Nikon 200-400 F4

FM Forum Rules
Nikon SLRs, primes, and zooms lenses reviews

FM Forums \| Nikon-mount SLRs \| Join Upload & Sell	Search Used
1 2 3 end

Archive 2010 · Nikon 200-400 F4

DiggerMt
Offline
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #1 · Nikon 200-400 F4

I am looking at this lens and want to see what you think of it. Is any one using it?
Al

Feb 08, 2010 at 02:30 AM

Rags Hef
Offline
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #2 · Nikon 200-400 F4

Great lens for long daylight shots.

Not fast enough for a lot of low light activities

Too heavy for a lot of trekking (that's why I sold mine + indoor shortcomings)

Rags

Feb 08, 2010 at 02:53 AM

scott f
Offline
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #3 · Nikon 200-400 F4

Love the lens. It's a bit short for birds though, but is a great mammal lens. It's lot heavier than you might think. The 1.4x works well with it. A friend of mine gets great results with the 1.7x as well, although AF is dog slow with that TC.

Feb 08, 2010 at 03:18 AM

ozhop
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #4 · Nikon 200-400 F4

I like mine. I have not used it much as I have not had it long although it seems very responsive and is sharp. I used it on birds that were not that far away with a D700. Very happy with the results. I mainly bought it though for an African Safari I will take in a couple of months. I expect it to excel there.

Feb 08, 2010 at 04:54 AM

fpimentel
Offline
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #5 · Nikon 200-400 F4

DiggerMt wrote:
I am looking at this lens and want to see what you think of it. Is any one using it?
Al

I bought this lens two weeks ago and it is superb. It is not that heavy (about 7 pounds) and you can use it with a strong monopod. I was planning to go to NJ (to the shore) this weekend to shot waterfowl but we had a bad winter storm and the roads are still with a lot of snow.

I have used it without problems (AFS works) with the TC 1.4x. I have not tried it yet with the TC 1.7x.

The IQ of the 200-400mm VR is excellent, as good as the one you get with a AFS 400mm f/2.8.

Rags Hef said that the lens is "too heavy for a lot of trekking". That depends of how much weight you can carry around (and for how long). The other day I spent several hours walking in Central Park with the lens mounted on a monopod (with a D300 attached) and it was not that terrible.

You other options are heavier Nikon long lenses (400mm f/2.8, 500mm f/4, 600mm f/4).

Feb 08, 2010 at 05:24 AM

Alan321
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #6 · Nikon 200-400 F4

Optically, the only "problem" I've had with the 200-400 lens is the light fall-off. It is easily fixed in post processing or by using the D700 de-vignette control, but you ought to know that it's there. I have yet to find software that can automatically fix the light falloff. Canon software can do it for Canon lenses but the Nikon software cannot do it.

Other than that I find the weight to be a significant factor. Don't get me wrong, I've got other heavy lenses too and there are ways to cope, but what makes it seem worse with the 200-400 is that the zoom range makes it more versatile than many lenses but that conflicts with the weight being less convenient. There is certainly a weight penalty for having f/4 instead of f/5.6.

Another factor is the size of the lens, again due to its larger aperture but also due to its limited zoom range. It does not shrink down like say a Canon 100-400 does at the 100mm end of its range. It's always big and it tends to fill any bag. On that topic, it's own bag can hold the lens with a bare D700 fitted but I don't think it will hold the MB-D10 battery pack/grip as well.

Now you might think I'm only complaining about this lens but that is not so; I'm just pointing out a few negatives for your consideration. Overall I think it is a great lens. You just need to evaluate why you want it and make sure it is the best option because it is rather expensive to not quite fit the bill. e.g. if you are doing field sports then you might prefer an f/2.8 lens. If you are doing bird photography then you might prefer a 500mm or 600mm. If you want but cannot afford multiple super tele lenses and need a great compromise or just want an excellent f/4 long zoom lens then this is the one to get.

Don't forget to budget for the rather expensive drop-in CPL filter. You can't use filters on the front of the lens but the CPL can be very handy. Luckily, the D700/D3/D3s family does quite well at high ISO and copes with the lens and the CPL filter.

- Alan

Feb 08, 2010 at 01:07 PM

Steve Perry
Online
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #7 · Nikon 200-400 F4

It's a good lens. I don't think it's quite as sharp as my 300 2.8 or my 500 f4, but it's surprisingly close. I personally don't like it with a TC that much, but I think I'm alone on that one.

Where it really shines is when you need a super-sharp long zoom. I use this ALL the time in Yellowstone (and other NPs). It sits on the seat next to me and it's responsible for a LOT of shots that would have been missed if not for the zoom. Now, if you think you'll be racked out @ 400mm all the time, then maybe a 500 F4 would be a better choice.

Feb 08, 2010 at 03:41 PM

HerbChong
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #8 · Nikon 200-400 F4

if you are using Capture NX and shooting RAW then i don't know a way to disable the automatic vignetting control. the in-camera control works on JPGs. in RAW, the RAW converter has to do it from the lens information in the EXIF. it can be set to zero after the fact but i don't think it can be disabled.

Herb...

Alan321 wrote:
Optically, the only "problem" I've had with the 200-400 lens is the light fall-off. It is easily fixed in post processing or by using the D700 de-vignette control, but you ought to know that it's there. I have yet to find software that can automatically fix the light falloff. Canon software can do it for Canon lenses but the Nikon software cannot do it.

Feb 08, 2010 at 03:59 PM

HerbChong
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #9 · Nikon 200-400 F4

i hand hold my 200-400 virtually all the time. if i am going to take the trouble to bring my Gitzo 5 series and Wimberley, it's with the 600/4 on it. i don't find i shoot in many situations where a monopod is worth using. if i need the support, i would rather bring a full tripod setup.

Herb...

fpimentel wrote:
I bought this lens two weeks ago and it is superb. It is not that heavy (about 7 pounds) and you can use it with a strong monopod. I was planning to go to NJ (to the shore) this weekend to shot waterfowl but we had a bad winter storm and the roads are still with a lot of snow.

Feb 08, 2010 at 04:03 PM

bjacks25
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #10 · Nikon 200-400 F4

I'm all little surprised to hear some of these results. If I had a 200-400, 400 2.8, and a 500 f4 on a table, I'd grab the 200-400 just about every time. 400 2.8 is a little sharper for those pixel peepers but I can't really tell the difference, and with the D700 and D3s you don't need 2.8 unless your wanting the Bokeh. Also I saw someone compare it to a Canon 100-400. If you want something like the Canon 100-400, Nikon makes the 80-400 which is a pretty good comparison. I've used all these lenses and the 200-400 is by far my best investment in a long lens ever.

Brian

Feb 08, 2010 at 05:17 PM

Tazman
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #11 · Nikon 200-400 F4

I think i would go with the 500mm f4, better for birds and wildlife.

Feb 09, 2010 at 05:24 AM

Rodolfo Paiz
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #12 · Nikon 200-400 F4

The 200-400 is probably my most loved Nikon lens, with the 70-200 close behind. The 200-400 has been to Africa with me and to all sorts of other activities... it is a joy to use and a jewel of a lens.

1. The 200-400 weighs 7.2 pounds, comparable to the 200/2 at six-ish, the 300/2.8 at 6.3, and the 400/2.8 is around 11 pounds. The 200-400 will give you the choice of 200/300/400 while giving up only 1 stop of light to the respective primes, and also give you every FL in between with no lens switching. And you carry only 7 pounds instead of 23 pounds.

2. The image quality is as good as anything ever needs to be in the real world. You can pixel-peep it if you like and the primes are better... but any publication on Earth will publish a 200-400 shot and call it indistinguishable from a prime. Go check out the photos of recent major sporting events -- baseball, football, Olympics, and others -- and you'll find plenty of 200-400 lenses in use by the pros.

3. The 200/300/400 primes cost nearly $19,000 total. The 200-400 costs $6,000.

4. I've handheld a 200-400 for at least 60,000 to 80,000 shots, and throughout week-long aviation events where I was shooting off-and-on for about 8 hours a day. Is it heavier than a 70-200? Hell yes! Is it handholdable, or trekkable, or whatever? Also hell yes, if you want that kind of image quality.

5. The single stop of light you lose to the 200/300/400 primes can be regained for less than the price of just one of those primes by buying a D3s. The image quality will not suffer unless you're really pushing the limits.

Here's a link to some of my aviation images. There've been lots of other threads with images from this lens, including one about 400mm images in general.

Unless you truly need lots of additional reach (see 500+TC's or 600+TC's) or unless you truly need the additional one stop of light (see primes, but also see D3s), then the 200-400 is the best single investment Nikon offers you in long glass. Yes, there are certainly lots of valid reasons why someone will need or prefer the primes... but there are also huge and power reasons to prefer the only top-shelf long zoom on the market.

In case you haven't noticed, I'm very very fond of this lens...

Feb 09, 2010 at 05:54 AM

troylim
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #13 · Nikon 200-400 F4

I bought this lens first, and then 500mm f/4. I wish the places I shoot at that I can just use 200-400 all the time, but putting on a TC is not my preference.
Here is a shot taken with this lens.

This image is copyrighted by the owner

Feb 09, 2010 at 12:33 PM

Tazman
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #14 · Nikon 200-400 F4

Rodolfo Paiz

you have great shots of aviation which are large and does not require as long a lens, we would like to see some birds that you have shot with that lens.

Feb 09, 2010 at 03:07 PM

Rodolfo Paiz
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #15 · Nikon 200-400 F4

Thank you! I don't do a whole lot of wildlife and birds, although I love it and wish I could do more of it. The 200-400 is definitely not what I see many birders using for the smaller birds... those guys are often putting a 2x onto a 600!

Still, it can definitely do the job beautifully if you can get closer, and again the zoom and the lighter weight are priceless because it is possible to handhold (even if not comfortable for everyone) like the 500/4. This is critical for birds in flight, because the 600 is a beast. As an aside, the one prime I truly dream of is Nikon making a new AF-S 800/5.6 VR2 to compete with Canon's new offering.

This kingfisher was hovering above the Zambezi (?) river just upstream from Victoria Falls. Easy to track until he saw a fish... then he was gone. Wide open and fully zoomed-out. D200, 200-400/4 + 1.4x TC @ 550mm. 1/500 f/5.6 iso 100.

This image is copyrighted by the owner

The next few images are all from the same outing to Everglades National Park, carrying only the D3s with the 200-400 and 1.4x. Saw a Canon shooter carrying a 300/2.8 on his shoulder, and a 600/4 on a tripod and Wimberley... really felt sorry for the poor man, with one stop more light and 50mm more reach than I did but with 24 pounds and $25,000 on his back compared to my 9 pounds and $11,000.

A nice portrait at 300mm... D3s, 200-400/4 + 1.4x TC @ 300mm. 1/1000 f/5.6 iso 250.

This image is copyrighted by the owner

OK, he's not a bird. But I'm sure he must have eaten a bird at some point, so it counts right? Besides, he looked cool. D3s, 200-400/4 + 1.4x TC @ 450mm. 1/100 f/5.6 iso 800.

This image is copyrighted by the owner

Tough capture, very backlit and moving fast. Not a great capture, since I had to do some serious recovery on both the highlights and shadows. D3s, 200-400/4 + 1.4x TC @ 320mm. 1/1000 f/11 iso 560. Cannot fathom why I wasn't set for f/7.1 and iso 200.

This image is copyrighted by the owner

I don't think he liked me taking his picture, because he wheeled around and decided to take a good look. But he wasn't going to come too close, so here he is at 550mm. D3s, 200-400/4 + 1.4x TC @ 550mm. 1/1000 f/11 iso 800.

This image is copyrighted by the owner

I have a few more birds, but I'm not at home and these are the ones I've uploaded to FM before. Hopefully they're useful for what you wanted to see...?

Feb 09, 2010 at 04:29 PM

leewoolery
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #16 · Nikon 200-400 F4

DiggerMt wrote:
I am looking at this lens and want to see what you think of it. Is any one using it?
Al

Great lens...

I've used it for outdoor rodeos, horse shows, daytime and nightime football and American Legion baseball with and without the 1.4 Nikon teleconverter on a D3 and D700 with tremendous success.

Also...I recently shot ice hockey with the 200-400 and a D3s and couldn't believe how fast it focused. Images were razor sharp at ISO's of 6400-12,800.

I look forward to using the lens for figure skating competitions this summer as well as a full season of youth baseball, soccer, rodeos and equine events.

The 300 and 400 f/2.8 lenses have nicer background blur but they don't zoom.

I think the improved high ISO and AF performance of the D3s will make the 200-400 a much more popular lens than ever for sports shooters...daylight and under the lights...indoors and out.

Much success,

Lee Woolery
Speedshot Photo

Feb 09, 2010 at 05:34 PM

gugs
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #17 · Nikon 200-400 F4

The 200-400VR is among my favorite lenses. I tested it against the 300 2.8 and 200 2.0 with TCs and I went for the 200-400VR for the flexibility of the zoom.

see my mini-review and examples:
http://www.techniphoto.com/wiki/index.php?title=200-400mm_AF-S_VR_Nikkor
http://www.techniphoto.com/wiki/index.php?title=200-400VR_in_Qu%C3%A9bec

and a picture I have already posted in another thread:
200-400VR + 1.7TC , 340-650mm 6.3...
IQ is there, AF tracking is still working reasonably

Guy

Feb 09, 2010 at 07:53 PM

Rodolfo Paiz
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #18 · Nikon 200-400 F4

Hey Guy, what was that thread were we were comparing the 200-400/4 to the 400/2.8? I wanted to point it out to the OP in this thread, but can't remember where I left it.

Feb 09, 2010 at 08:01 PM

ISO1600
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #19 · Nikon 200-400 F4

i think the general consensus is that if you can handle the size, price, and F4 maximum aperture (shooting mostly in the day), then it is unmatched.

Feb 09, 2010 at 08:32 PM

ScottSchupbach
Offline
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #20 · Nikon 200-400 F4

The 200-400/4 is a very nice lens.I sold a 400/2.8 AFS ll and replaced it with the 200-400.To my eye I could see no diffeence in the sharpness between them. I was using it last month for some bird photos, I was shooting from a blind so the focal length was perfect.

2012 © ScottSchupbach

NIKON D300 400 mm f/8.0 1/640 sec 200 ISO -1.0 EV

Feb 09, 2010 at 11:20 PM

SSISteve
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #21 · Nikon 200-400 F4

Scott - Those are some great bird shots. Fantastic light and nicely done.

Steve

Feb 10, 2010 at 12:05 AM

Rodolfo Paiz
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #22 · Nikon 200-400 F4

You know, we never heard back from the OP after his first post on this thread... wonder where he went?

Feb 10, 2010 at 05:45 AM

Alan321
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #23 · Nikon 200-400 F4

Nikon 'expert' Thom Hogan considers the 200-400 to be a mixed bag but is unclear as to why, except to say that it may be a bit softer than he expected at longer shooting distances. A year later he still has not published a review of the lens and unfortunately the other test sites rarely get their hands on the expensive lenses like this one. Fortunately, I'm happy with mine.

- Alan

Feb 10, 2010 at 01:18 PM

Gary Irwin
Offline
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #24 · Nikon 200-400 F4

Alan321 wrote:
Nikon 'expert' Thom Hogan considers the 200-400 to be a mixed bag but is unclear as to why, except to say that it may be a bit softer than he expected at longer shooting distances. A year later he still has not published a review of the lens and unfortunately the other test sites rarely get their hands on the expensive lenses like this one. Fortunately, I'm happy with mine.

- Alan

I've been following Thom's comments on this lens for some time and although he has yet to publish his review, all the hints he's dropped matches my experience with this lens; it's as sharp as any prime at short-to-mid range, but softens at longer ranges (i.e. infinity focus). And although the 200-400VR can be used with a TC14EII I find the IQ suffers too much, especially at mid-to-long distances. The strength of the 2-4 is the ability to zoom and close focus (which I really like myself). Still, I never got the impression Thom was really enamoured with this lens and was rather suprised to see that he has one in his bag.

Several times I've considered trading my 200-400VR for the 300/2.8 but I just don't want to give up the versatility. I'd really like the extra speed of the f2.8 for BIF but figure more capable bodies should make up for the lack of speed in the future (using higher ISO).

The only thing is I wonder if Nikon has plans to update the 200-400VR with VRII/Nano and fix the softness at distance -- somewhat like they did with the 300VRII.

FWIW, here's a few of my examples taken with the D300+200-400VR all hand held...
(I'm only going to provide links because the FM resizing engine hammers sharpness)

http://www.pbase.com/garyirwin/image/118593556

http://www.pbase.com/garyirwin/image/106024078

http://www.pbase.com/garyirwin/image/114978012

Feb 10, 2010 at 02:02 PM

DiggerMt
Offline
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #25 · Nikon 200-400 F4

Lots of feedback and great photos

Edited on Feb 10, 2010 at 03:49 PM · View previous versions

Feb 10, 2010 at 03:14 PM


FM Forums \| Nikon-mount SLRs \| Join Upload & Sell 1 2 3 end