Nikon 200-400/F4

[Harshad Barve]

Dear all

I am planning to bu one 200-400/F4 , Though I have made up my mind but some folks feel that this lens is not sharp at longest Focal length

But like to know opinions of folks who have used it

All help appreciated
Harshad

[Alan Lillich]

Harshad,

I believe the problem is not at long focal length, but at long focus distance - when the subject is far away. Take a look at Thom Hogan's review:

http://www.bythom.com/Nikkor-200-400mm-lensreview.htm

I have not tried to do objective tests, but my general impressions are consistent with what Thom says. Pat and I have one, which she mostly used until we started switching to Canon - her first. We used to mostly shoot with her using a D300, 200-400, TC 14E2 - and me using a D700 and Sigma 300-800. I seemed to have an easier time than her getting sharp shots at places like Bosque where the birds are often far away.

I used the 200-400 on a D700 with and without the TC 14 at Jim and Doug's Flight School workshop last July - Pat used a 300 f/2.8 on a D300 with and without a TC 14. She got far more sharp shots than me. Which could be the 2.8 versus 4 focus speed or possibly a sign of the distance problem.

We have been very happy with the lens for close work. The 2x zoom was a big help at Alan Murphy's workshop where the birds were within 50 feet and ranged in size from a Titmouse to Green Jay. I used it there on both the D300 and D700, mostly without a TC.

We like the flexibility enough to get the Canon 200-400 as soon as it comes out.

Alan

[Desmond Chan]

Dear all

I am planning to bu one 200-400/F4 , Though I have made up my mind but some folks feel that this lens is not sharp at longest Focal length

But like to know opinions of folks who have used it

All help appreciated
Harshad

Take a look at this thread (keep reading after the first few replies):

http://www.naturescapes.net/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=57&t=192127


I have no problem with the 200-400. I normally don't shoot subjects from miles away either.

[Vivaldo Damilano]

Brave it a great lens, for nature photography the zoom helps, it's more flexible but to be honest don't use it that often now days. I find my 600 sharper, like the reach it gives me and prefer it for shooting for BIF. The main reason is that when I bought the 200-400 lens, I was using a DX camera. The crop camera and the 200-400 was a very good combo, as it gave me more reach.

But :bg3: there are times that I could not work without this lens. I use it with my D3s and for mammals it's a winner. I had a 300 2.8 and athough the lens was really sharp, I missed alot of shot due to always putting on and taking off converters. I have never had a problem with focus. I normally don't use it at long distances.

[Sid Garige]

Harshad,

200-400mm +1.7x at 650mm. No post processing 100% crop. Agree not as sharp at 500mm with 1.4x or 600 straight but considering the versatility the best.

http://luminepixels.com/tmp/200-400.jpg

[Pedro Serralheiro]

I am planning to bu one 200-400/F4 , Though I have made up my mind but some folks feel that this lens is not sharp at longest Focal length


This is most related to v1, v2 has addressed it almost completely.
I have sold my v1 just because of non up to my standards at longer distances. But closer then say 20m it was tack sharp. Also the v2 takes better the 1.4 TC.
It's a great lens, but don't listen to others, try it and decide.

[Kenny Wong]

Dear all

I am planning to bu one 200-400/F4 , Though I have made up my mind but some folks feel that this lens is not sharp at longest Focal length

But like to know opinions of folks who have used it

All help appreciated
Harshad

Certain reviews show that what matters is the distance. For far way over 300 feet (100m) targets, the 200-400 lens has an issue in focusing. It seems that it can't consistently get the correct AF all the times for objects in a distance over 300 feet, especially when an extender is used.

[Sid Garige]

Certain reviews show that what matters is the distance. For far way over 300 feet (100m) targets, the 200-400 lens has an issue in focusing. It seems that it can't consistently get the correct AF all the times for objects in a distance over 300 feet, especially when an extender is used.

Kenny,

I would love to see the review. Can you post a link?

Thanks
Sid

[Aravind Krishnaswamy]

Its Thom Hogan's review that people are referring to:

http://www.bythom.com/nikkor-200-400mm-lensreview.htm

[Sid Garige]

Its Thom Hogan's review that people are referring to:

http://www.bythom.com/nikkor-200-400mm-lensreview.htm

Thanks Aravind. I guess I missed his review on the lens. Not a big review reader in general. Like to try it myself and see. I shot 200-400mm for almost 3 years and never had any issues with that lens.

[Kenny Wong]

Thanks Aravind. I guess I missed his review on the lens. Not a big review reader in general. Like to try it myself and see. I shot 200-400mm for almost 3 years and never had any issues with that lens.

Yes, I am refering to Thom Hogan's review. I guess it is also possible that this may be a result of the lens quality of early lots of lenses obtained by Thom. Hope that the quality of production of later 200-400 lenses has been improved.

[arash_hazeghi]

Sid, that's a great sharp head shot. Like Sid, I had the Nikon 200-400 VR for some time too, made some nice flight shots with it and the 1.4X. It has zero issues making a sharp photo at long distance if operated by a competent photographer.

You will love it for tigers Harshad bhai.

[Marc Mol]

.

We like the flexibility enough to get the Canon 200-400 as soon as it comes out.

Alan

I wouldn't be holding my breath Alan. :bg3::bg3::bg3:

[Alan Lillich]

Harshad: BTW, if you decide to replace the foot on the Nikon 200-400, get the one from 4th generation, not Wimberley. The Wimberley is too close to the barrel, even people with tiny hands can't get their fingers in. The 4th Generation is still short, but has enough room for all but the fattest fingers.

[Harshad Barve]

Harshad: BTW, if you decide to replace the foot on the Nikon 200-400, get the one from 4th generation, not Wimberley. The Wimberley is too close to the barrel, even people with tiny hands can't get their fingers in. The 4th Generation is still short, but has enough room for all but the fattest fingers.

Thanks Alan , great point , I don't have fat fingers but neither tiny ones :bg3:

[Tony Whitehead]

Hi Harshad, I have found my 200-400 an excellent lens and would be my first choice for an African safari. With a DX body it covers birds adequately and is easy to travel with. I have not had any focus issues. I have had good results with a 1.4x but it does degrade the bokeh. For birds on Fx I prefer 500+1.4x but find the 200-400 very useful for BIF in circumstances such as a seabird breeding colony when the birds are at a distance but come in close to land.

[Morkel Erasmus]

for mammals, and especially shooting from a safari vehicle, you won't make a mistake Bhai! :bg3:

but what about getting that Canon 200-400 with the built-in 1.4xTC that's due later this year? :w3

[Harshad Barve]

Thanks everyone ,Much appreciated , I got my 2-4 today , used on but in mint condition and at dirt cheap price :eek::t3

[Morkel Erasmus]

big congrats on this Bhai! you're going to love this lens for the big cats! putting it on D300?

[Harshad Barve]

putting it on D300?

Right now Yes Sir :w3

[Harshad Barve]

Thanks everyone , I must say this is tack sharp lens , 1/80 HH image in early morning low light, Meera was about to get into School bus :S3: