Nikon 200-400mm your thoughts?

Messages
676
Name
Ben
Edit My Images
Yes
Hi all,

In a couple of months i will be looking to purchase a decent lens for wildlife photography. I like the option of Zoom rather than prime it suits me more.

What do you think about this lens? Any help appreciated.
 
I would consider the cost of that lens (200-400mm) against the new afs 80-400mm lens. £3000 difference needs serious thought
 
Last edited:
Am i right in saying that the 80-400 is not well received?
 
The old one wasn't in comparison to the new one but the new one on say a d7100 body is very well received and gets great reviews in real world use
 
The 80-400 or the 200-400?
 
I have a d800 and was wondering what the difference between the VR and VR II version of the 200-400mm
 
The old version had a screw drive which relates to slow focus issues. I have the new version and its as fast as one could possible want and well pleased with it. If you had asked me which one I would rather spend the £3000 difference on other photographic gear. I own the D800 by the way which I use it on
 
Last edited:
The new 80-400 is lovely on the d800 too I'm sure the 200-400 is better for sure but quite a lot of wildlife guys have switched to the new 80-400 due to the massive reduction in weight against the 200-400, the new 80-400 is lightening quick focus
 
Here is a quick YouTube overview moose is a nikon ambassador so might be biased) but I can tell you from experience it's a great lens

 
Thanks Adam interesting. Will the 80-400 work with 1.4, 1.7 and 2?
 
The new 80-400 AF-S is of course f4.5-5.6 so much depends on what you will be using it for, whether or not that extra loss of light will be important.
From Nikon re: teleconverters:-

Autofocus is available only with cameras that offer f/8 support. These include the D4/D4S, D800/D800E, D600/ D610 and D7100.

I had the 200-400 Mk1 and though it was okay when it had been repaired but it never really gave me the quality of image I was looking for ... Thom Hogan reckons it suffers loss of image quality at distance and I tend to agree, he reckons the new 200-400 VRII is no better at distance image quality.

I now have the Nikon 400 f2.8 AF-S II and find that providing me with much better results even with any of the three Nikon TC's - okay it doesn't have the same zoom flexibility of the 200-400 but in all honesty I am not missing it.
 
Last edited:
Hi gramps whats the price difference on the 200-400 vs the 400? Would you happen to have Ny photos you took using it?
 
The 200-400 cost me £3k (more than that when it had to be repaired :( ) in a private sale, but you can pick them up for anything upwards of £2400 - £3500 depending on condition.
The 400 2.8 cost me £3499 and it is mint- with box and all bits + warranty from ffordes.

Here's one of the best with the 200-400, but it was very close and I can't fault it for close shots...


Rook
by photogramps, on Flickr


Further away it just didn't cut it for image quality and required a lot of PP to make it presentable ...



Heron with nesting material
by photogramps, on Flickr
 
Have you looked at getting a Nikon 300mm f/2.8 II and using that with converters?

Ordinarily Joe, I would say that's a good option as the 300 2.8 is great at image quality and the use of TC's would give a degree of flexibility BUT if the O/P is shooting wildlife then I'm thinking reach is going to be an important factor that can be improved on with the 400mm ... or even the 500mm for a bit more cash ... 400 + 1.7 gives 650mm and excellent image quality.
 
Ordinarily Joe, I would say that's a good option as the 300 2.8 is great at image quality and the use of TC's would give a degree of flexibility BUT if the O/P is shooting wildlife then I'm thinking reach is going to be an important factor that can be improved on with the 400mm ... or even the 500mm for a bit more cash ... 400 + 1.7 gives 650mm and excellent image quality.

Agree with you there, 400/500mm is the way to go, The 300mm f/2.8 just offers small and more portable use, and with a 1.7x giving 500ish mm and 2x giving 600mm it is a easily walk around lens if the O/P doesn't want the huge 400/500mm series
 
I've never been too keen on lenses that extend on zoom that is why i had wrote off the 80-400 also the reason was i have 16-35mm, 50mm, 70-200 and wanted a 200-400 to close the loop.

But now i'm a bit concerned about the comment of not very good image quality at the 400 end.
 
Personally I'm not a fan of the Nikon 200-400 and I was disappointed when they released the mkII with no real world image quality improvements focusing instead on nano coating etc etc- at the end of the day it's sharp images at 400mm that count and it struggles to deliver that consistently- at least in the light here in Scotland- might be different in other light:p
Had it been good value I would have bought one but I would not buy one with my own money and I wouldn't even borrow one again, free or otherwise- I'd buy the Canon version but not the Nikon and I certainly wouldn't buy one and then have TC's stuck on it most of the time. If you're doing that then you need a longer lens.

I love the 400 f2.8- it's big and heavy but for the flexibility it offers and image quality it's hard to beat. Maybe the 600/800mm lenses but I've never even seen an 800mm Nikon let alone used one and it must be pretty heavy too.
I know you seem keen on a zoom but I would either go 400,500 or 600 and my preference would be the 400 but I don't have enough miles with the other two so I could be wide of the mark.

As for the 80-400- it would be interesting to hear from owners if the VR is up to the job or not at 400mm as many seem to say it's not. It's not on my list so I'm unlikely to ever go and find out for myself but if it is an option for you then you may want to know. Seems rather limited though for me.
 
But now i'm a bit concerned about the comment of not very good image quality at the 400 end.

Just to clarify it isn't "at the 400 end", that image quality fails with the 200-400, it's when shooting a distant subject that it fails - so a near subject will be fine throughout the range from 200mm to 400mm but it's when the subject is much farther away from the lens that image quality suffers.
 
I'd go with a new 80-400mm VR. It's flexible, light and has good IQ. As well as the price you will not enjoy carrying a 400 about as it is practically impossible to hand hold for any length of time and requires a tripod and a Wimberley and probably 2 TCs to get any flexibility from it.
 
Not sure why anyone would pay nearly £2K (less for imported) for the Nikon 80-400 AF-S when you can get the proven Sigma 50/150-500 for considerably less.
 
I've had both and the 80-400g is in another league IMHO (I now only have the 80-400) I would only change it for some 2.8 glass as do miss that
 
Just to clarify it isn't "at the 400 end", that image quality fails with the 200-400, it's when shooting a distant subject that it fails - so a near subject will be fine throughout the range from 200mm to 400mm but it's when the subject is much farther away from the lens that image quality suffers.

Aye, agree with gramps- I condensed mine a bit so it relies on people knowing what I meant.
I'd say subjects up to 25m at f4 will give you sharp images at any focal length. Beyond that they start to look soft/hazy at f4 and get progressively worse the further away the subject is at any focal length. At 100-150m or so at 400mm and f4 the images are soft but depending on subject/ light can often be rescued with some pp otherwise you need to stop down to around f5.6. I still don't think contrast etc is consistent enough and beyond 300m I would want a different lens but plenty out there seem to think it's great.
I would hire one and see what you think- long lenses need put through their paces with how you are going to use them as everyone has a different style and thoughts on quality
 
Sorry should have backed that up with depending on its use if you looking for more that static subjects
 
Thanks BBR. Why do you love it do you have sharpness issues? Can you put up some photos you have taken with the lens? Ive been looking into it and it does seem to be well documented that there are issues present over distance..

But at what distance would you suggest the issues start?
 
Quote
" As for the 80-400- it would be interesting to hear from owners if the VR is up to the job or not at 400mm as many seem to say it's not. It's not on my list so I'm unlikely to ever go and find out for myself but if it is an option for you then you may want to know. Seems rather limited though for me." unquote

I can assure you the VR is outstanding at 400mm and I don't have the steadiest of hands.

That video is showing the old 80-400mm lens so wouldn't take much notice of it

This is a better comparison

 
Last edited:
Thanks BBR. Why do you love it do you have sharpness issues? Can you put up some photos you have taken with the lens? Ive been looking into it and it does seem to be well documented that there are issues present over distance..

But at what distance would you suggest the issues start?
I can't say I have noticed any iq issues, the af is quick, and many photos really seem to 'pop'. I use it mainly with a Nikon d3. Not in a position to put up photos at present but you can look on my Flickr, bbr1245, the snetterton shots are nearly all with the 200_400.
 
Back
Top