Nikon 200-400mm opinions
- Thread starter treeman
- Start date
- Messages
- 4,626
- Name
- Kevin
- Edit My Images
- No
Superb lens. Heavy, but you get used to it. It's only a lb more than the 300mm 2.8.
Having said that, I've just sold mine again! If you already have the 300mm, I would be tempted to use a converter instead. I use the 1.4 and the new 2.0 III. They produce excellent results on the 300mm.
Kev.
Having said that, I've just sold mine again! If you already have the 300mm, I would be tempted to use a converter instead. I use the 1.4 and the new 2.0 III. They produce excellent results on the 300mm.
Kev.
OP
- Messages
- 4,094
- Name
- Mark
- Edit My Images
- No
I should explain, I specifically want this for shooting Polo, and I already use the 300 with a 1.4 making it f4, which led me to thinking I could cope with the reduced aperture of the 200-400mm. I was thinking that the zoom facility would let me get a few otherwise missed shots.
Think I may have to hire one.
Think I may have to hire one.
- Messages
- 575
- Edit My Images
- Yes
i rented one for a week, and it was pretty good. i ended up deciding on a 400 2.8 though, mainly for the incredible out of focus effects it gives. i miss having the ability to zoom out to 200 rarely, but if you know you will need to zoom out to 200 a lot then it's a no brainer. i managed to handhold it easily for 2 or 3 hours of walking through woods and forests.
- Messages
- 4,626
- Name
- Kevin
- Edit My Images
- No
I shoot aircraft and did find the zoom helped. But When handholding, it is a lump to pan and try to zoom and keep steady. I'm used to heavy lenses, but at times I found it a bit of a hassle handheld when panning and zooming together.
I had the 200-400mm from new, sold it, bought it back fom the same guy and now sold it again.
It's that kind of lens. I loved it. Thought I would use it more both times, but tended to use the 300mm 99% of the time. Purely because of the results I was getting from the prime.
Kev.
I had the 200-400mm from new, sold it, bought it back fom the same guy and now sold it again.
It's that kind of lens. I loved it. Thought I would use it more both times, but tended to use the 300mm 99% of the time. Purely because of the results I was getting from the prime.
Kev.
- Messages
- 11,513
- Name
- Stewart
- Edit My Images
- Yes
It's a lovely lens, and one which (as a Canon user) I wish Canon made. BUT I find it too heavy to hand-hold. It's heavier than the 300mm f/2.8, which I'm comfortable hand-holding, but it's also longer which means you have to be supporting the centre of gravity further out from your body. Maybe I need to go to the gym more, but it's just too big for me to hand-hold. I'd be very happy with it on a monopod though.
Best I can offer!
- Messages
- 9,848
- Name
- Vlad
- Edit My Images
- Yes
You can hand hold it. I wouldn't want to do it for a long time - I did about 30 mins of shooting bikes hand held. Thats about the limit for me with that one.
As for the lens, I am the one who hates it.
Rubbish for the amount of money that it costs IMHO.
I returned mine to the shop I bought it from.
A Nikon 300 2.8 or 400 2.8 prime is way better.
As for the lens, I am the one who hates it.
Rubbish for the amount of money that it costs IMHO.
I returned mine to the shop I bought it from.
A Nikon 300 2.8 or 400 2.8 prime is way better.
- Messages
- 7
- Name
- David
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I do use this with a D300 I hand hold at airshows (see recent wing walkers thread in transport forum) It is much easier using op/tech straps attached to the front of my kata backpack. If not doing high angle shots I do use a Manfrotto 685b monopod whose height I can alter 1 handed - no clips or knobs. The VR2 works well for me (I know it doesn't freeze sports) but if the weight makes you shake a little it helps.
400mm ISO1000 1/50s f4
Hope this helps.
David
400mm ISO1000 1/50s f4
Hope this helps.
David