 200-400mm is more expensive than the 200-500mm.

The 200-500mm is from what I have seen so far, a nice lens. But I am not convinced that it is the lens to make me swop my 200-400mm. It will stay in my collection, even though I recently bought a 600mm f4.

Kev.
 
Thanks for the replies and comments everyone. I'll consider things over. My other option might be to go for the 300mm f2.8 VR and use a 1.4x TC.
 
Phil White said:
Thanks for the replies and comments everyone. I'll consider things over. My other option might be to go for the 300mm f2.8 VR and use a 1.4x TC.
Click to expand...

Superb lens. I had one. But you wont have enough reach. 420mm f4 . Buy the 200-400mm and get 560mm f5.6 Then after a while you will want even more..... :)
 
I would like to Echo Kevshore's comments, I have a 200-400 mkI and am very happy with it. Although it has been significantly better since I have the focus motor and VR unit replaced. I have recently purchased a 500mm F4, I am still considering if I am keeping the 200-400. I bought the 500 for extra reach but the close focusing distance of the 200-400 means I might yet hand on to it, I will re-consider in a few months. My experience suggests as a close up lens for small birds the 200-400 is very good in some ways better than the 500mm, but the 500mm is sharper at distance and plays nicer with TCs.
 
gramps said:
Bit of a way to go ... MPB used 200-400 £2099 V Panamoz new 200-500 £891
Click to expand...


But we are comparing the prices of two completely different lenses gramps. I am still to be convinced that the 200-500mm is as good as the 200-400mm.

I was simply saying that the difference in price compared to buying a new 200-400mm, the margin had dropped quite a bit. I still feel that I would rather spend £2k for one of Nikons professional lenses than buying the 200-500mm. :)

Assuming Phil isn't restricted by budget, (he is already considering both lenses), I think £2k is a good price. :)

Kev
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top