TC on Nikon Nikkor 200-400/f4

welshwizard645

welshwizard645

Messages
2,679
Name
Peter
Edit My Images
No
Hi All,
Sitting very much on the fence over whether to go for 500/4 or 200-400/4 Nikkors....

Trying to persuade myself to go for the 200-400/4 - more for versatility and portability. I know how good the 500/4 is and looking for copies without AF squeal (one does nature)...

I have 2 Nikon TCs , The 1.4 and 1.7 TC-E Marks 2 I've had for a while, and used on my D500 and D850 bodies so no issues with f8 compatibility but has anyone got any positive or negative experiences with the 200-400/4 using either teleconverter? The 400/2.8 and 600/4 are just outside my price range and want the f4 or brighter lenses.

Looking forward to some feedback.

Peter
 
I certainly wouldn’t choose the Mk1 200-400 over the 500 f4 and I don’t think I would choose the Mk2. Either would work with the 1.4 but would suffer with the 1.7.
By contrast the 500 f4 works really well with the 1.4 and adequately with the 1.7 (I’ve even used it well with the newer 2.0.
 
I had a 200-400 mkI which I traded for a 500 f4 vr (I now have a 500 pf). Of the two I miss the 200-400 more, it was a really great hide lens, the zoom makes it flexible and it was really sharp up close. I am almost temped to look for another, would make a great video lens. It worked OK with a 1.4 but was weaker with a 1.7 or 2. The 500 f4 works really well with a 1.4 tc and OK with a 1.7. At longer subject distances the 500 f4 is definitely sharper than the 200-400. My 200-400 was not that reliable it got through two vr/af units at £400 each… This was one of the reasons I changed to the 500 f4, I don’t miss the weight or the size of either, both are large and heavy and work best from a tripod. I would not swap either for a 500 pf, for me the slight loss of subject isolation is more than made up for in the reduced weight and flexibility, I can carry the 500 pf all day and handhold it for hours.
 
I used to have a Mk 1 200-400 and it was horrible at distance. So generally speaking if using TCs it will be poor. The old MK1s seemed to struggle with anything in teh distance, at football etc anything over 50 yards was soft by my eye. The 180-400 gets good revies and has a TC built in
 
I've heard from other sources that the Mk1 200-400 can be brilliant or poor, and that the 200-500 f5.6 is better at 400mm. I have the 200-500mm, it is great but not perfect but still yearn for that f4 lens. I am most probably going somewhere next year where that extra stop of brightness makes a huge difference (Costa Rica)....
 
Nikon 500 f4 without a doubt … unless you can afford the 600 f4 :)
 
Also consider the 300/2.8 G (+ latest 1.4/2x TC's)... I keep/use the 400/2.8 and it doesn't really have that much of an advantage over the 300/2.8. I've sold all of my other big lenses; 800/5.6, 500/4, etc... the only other long lenses I have now are Sigma, 120-300/2.8 and 60-600/5.6-6.3.

But the reality is that there is no real advantage to the faster F stop if you are going to have to crop correspondingly harder.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top