Home · Register · Join Upload & Sell

Moderated by: Fred Miranda
Username  

  New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site
  New Feature: SMS Notification alert
  New Feature: Buy & Sell Watchlist
  

FM Forums | Nikon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

1
       2       end
  

Archive 2013 · Would you? 400MM F2.8 to 200-400 F4 VR

  
 
Matt OHarver
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #1 · p.1 #1 · Would you? 400MM F2.8 to 200-400 F4 VR


I'm considering dropping some weight this year. I currently have a 400MM F2.8 AFS II that I love for isolation, takes the teleconverters well and does just want I want, except zoom. I have considered going to a lighter(for medical reasons) 400 MM lens at the expense of a stop of light, but with the gain of zoom capability.

My lens should fetch close to $5k on the used market in it's condition including the Nikon Trunk. And currently I can pick up a 200-400 VRI for less than $4k. But will I miss that stop of lens? At least until next Football season? And then with the versatility and the High ISO capability of my D4 will I miss it then?


So would you?


Matt



Dec 27, 2013 at 11:56 PM
Matt OHarver
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #2 · p.1 #2 · Would you? 400MM F2.8 to 200-400 F4 VR


BTW for the winter sports I typically use my 400 for down court shots, but because of weight issues, I picked up a 200MM F2 and am using it and a 1.4 TC for those shots.

Matt



Dec 28, 2013 at 12:03 AM
Kyyo24
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #3 · p.1 #3 · Would you? 400MM F2.8 to 200-400 F4 VR


With the high iso capabilities of the D4, I don't think you'd miss that one stop


Dec 28, 2013 at 12:04 AM
4mpx
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #4 · p.1 #4 · Would you? 400MM F2.8 to 200-400 F4 VR


Yep, for low light shooting the combo D4+200-400/4 works really well :


D4, 200-400/4 VRI, 1/320", f/5.6, @400mm, 18 000 ISO, hand held.
http://img835.imageshack.us/img835/1128/8qil.jpg



Dec 28, 2013 at 01:23 AM
cebseb
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #5 · p.1 #5 · Would you? 400MM F2.8 to 200-400 F4 VR


I had both and shoot similar subject matter as well (Rugby). I found the two very complimentary. I kept the 400mm on a tripod with the D4 and the 200-400 with D3s handheld. If I had to choose, I would keep the 400mm. The 200-400mm was great, but the image quality degrades substantially for times when I'm shooting at targets greater than 50 meters away.

Would you consider a d7100 plus 70-200 f4 to compliment the D4+400mm combo?



Dec 28, 2013 at 02:11 AM
4mpx
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #6 · p.1 #6 · Would you? 400MM F2.8 to 200-400 F4 VR


I've been using my 200-400/4 VRI for more than 6 years now and have never found any lost of IQ at long distances, even with TC and on the D800.


D800 (Crop Mode x1.2), 200-400/4 VRI + TC-14EII, f/6.3, hand held. Distance=70+ metres.
http://img837.imageshack.us/img837/6100/77jb.jpg



Crop 1
http://img812.imageshack.us/img812/5915/uzj2.jpg



Crop 2
http://img689.imageshack.us/img689/3019/03k3.jpg



Dec 28, 2013 at 02:38 AM
molson
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #7 · p.1 #7 · Would you? 400MM F2.8 to 200-400 F4 VR


If you get a good copy of the 200-400 VR, it's a really nice lens. I've personally owned 6 different copies, and I've had one copy of each version (original and mark II) that were really good - the others were not acceptably sharp at distances over about 50-75 feet.

If you plan to pick up a used copy, make sure you can test it before committing to the purchase.



Dec 28, 2013 at 09:00 AM
Mishu01
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #8 · p.1 #8 · Would you? 400MM F2.8 to 200-400 F4 VR


Hi Matt!
For health reasons the answer may be a Sigma 120-300mm f/2.8 Sport edition (latest) + 1.4 TC. I have no personal experience with it but I have a good friend that from similar reasons went on this path and he is very happy with the size / weight / IQ. You may rent first to test it before to take the plunge.

Good luck!



Dec 28, 2013 at 09:18 AM
Matt OHarver
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #9 · p.1 #9 · Would you? 400MM F2.8 to 200-400 F4 VR


Thanks everyone. I think I'm going to rent a 200-400 and get a feel for it. Then look for one at Adorama or KEH where I'd have a return period if I think it's for me.

Mishu01, I've owned a Sigma 120-300 in the past(not the newest version) and I won't own one again after owning good long glass.


Matt



Dec 28, 2013 at 10:21 AM
John Skinner
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #10 · p.1 #10 · Would you? 400MM F2.8 to 200-400 F4 VR


I've read where there are some issues with the 200-400 on using tele's, and long distance type shots. But in looking at the surfing images above...

I'm presently struggling with this exact issue. The 400mm outright, or the 200-400? Too many reviews and opinions to make that a factor as they differ on both ends of the spectrum.



Dec 28, 2013 at 01:13 PM
Gary Irwin
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #11 · p.1 #11 · Would you? 400MM F2.8 to 200-400 F4 VR


Agree with Molson. As a former 200-400VR owner, my belief is that all copies are great at closer distances (less than 30 metres) but at longer ranges it can be hard to find a sharp one, though I know there are some out there. Keep in mind it's really an f4.5 lens (t-factor) and AF is quite slow for a "pro" AF-S lens. That said, there are some folks who use the lens for sports in good light, but it's not a lens for indoors or night action shooting.


Dec 28, 2013 at 01:42 PM
RoyC
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #12 · p.1 #12 · Would you? 400MM F2.8 to 200-400 F4 VR


JS, one thing to consider when evaluating a review of a super telephoto is the effect of bad air on distant subjects. If the reviewer does not address the potential problem with bad air, then I assume any negative issues he/she has with distant subject IQ (70 meters or more) is suspect.

I have seen to many times where no one in the line of tripods were getting great images for it to be equipment problems for all on that day.



Dec 28, 2013 at 01:52 PM
DGC1
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #13 · p.1 #13 · Would you? 400MM F2.8 to 200-400 F4 VR


I had a 200-400 and the IQ was not the best at long distance and I found the zoom ring awkward. Otherwise I liked it but ended up trading for a 300 2.8 VR that I'm very happy with. I use a 500 AF-S as well and rarely miss the zoom feature.


Dec 28, 2013 at 02:01 PM
4mpx
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #14 · p.1 #14 · Would you? 400MM F2.8 to 200-400 F4 VR


Gary Irwin wrote:
Agree with Molson. As a former 200-400VR owner, my belief is that all copies are great at closer distances (less than 30 metres) but at longer ranges it can be hard to find a sharp one, though I know there are some out there. Keep in mind it's really an f4.5 lens (t-factor) and AF is quite slow for a "pro" AF-S lens. That said, there are some folks who use the lens for sports in good light, but it's not a lens for indoors or night action shooting.


I've been shooting birds with my 200-400/4 VRI for the last 6-7 years and have never found its AF speed slow for this kind of subject. Compared to my 200/2 VRI and 600/4 VR, the AF speed and accuracy of the 200-400 is exceptionally good for a zoom-lens (on pro cameras though).

#1 : D800 (Crop DX mode), 200-400 VRI, hand held.
http://img716.imageshack.us/img716/3558/u1i2.jpg



#2 :
http://img194.imageshack.us/img194/8422/w1wa.jpg




Even with a TC attached, the focus speed still is pretty good :

#3 : D800 (Crop DX mode), 200-400 VRI + TC-17EII, hand held.
http://img15.imageshack.us/img15/5973/a6a9.jpg



#4 :
http://img22.imageshack.us/img22/5527/lxbb.jpg



Dec 28, 2013 at 04:48 PM
JTMeuret
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #15 · p.1 #15 · Would you? 400MM F2.8 to 200-400 F4 VR


I know a photog that has the 400/2.8 and another that has the 200-400. I remember hearing that with BIF's it was so much easier with the 200-400, just because of the zoom. Some close-up eagle shots were missed by the 400/2.8, while the 200-400 was able to get the shot! Anyway, just a thought for you!

J.T.



Dec 29, 2013 at 12:40 AM
Chestnut
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #16 · p.1 #16 · Would you? 400MM F2.8 to 200-400 F4 VR


I personally would not sacrifice the 400mm for a 200-400mm. However, the Sigma 120-300S (as mentioned earlier) is a really nice compliment to it. I have both the Nikon 400VR and the Sigma 120-300S and they play very well with one another.


Dec 29, 2013 at 01:19 AM
CGrindahl
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #17 · p.1 #17 · Would you? 400MM F2.8 to 200-400 F4 VR


I don't think that folks are picking up on your comment Matt about medical issues related to lens choice. I understand you want to shed some weight, almost three pounds in fact. Making a calculation on performance and how weight would impact the shooter is difficult for anyone but you. In reality, health will always trump performance of gear. If you can't carry it, it really doesn't matter how good it is. I don't have an opinion about these two lenses, but I know that ignoring one's body is not a sensible thing to be doing for any reason.

Good luck sorting it out Matt.



Dec 29, 2013 at 01:42 AM
Chris Dees
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #18 · p.1 #18 · Would you? 400MM F2.8 to 200-400 F4 VR


I owned 2 copies of the 200-400 VRI and was never satisfied for longer distances (close by it's very good). The weight was also a problem for me as I used it with a 500VR. I now have the new 80-400 and that one suits me very well.
I know you'll lose another stop, but I wouldn't see it as a replacement but rather as an addition. Take the 400 when really necessary and in all other cases us the 80-400. The weight of the 80-400 is just over 1,5kg (same as 70-200VRII).



Dec 29, 2013 at 08:58 AM
Matt OHarver
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #19 · p.1 #19 · Would you? 400MM F2.8 to 200-400 F4 VR


Thank you everyone for your input, it has certainly given me more to consider while I make this decision.

Matt



Dec 29, 2013 at 05:13 PM
mcoons
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #20 · p.1 #20 · Would you? 400MM F2.8 to 200-400 F4 VR


Matt,

I was just in the same situation as you. I had a Nikon 400mm AF-I that I sold a couple of months ago and I was looking for something newer and lighter. I rented the Nikon 200-400 and used it for a week shooting high school soccer and a golf tournament. After years of using a 400 for sports, it was really nice having a zoom to compose exactly how I wanted but the lens didn't have the crispness and magic that a 400mm has. It did really well in good light but I found I had more trouble in lower light and backlight situations where my 20 year old 400mm AF-I didn't have problems. I still got the shot but I had to be more careful with the focus. I decided to go for a 400mm lens instead of the zoom. It took me weeks to find a lens at the right price point I wanted but a 400mm 2.8 and a D3s is just too perfect a combo when shooting sports.



Dec 29, 2013 at 07:23 PM
1
       2       end




FM Forums | Nikon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

1
       2       end
    
 

You are not logged in. Login or Register

Username       Or Reset password



This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.