Nikon 200-400

merv

merv

Messages
1,118
Name
Mervyn
Edit My Images
Yes
Just seeking general opinions on the 200-400 lens to see if worth considering to replace the 300/2.8 prime. Merv
 
It all depends on how much you need the versatility of a zoom against the ultimate quality and extra stop of the prime.

I know that sounds a little obvious, but they're both part of Nikon's top range of lenses and have a large following each.

Given you've got a D3s which offers fantastic low light ability, I'd be seriously tempted to go for the zoom. Have a look at Andy Rouse's website for a review of the zoom - he might not be everyone's cup of tea, but he certainly knows how to used your potential combo.

Mike
 
Why not rent one for a weekend and see before spending thousands
 
markyboy.1967 said:
All the info I have gathered is that its a great lens and pretty sharp however it won't be as good with a tc as your 300 f2.8. I was considering one for a while and may still get one as the zoom is invaluable to me, especially when working from a hide.
Click to expand...

I have to agree, the f2.8 will always focus quicker than the f4, and will work better with the TC's, however I have used my 200-400 with the 1.4 and 1.7TC, it will still focus with the latter but it can hunt a little in poorer light, fine with the 1.4TC though.

What I really like is the 6 feet minimum focus distance, great for shots like this

316_074.jpg
 
super shot Martyn. I am used to the 300 with 2TCIII for planes but it is too restricting due to the fixed focal length and can often miss the shot or cut the tail or nose off! Certainly the 1.4TC at the 400 end would being me back into the same field as the prime. Have been offered a used Mk1 200-400 - worth considering or not?
merv:bang:
 
merv said:
super shot Martyn. I am used to the 300 with 2TCIII for planes but it is too restricting due to the fixed focal length and can often miss the shot or cut the tail or nose off! Certainly the 1.4TC at the 400 end would being me back into the same field as the prime. Have been offered a used Mk1 200-400 - worth considering or not?
merv:bang:
Click to expand...

Cheers Merv that was using the lens with a 1.4TC on it

That is the one I have, for larger targets like planes you will be fine, where I feel mine has a weakness is if I took an image of a bird at longer distance and then try cropping it in too much, there is no question my 500/4 wins there.

One thing I found was removing the front screw on filter helped, however that could be purely psychological rather than anything measurable :D

I do like the flexibility of the lens, no doubt about that.

Thom Hogan sums it up quite well HERE



.
 
Last edited:
Martyn thats some article by Thom Hogan, very comperhensive. Havent had time to read it all yet but frightened it might put me off. I just feel keeping the 300 prime is cramping my style
 
Kev Shore off here has got the latest 200-400 version he says its great in fact he has sold his 300.2.8 as it wasnt getting used anymore, im sure he will comment later on here :)
 
merv said:
Just seeking general opinions on the 200-400 lens to see if worth considering to replace the 300/2.8 prime. Merv
Click to expand...

Merv you are really starting to make me jealous a D4, a 24-120 f/4 and now this all in the last few weeks. :'(
 
Is there no hiding place from you Tommy and Tony. I feel I can do nothing without you knowing. Get into PC so that I can get some decent advice about the iMac, every time I call you're not there!
Thinking of selling the 300/2.8 prime and getting the 200-400 if I can get a sensible price.:bonk:
 
merv said:
Is there no hiding place from you Tommy and Tony. I feel I can do nothing without you knowing. Get into PC so that I can get some decent advice about the iMac, every time I call you're not there!
Thinking of selling the 300/2.8 prime and getting the 200-400 if I can get a sensible price.:bonk:
Click to expand...

Don't even think about buying an iMac right now Merv they are due an upgrade very soon. If you like I can drop you a pm on here when the new models hit?
 
As been as Kev has mentioned me, I'll comment on here. I rate this lens so highly, that I've owned 3 now.
I have used my latest one with the 2 x converter on the D4 and it produces good results.It is one of the reasons I chose to move over to the D4 from the D3s.
Not the best example, but in some ways it is. This was my very first outing with D4 and 200-400mm vrII. It has the 2 x fitted.
It was a windy day and I was stood on a small hill. This is handheld.
I'm not particularly happy with the shot, but for the very first time, I find it acceptable.


DSC_0058b by kas10, on Flickr

I didn't need to use the 2 x at any of the airshows this year. You will find that you can frame much better with the 200-400mm Merv. I can handhold and pan/zoom without any problems.

Kev.
 
Last edited:
Hi again Kev
This is what often happens to me with the 300 prime although this was with the 2x. Was very pleased with the quality of this shot on the D3s but it was my only chance and I ballsed it up! Hence the desire for the 200-400
DSC_0507A_zps3faa7169.jpg

merv:bonk:
 
merv said:
Martyn thats some article by Thom Hogan, very comperhensive. Havent had time to read it all yet but frightened it might put me off. I just feel keeping the 300 prime is cramping my style
Click to expand...

It will be perfect for what you want, it is sharp wide open at f4, and it will give you the flexibility that you are after, I have always been pleased with mine.

If it will AF onto those dragonflies I am sure that you will manage an airplane with it :D
 
You'll only wish that you had bought the VRII if you buy the VRI Merv.

Kev.
 
I think thats the clearest message yet Kev.
Better get out the collecting tin!:clap:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top