Nikon 300/2.8 VR + TC's vs Nikon 200-400

[Jasper Doest]

Hi all,

I'm about to switch from Canon to Nikon. Having photographed with a Canon 300/2.8 with EF14 and EF20II in the past I am used to very good performances of these combinations regarding sharpness.
Now that I have to buy new gear I find myself having difficulties to chose between the Nikon 300/2.8VR with TC14, TC17 and TC20 or to buy the Nikon 200-400. I know the benefit of a zoom lens....but since I'm aiming more towards the 300/2.8 VR I am wondering if any of you has experience with the 300/2.8VR in combination with the extenders. I am really interested to hear your opinion regaring sharpness and AF performance.

Thanks for your help!

[Robert O'Toole]

Hi all,

I'm about to switch from Canon to Nikon. Having photographed with a Canon 300/2.8 with EF14 and EF20II in the past I am used to very good performances of these combinations regarding sharpness.
Now that I have to buy new gear I find myself having difficulties to chose between the Nikon 300/2.8VR with TC14, TC17 and TC20 or to buy the Nikon 200-400. I know the benefit of a zoom lens....but since I'm aiming more towards the 300/2.8 VR I am wondering if any of you has experience with the 300/2.8VR in combination with the extenders. I am really interested to hear your opinion regaring sharpness and AF performance.

Thanks for your help!

Hi Jasper,

For years I looked at the 200-400 VR and dreamt about having one. This november I used my 1DMKIII money to pick one up. Turns out to be one of the best decisions I could have made, thank you Canon! The lens is very sharp and the close focus peformance is amazing. Surprisingly the 2-4 works superbly with the 1.4x and 1.7x converters.

I would never consider buying a 300F2.8 after owning a 200-400 and 300F28 in the past. The 200-400 wins hands down in terms of performance and flexibility. Considering that the 200-400 was my main draw to Nikon after shooting Canon for more than 10 yrs I dont see how anyone could buy into the Nikon system and not buy a 200-400VR.

Robert

[Fabs Forns]

For a wildlife photographer, the ability to zoom in and out without changing converters is priceless!

[Robert O'Toole]

Hi again Jasper,

There is a site out there that specifically compares the 200-400 and 300VR with convertors. Maybe you can google it if interested. Sorry I dont have the link.
Hope some of my info helps.

Robert

[Fabs Forns]

Is this the link?

http://www.hickingbotham.com/reviews/nikon300200400.htm

[Robert O'Toole]

Oh yes, that is the one. thank you Fabs!

Its the older pre-VR 300/2-8 but the results are interesting.

Robert

[Alfred Forns]

It is a mater of pluses and minuses Add it up and the result is clear For my shooting the 200-400 is the way to go !!!!

[James Prudente]

The 200-400 is an excellent choice. Don't bother with the Nikon TC-20Es on it or you will be very disappointed. The 20s, in my experience only perform well with the 200 f2 VR, 300 AF-S f2.8 versions and the 400 f2.8. I tried them on the 70-200 f2.8 VR, 200-400 f4 VR, 500 f4, and 600 f4 and found that image quality left a lot to be desired. The 200-400 with the TC-14Es will produce excellent images and have little to no effect on AF. The TC-17E is very good but will slow AF in any low light condition.

Jim

[Art Peslak]

I am in the middle of switching to Nikon as well. I have the 200-400. I used the Canon 300 2.8 handheld without converters to shoot purple martins in flight. Has anyone shot the 200-400 handheld for flight shots of these fast moving little birds? If so, what has been your experience. The martins don't return to NJ for another 6 to 8 weeks so I can't test the 200-400 yet myself.

[Alfred Forns]

Hi Art !!! Have not tried it but should be fine Just how long can you hand hold the lens Its just a pound more than the 300 2.8 but I does take a toll after a while Particularly with Martins Heavy action

.... btw will be trying the 600 tomorrow !!!!

[Gyorgy Szimuly]

Jas, as I am also on the same phase I am pretty sure to choose 200-400. I clearly remember on my pelagic trip in Chile how good and useful it was to use a zoom lens while photographing fast moving albatrosses and other seabirds. So from my side 200-400 is a real winner.
Good luck with the switch. I will follow you soon. :)
Szimi

[Juan Aragonés]

Hi Jasper and wellcome on board. As a Nikon shooter is a difficult decision for me to choose between both lenses. I am really happy with my 300VR since this is the sharpest telephoto lens I have ever tried (I think is only surpassed by the 200VR f2). The AF speed is fantastic and is a very handholdable lens. The performance with the 1,4XTC is excellent. The differences between the bare lens and the lens matched with the 1,4X are almost unnoticeable in terms of image quality and AF performance. With that combo you can shoot wide open at f4 with a terrific result (you do not need to stop down the lens to get better results). On a D series body the combo is very well balanced and handholdable. In fact, I handhold it about 90 % of time with very nice results. The optical quality of the 300VR plus 1,7X TC is not as good as with the 1,4XTC but very, very good. In this case the sweet spot of the combo is one or two stops down. The first time I used the 2XTC I was everything but happy with its performance but now I am very satisfied with that TC. Under good light conditions, mounted on a tripod and at f8 the results are really good (at least on static subjects and slow fliying birds. see my latest flamingo posts in BPN). Obviously, the AF speed is reduced noticeably compared to the bare lens and this is the reason why I do not use this combo for flights and, of course, another reason is that if you have to shot at f8 you need a high ISO for a decent shutter speed and I am not happy with my D2X performance over 400 ISO. As far as I know, the 2XTC only works fine with the 300 2,8 (I think that you will miss the good performance of Canon 2XTC with long telephoto lenses).
I miss a lot the zooming ability and that is a serious advantage for the 200-400 f4 over the 300VR !!!!! The 200-400+1,4XTC is a combo with excellent IQ and AF performance. The differences in handholdability between the 300Vr and the200-400 are very slight since both lenses are heavy but handholdables. I can send to you a series of photographs using the 300 plus1,4X, 1,7X and 2X TCs on the same subject. I think that is not appropriate to upload here due to the size but the photograph are available on request for anyone here, of course... do not expect an interesting bird subject... just the plate of a car :-)
The 200-400 is one of the Nikon´s Crown Jewels and a fantastic lens for wildlife. I have two friends using that lens (with a D2X and a D300) and both are really happy with the performance with both bodies. I think that the low light advantages of the D3 and D300 open new ways to think about photography. I can´t wait to test the performance of the 300VR+2XTC with a D300 (or maybe a D3X....) using a high ISO to get enough shutter speed at f8 for birds in flight. I am pretty sure that the performance of 2XTC with a D3/D300 is much better than with a D2X.
I choose the 300Vr because of the price and due to the one stop advantage. If I have to take a decision right now I ma not sure what glass I would purchase.
Hope this helps
Juan

[Gyorgy Szimuly]

[SIZE=3]If I have to take a decision right now I ma not sure what glass I would purchase.

It seems better to buy both :D:D
Very nice summary. Thanks for it.
Szimi

[Juan Aragonés]

Szimi I agree!!! is much better to have both... but you should need a couple of friends to help you with such amount of weight :-D

I almost forget to say that the bokeh in the 300VR is second to none (oh, well, the one of the 200F2 is better...), sweet, creamy and really nice. The quality of the bokeh is very nice with the 1,4XTC but I can say nothing about the 2XTC. I will check the 2XTC performance in terms of bokeh quality next time I am shooting with that combo.

[Gyorgy Szimuly]

Do you think I need a sherpa? Look at my detail and the figures:D
height: 77,95 inch
weight: 130 kg
:D:D

Szimi

[Alfred Forns]

Juan appreciate your comments !!!!

I bought the 200-400 VR and is replacing my 500 f 4.0 Do have a 600 VR btw I have not tried the 2 on this lens but will Wednesday

Have a question regarding the 2X converter It basically degrades the image by multiplying faults in the optics I think the 600 VR is strong enough (image quality wise) than it will be a good performer Will see Wednesday

On the Canon side I used the 2.0 routinely Could that had something to do with Canons having IS and not Nikon? I know that previous Nikon bodies did not have the option for raising the ISO leading to slow shutter speed ... having no VR .. could explain the lack of quality

Will post results on Wednesday !!!!

...... Szimi good luck on your sherpa endeavor !!!!!

[Juan Aragonés]

Good point Szimy, I am sure that you can handheld both the 300VR in one hand and the 200-400VR in the other in order to compare the performance of both lenses, face to face :D
By the way, I am bird artist too, watercolours mainly, so I would love to see some of your artwork.

Al, I can´t wait to hear your comments about the performance of the 2XTC on the big guns. I have not tried a D3/D300 on the field yet but I am sure that the higher ISO performance of such bodies would have a positive impact on the performance of teleconverters (maybe next month I will be testing D300 with 300VR and TCs). Glass on Nikon long lenses is very good and I think that poor performance of the 2XTC with the 500 f4 and 600 f4 could be improved in the new versions because the new optic design, VR adition and new bodies. Your anhinga portrait with the 1,7X matched to the 600 is really excelent and I would love to see the perforrmance of the 2XTC with the 600VR (1200 mm at f8 and excelent 1600 ISO .... that is a fantastic set up!)

I am sure that the 300VR+2XTC will perform better than now when matched to a D300/D3.

[Alfred Forns]

Will post one Wednesday Juan !!!!! Vale !!!

[Gyorgy Szimuly]

What do you think, gurus, about a possible upgrade of 200-400 using the famous Nano Crystal Coating technology as used in other NIKKOR prime lenses? The 200-400 was released in 2004 so an upgrade would maybe timely. On the other hand why to touch a lens which is one of the most successful product of NIKON line up.

Szimi

[Fabs Forns]

What do you think, gurus, about a possible upgrade of 200-400 using the famous Nano Crystal Coating technology as used in other NIKKOR prime lenses? The 200-400 was released in 2004 so an upgrade would maybe timely. On the other hand why to touch a lens which is one of the most successful product of NIKON line up.

Szimi

If it ain't broke, don't fix it...

Wish they had not fixed the AF in the Mark II...

[Robert O'Toole]

Wish they had not fixed the AF in the Mark II...

:) Well think about it Fabs, if they didnt "fix" the III, we wouldnt have our 200-400s and D300/D3s.:)

Thanks Canon!!!! I have never been happier.

Sorry for going off the OP subject.

Robert

[Alfred Forns]

..... but appropriate Robert !!!! :D :)

[Juan Aragonés]

What do you think, gurus, about a possible upgrade of 200-400 using the famous Nano Crystal Coating technology as used in other NIKKOR prime lenses? The 200-400 was released in 2004 so an upgrade would maybe timely. On the other hand why to touch a lens which is one of the most successful product of NIKON line up.

Szimi

Szmi, in my opinion there is no reason to upgrade the 200-400 f4: the performance of the lens is fantastic, it sells very, very well in its class (in fact, always seems to be in short supply), it doesn´t have competition in its focal range, there is a high demand on this lens (now this demand is increasing due to many photographers switching to Nikon) so why should Nikon think about upgrading this glass? It would be nice to see a version with improvements but I think that there are other lenses in the Nikon lineup that needs a serious upgrade (i.e. AF 80-400VR)

[Gyorgy Szimuly]

I hope I will get one soon :) Cannot wait to have my first two new lenses from Nikon to be able to enter the world of landscape and BIF photography as well :)

Szimi

[Paul Lagasi]

Hi Jasper

I am also new here...I recently bought a used 200-400 vr, I sold my 80-400 vr and bought a new D300 (I previously used a D70) and a tc14e-2. I've only owned it for a month so experience is limited. My shots are all hand held without the teleconverter, its bit heavy but the sharpness and speed are incredible. There is about a 1 pound difference between the two lenses, 200-400 being heavier.
As to the teleconverter, I tried both the 17 and 20 and didn't buy both, I stuck with the 14 but you need a solid rest, which gives me the magic 500 mm, and maintains autofocus which I needed for some action shots, with a minimum of softness.
The lens is awesome, if I had deeper pockets I would buy the 70-200 2.8 and the 200-400 F4 but for now thats all I can afford.

Hope this helps Paul Lagasi

[Michael Rogers]

Hi Jasper
I have the 300 2.8 VR and its my favorite lens. Before I bought it I was asking the same question as you. My good friend has a 200-400 and he was trying to talk me in to getting one after I expressed interest in the 300 VR. I was using the 300 F4 AFS for flight shots with sucess, however when it came to shooting a static subject I found myself not able to hand hold the 300f4 steady enough on a D2X body. I thought VR would solve that problem. I prefer handholding for fast action flight shots therefore being able to handhold the lens was a strong concideration. My friend let me use his 200-400 and I found that although you can handhold a 200-400 for short periods its not comfortable. Also my keeper rate was near zero. This convinced me to get the 300VR. (I also have a 500 f4). I can handhold the 300 VR for much longer periods of time and my keeper rate is very high. AF is very very fast and IQ is the best. Now with the D3 its even better because I routinely use ISO 1600 and my shutter speeds are way up in early and late light. I go to nearby Bolsa Chica wetlands and walk 3-4 miles carrying the 500 on a Gitzo 1548 with leveling base. Let me tell you I switch shoulders every 100 yards or so. Since I don't need the 1548 for the 300VR I bought a Gitzo 3540 LS. I routinely use a 1.7 TC on the 300 VR with great results. I have a 2.0 TCE but I never liked it on the 500 or even on the 70-200 VR. One day I tried the 2.0 TCE on the 300 VR and I was pleasantly surprised how well it performed. I have some excellant images with this combination. I know a lot of people are trying to encourage you to get the 200-400, but how many of them have tried the 300VR? Ideally you could rent both and decide, unfortunately I don't know of any places the even rent out either of these 2 lenses. Hope this helps
Michael Rogers.

[Robert O'Toole]

Hi Jasper
My friend let me use his 200-400 and I found that although you can handhold a 200-400 for short periods its not comfortable. Also my keeper rate was near zero. This convinced me to get the 300VR.

Hi Michael, something seems strange with your statement above. I think you there must have been something way wrong with your friends AF settings. Every person that I know that owns the 2-4 is able to make an awful lot of sharp handheld images. I can nail a bird in flight handheld with just the shoulder and head in the frame and they are sharp no problem.

One day I tried the 2.0 TCE on the 300 VR and I was pleasantly surprised how well it performed. I have some excellant images with this combination. I know a lot of people are trying to encourage you to get the 200-400, but how many of them have tried the 300VR?

I know a few people that have bought the 300F2.8 and used it with good results but once the honeymoon is over they stop using it for some reason and go back to something else. Not everyone I know just all I can think of. I had the same experience with Canon's 300F2.8. Had it, used it, sold it.

I do agree that a rental is the best way to see for yourself. The only important thing really is how the lens performs in your hands.

Robert

[Jan Wegener]

HI Jasper,

Will it still be your only long lens ?
If yes, I would consider the 300, because you have more reach. If you consider to get also a longer one, I would choose the 200-400 in a hearbeat.
However, I am one of the guys who never liked the 2.8/300 IS and I finally sold mine a few month ago. It was just not my lens....normally too short and with TCs to slow....

The 200-400 VR is the lens, why I would consider a switch to Nikon, as I find it the ideal lens together with a 600. :)

Would I be allowed to chose only one lens, I would buy a 500

[Robert Amoruso]

My vote for the 200-400 VR,

[Nathan Lovas]

I just bought a 200-400 and love it. The ability to change focal lengths quickly while shooting wildlife is wonderful.

[Don Kates]

I owned the 200-400 for a while and couldn't get rid of it fast enough. Had very inconsistent results, softness. With a TC - forget it. Three months after buying it one of the elements came loose and was rolling around inside the lens. After a month at a Nikon repair facility (expedited NPS service) it was consistently soft. Two more trips back to the repair facility (and several months) saw little improvement. Needless to say I was very disappointed with the lens, not to mention Nikon's service. Guess I had a bad copy.

[rpontius]

I was in the same quandary last fall and finally went with the 300VR. My reasoning was that there would be times when I wanted the extra stop and also I expected the fixed focal length to work better with converters. So far I have used it quite a bit with the 1.7X for both static and flight shots. With the wisdom of hindsight I think I made the right choice but that 200-400 still looks awfully good.
RP

[Steve Ashton]

What great timing of this poll. I am considering a move to Nikon and today rented a D300 with the 200-400. Tomorrow I will be testing the D3. This lens in fantastic just a dream. I am amazed by the feel and performance of the D300 and the test results are great.

I spend about 1 hour with a side by side test of the 300mm and whilst a great lens for me the zoom wins hands down. I will be looking to add a 600mm to the kit if I do go Nikon and this pushes me to the zoom. If only one long lens then it would be a 300 I think.

Looks like today is going to be expensive!!

[Bill McCrystyn]

Is my math right? A D300 1.5x with a 200-400VR + 1.7TC = 1020mm. Oops, no AF with the 1.7. @#*^# *@

[Steve Ashton]

Bill I get it to 682.55mm But my maths was never good !!! All I can say is the Af on the D300 works just fine with the 200-400 and 1.4x I have not tried the 1.7x

[Gyorgy Szimuly]

Is my math right? A D300 1.5x with a 200-400VR + 1.7TC = 1020mm. Oops, no AF with the 1.7. @#*^# *@

At 400mm the math is correct however doesn't looks to be the perfect setup :)
Szimi

[Robert O'Toole]

Is my math right? A D300 1.5x with a 200-400VR + 1.7TC = 1020mm. Oops, no AF with the 1.7. @#*^# *@

D300 1.5x with a 200-400VR + 1.7X works great and will AF all day long, slightly slower than straight or with a 1.4X of course.

Robert

[John Wilkerson]

I am currently using the 200-400 VR with my D200 and a 1.7 converter. So far so good. The photo I posted yesterday was made with it. Its hand held with no VR, forgot it was turned off:eek:.
It takes a bit getting used to as far as holding it but it's not too bad. Obviously tripod is best. I had first considered the sigmonster but didnt have the funds to hire someone to carry it around for me.

[Bill McCrystyn]

UH O - B & H sezzzzzzzzz it won't. Do we have an error Houston?

Usable Nikon Teleconverter

TC-20E II & TC-17E II (manual focus only), TC-14E II (with full Autofocus) this is posted at the bottom of the 200-400VR spec tab.

[Robert O'Toole]

UH O - B & H sezzzzzzzzz it won't. Do we have an error Houston?

Usable Nikon Teleconverter

TC-20E II & TC-17E II (manual focus only), TC-14E II (with full Autofocus) this is posted at the bottom of the 200-400VR spec tab.

This is common with all the manufacturers. They dont recommend it, but this doesnt mean its doesnt work great. I used my 2X and 1.4X stacked for AF with birds in flight with my Canon 1D and 1DS series with my 600F4 for years and years even though Canon said it wasnt possible. The 200-400 and 1.7x is the same case.

Robert

[Bill McCrystyn]

I have notified B&H of their error. It will be very interesting to see their response. If this is the case, this would appear to be the perfect set up for me and my finances. Thanks Robert & John you just saved me an expensive misstep.

[Bill McCrystyn]

OK, it seems there are a lot of big Canon and big Nikon lens and opinions around here enough to choke a pelican. How about a shoot out. Can BPN pull it off - DOES IT DARE?. Alot of people here wanna know. Are we going to rely on other websites and reviews to give us information?

[Alfred Forns]

It does Bill If you look it also says the 2X does not Af withe the 600 VR Used the the other day

Next Friday will have my 2X and try with 200-400 to confirm !!

[Robert O'Toole]

OK, it seems there are a lot of big Canon and big Nikon lens and opinions around here enough to choke a pelican. How about a shoot out. Can BPN pull it off - DOES IT DARE?. Alot of people here wanna know. Are we going to rely on other websites and reviews to give us information?

We will always do our best.

BH isnt really to blame they just reproduce the info that Nikon provides. Dont forget in past years both Nikon and Canon told you to take your camera to wait 2 weeks for a sensor cleaning as they didnt recommend that you clean your own.

Robert

[Bill McCrystyn]

Good point Robert. No, I just thought you guys, since you have all the lens and all the cameras, could do a shoot out between the two differant systems for all of us still up in the air about what to buy at differant price points.

[Robert O'Toole]

Good point Robert. No, I just thought you guys, since you have all the lens and all the cameras, could do a shoot out between the two differant systems for all of us still up in the air about what to buy at differant price points.

Yes true, between Alfred and I we have owned and/or used practically everything out there with C or N. The both of us dont mind sharing any info. It helps that I have been shooting professionally for years and make my living from it so I look at a camera as just a tool and dont have any loyalties, emotional, contractual or otherwise to any camera brand.

Robert

[Bill McCrystyn]

The concensus I see here seems to say the "sweet spot" for the price is the 12MP D300 with the 300/2.8 or the 200-400VR depending on how fat your wallet is. Nikon, at least for the moment has seemed to eclipse Canon at this very popular price point to pro entry gear.

A D300 with 200-400VR & 1.7X = EFL / 510mm-1020mm all full AF. Sweet indeed.

How would you figure the stop, f/6.7 ?? This combined with auto ISO at high sensitivity/low noise is powerful stuff.

[Alfred Forns]

Ian the 1.7X converter with a f 4.0 lens will give that opening You loose 1 and 2/3 stops of light !!!

[Andrew George]

I own the 200-400 and I am very pleased with it. With a 300/2.8 the TC's work better I think. I often use the TC1,4 on the 200-400 depending on the avaible light it's very usefull. I never use the TC1,7 on it..you lose too many sharpness and AF respons, you keep AF on it!
The zoom comes in very handy, it makes the lens very versatile in use and you often get those unclipped shots you are hoping for. The minimal focus distance is also very appealing with only 2,5m...you won't miss out many changes.

I think the 300/2.8 probably would be very usefull with both the 1,4 and 1,7 TC's, but you have to change while shooting and
this could be a problem. I use both 1,4 and 1,7 on the 70-200/2.8 without any problem and too many loss of sharpness, but
also here I wouldn't use the 1,7 too often..a bit slow and softer.

I guess I would rather go for using lenses WITHOUT using converters...you will have the maximum speed and image quality without it. I am beginning to use the 200-400 almost everytime without the 1,4. You still lose 100mm by using the 300 on it's own.

Good luck, and I am surprised you change to Nikon? But hey I love my Nikon stuff and wouldn't change at the moment.

[Jasper Doest]

Thanx all....

I just ordered the D3, D300, 14-24, 24-70, 70-200 & 300/2.8VR....I also will be using a 500/4.0....If I don't like the 300/2.8, 500/4.0 combo I'll sell one of them and buy the 200-400....we'll see....I'll start testing next week.

Thanks for all the suggestions!