Nikon 200-400mm owners

Why would a lens be good or bad in low light? I mean, if the lighting is such that you need 1/500th at ISO 3200 at f/4, then surely any f/4 lens is going to be pretty much like any other f/4 lens in those conditions? Or am I missing something?
 
StewartR said:
Why would a lens be good or bad in low light? I mean, if the lighting is such that you need 1/500th at ISO 3200 at f/4, then surely any f/4 lens is going to be pretty much like any other f/4 lens in those conditions? Or am I missing something?
Click to expand...

Sorry I should have been clearer, I was referring to its ability to auto focus :)

Stewart, have you got the VRII version available?
 
treeman said:
Sorry I should have been clearer, I was referring to its ability to auto focus :)
Click to expand...
It's still a camera issue rather than a lens issue though, isn't it?
treeman said:
Stewart, have you got the VRII version available?
Click to expand...
No. All of ours are the original model. I couldn't justify paying an extra £1000 for a fancy nano-coating and a slight improvement to the VR system.
 
Thats like saying a cheapo Nikon AF-S 70-300mm VR will perform just as good at night as it will during the day which is rubbish, different lenses have different characteristics under different conditions.

Ive used the 200-400 on a D3 and D3S and while its a decent lens under good daylight for shooting field sports (and im only talking field sports) it sucks under floodlights and hunts terribly in low/fading light where the ISO needs to be 1250-1600 or above.

The OP asked this on the sports forum and the general concensus from pro/semi pro sports shooters is that it's poor under lower light levels.

Even my Nikon 400mm f/2.8 acts differently under fading/poor light to what it does in bright light.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top