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       3       4       end
  

Archive 2016 · Has the Nikon 200-400 f/4 fallen from grace?

  
 
graham_martin
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #1 · p.1 #1 · Has the Nikon 200-400 f/4 fallen from grace?


It seems not too long ago that the 200-400 f/4 was one of the most highly respected and sought after lenses in the medium to long telephoto range. Now, I am seeing an increasing number of them for sale at prices under $2,500. Is this a temporary phenomena or has this lens started to lose some of its luster? And, if so, why do you think this is happening? Could the newish 200-500 f/5.6 (at a fraction of the price) be giving the older lens some competition? My initial thought would be to say "No" because the 200-400 is a truly professional lens whereas the 200-500, while no slouch, is more aimed at the serious amateur or semi-professional.


Jul 25, 2016 at 07:51 AM
trenchmonkey
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #2 · p.1 #2 · Has the Nikon 200-400 f/4 fallen from grace?


Tough comparison, Graham. Have shot extensively with both...
I'll take the 200-500 @500mm f5.6 over the 200-400 @400mm f4
every day of the week and twice on Sunday The bokeh and OOF
backgrounds are SO much smoother on the "cheap" zoom. Great build
on the 200-400 but I'm afraid that's it for me. I've had 2 of each over
the years. I'll throw this out there as well...the 200 f2 w/TC 20E III was
better than my 200-400 ever was at 400mm. Not even close.



Jul 25, 2016 at 08:04 AM
Christian H
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #3 · p.1 #3 · Has the Nikon 200-400 f/4 fallen from grace?


I rather like mine on the D500. IQ is a tad better than the 200-500 but probably not enough to matter.

house finch by Christian Hunold, on Flickr

yellow-crowned night heron by Christian Hunold, on Flickr

juvenile red-tailed hawk by Christian Hunold, on Flickr



Jul 25, 2016 at 08:18 AM
Steve Perry
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #4 · p.1 #4 · Has the Nikon 200-400 f/4 fallen from grace?


I had the first version of the 200-400 and loved the idea of it, but really didn't like the lens that much. It was crazy sharp up close, but at a distance it was just unacceptable. We parted ways and although promised to remain friends have since drifted into bitterness about the whole affair


Jul 25, 2016 at 08:20 AM
trenchmonkey
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #5 · p.1 #5 · Has the Nikon 200-400 f/4 fallen from grace?






Jul 25, 2016 at 08:29 AM
Pixphatic
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #6 · p.1 #6 · Has the Nikon 200-400 f/4 fallen from grace?


Seriously think that the 200-400 f4 VRII is a great lens, but the 200-500 f5.6 gives better value for money,under the present scenario. When the 200-400 f4 VRII was launched,it was perhaps the cheapest & effective way to get to that 500mm+ f5.6 option (adding a 1.4X TC to it).
Also with the release of the D810,D750 and D7200 bodies, the ISO and AF performance becoming so much better, so as to extract full potential of the 200-500 f5.6 lens. With the launching of D500, it just reached the next level.

So the 200-400 f4 has not lost it's sheen, rather we are being bedazzled by the newer 200-500 f5.6 lens, combined with the camera bodies like D810,D750,D7200 and of course D500.



Jul 25, 2016 at 08:29 AM
Jawnath1n
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #7 · p.1 #7 · Has the Nikon 200-400 f/4 fallen from grace?


200-500 and 80-400 are two other high quality and cover the same range but less expensive and easier to carry than a 200-400. Lots of good options for this range.


Jul 25, 2016 at 11:52 AM
graham_martin
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #8 · p.1 #8 · Has the Nikon 200-400 f/4 fallen from grace?


True, but they are both slower lenses.


Jul 25, 2016 at 12:01 PM
binary visions
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #9 · p.1 #9 · Has the Nikon 200-400 f/4 fallen from grace?


For a while, there really wasn't a sharp zoom option in that range. The old 80-400 was weak at 400 and slow to focus. The 70-300 was similar. A TC on the 70-200 was really the only option.

Even with primes, the 300mm f/4 had no VR, and there was no other f4 option without a TC.

I feel the same as Steve about the zoom - not right for me at all. But I think it's less that the 200-400 has lost whatever sheen it had, and more that there is a wealth of great options in that range now.



Jul 25, 2016 at 12:46 PM
CanadaMark
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #10 · p.1 #10 · Has the Nikon 200-400 f/4 fallen from grace?


The cheaper lenses covering the same range are too good and the $7,000 price tag removes 99% of potential buyers. Great lens, just too expensive and not worth it these days for most people. It still serves a niche market and if you need a tank-like pro grade lens with zoom capability or F4 over that range it's got you covered.

Not the same class but the 200-500 at $1400 is just such a good deal.



Jul 25, 2016 at 01:03 PM
Weasel_Loader
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #11 · p.1 #11 · Has the Nikon 200-400 f/4 fallen from grace?


I sold my 300/2.8 AF-S II and got a great deal on a used 200-400/4 VR2. The versatility was really nice for what I shoot (rodeo). It was sharp enough, but much larger and difficult to manage for my taste and in the end, shooting at f/4 didn't give my images the look I wanted. Sold it after using it for one outing and immediately picked up a 200/2 VR and TC-14.

In my opinion, there are better choices for that focal range. Yes, I lost the versatility in zooming 200-400, but faster glass, less weight, smaller lens far outweighed my need to zoom.

No longer needing to manage a 300/2.8 or 200-400/4 on a monopod is incredible for my style of shooting where I'm constantly moving to shoot different angles. The 200/2 is easily managed without a monopod all day for me.



Jul 25, 2016 at 01:38 PM
Ai_Print
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #12 · p.1 #12 · Has the Nikon 200-400 f/4 fallen from grace?


graham_martin wrote:
It seems not too long ago that the 200-400 f/4 was one of the most highly respected and sought after lenses in the medium to long telephoto range. Now, I am seeing an increasing number of them for sale at prices under $2,500. Is this a temporary phenomena or has this lens started to lose some of its luster? And, if so, why do you think this is happening? Could the newish 200-500 f/5.6 (at a fraction of the price) be giving the older lens some competition? My initial thought would be to say "No" because the 200-400 is a
...Show more

I don't think camera makers "aim" equipment at as specific a target buyer as many on the enthusiast forums seem to think, they make the stuff and sell it.

I had the original 200-400VR and while great from 200-300, beyond that I find the 200-500VR just smokes it even though it is a stop slower, especially at a distance as referred to above. But the real standout point of the new 200-500 for me was when I put it up against my buddy's 200-400VRII and it really gave it a run for it's money, at a fraction of the price and in a size that is downright manageable for my work on the ski slopes and other places. Other than the lack of strap lugs on the tripod collar, I think Nikon just blew it out of the park with the 200-500, a complete game changer for a lot of folks who want long glass but don't always need a faster max aperture.



Jul 25, 2016 at 03:42 PM
Charles Loy
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #13 · p.1 #13 · Has the Nikon 200-400 f/4 fallen from grace?


Well said Mr Perry, agree 100%.
I've owned 2 of the 200-400 f4 lenses, both were good to no more then 50 yards (less). I'll never consider another at any price. I am very pleased with my 200-500!



Jul 25, 2016 at 06:02 PM
TooManyShots
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #14 · p.1 #14 · Has the Nikon 200-400 f/4 fallen from grace?


Why and how? Just because the used market price has been lowered and the lens IQ has been degraded


Jul 25, 2016 at 06:04 PM
lxdesign
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #15 · p.1 #15 · Has the Nikon 200-400 f/4 fallen from grace?


I too migrated from the 200-400 to a 200-500, and the switch was not only a great move - but the weight difference is nice as well.



Jul 25, 2016 at 06:50 PM
OwlsEyes
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #16 · p.1 #16 · Has the Nikon 200-400 f/4 fallen from grace?


I think that the answer to your question is obvious, but definitely believe that the 200-400VR has been undervalued for about two years now. The reason for the falling price relates to the original release of the Tamron 150-600 and Sigma 150-600. The most current "crash" correlates with the Nikon 200-500VR. In September 2014 I bought a 200-400VR in EX condition for $3000. I thought that this was a killer deal and that I would not lose money should I choose to resell the lens. Nearly two years later, the 200-500VR has become a darling of the Nikon system. While the 200-500 lacks the build of the 200-500, and is not as quick to follow moving targets, the overall image quality is so close that it is hard to justify the price difference.

However... the 200-400mm f4 still has its place. It is very fast to AF and will track better than the newer lens. Having recently returned from Iceland, I had the opportunity to really compare the two lenses. My wife used the 200-500VR on a D7100 and I used the 200-400VR on the D500. In the end, the image quality from my kit was better than hers. Clearly, there were some uncontrolled variables... older vs newer camera as well as the picture taker. While the 200-500mm lens was not as sharp or fast to AF as the 200-400, it was good enough that I have purchased a second one for me. I am currently on a trip to Moss Landing and Elkhorn Slough to photograph otters and seals via kayak. Because I will need to work handheld, I left the 200-400 f4 home. Should I find these images "sharp enough," I will sell my 200-400VR at a loss and replace it with an older AFS 300mm f2.8 or the new (featherweight) 300mm f4 PF.

I am attaching a few shots illustrating what the 200-400VR does well and one shot from my current endeavor in California.
cheers,
bruce







200-400mm f4 @ f8 w/ D500







200-400mm f4 @ f8 w/ D500







200-500VR @ f8 w/D500




Jul 25, 2016 at 07:24 PM
Spectro
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #17 · p.1 #17 · Has the Nikon 200-400 f/4 fallen from grace?


For sports it's still very popular. At the MLB games and other sports I shoot, the majority of the black lenses are 200-400. To be able to isolate a batter or pitcher and a second later be zoomed out and framing 2nd base to get the slide and double play throw under stadium lights at 4000-5000 ISO all at F4 it gets the job done. I still use a VR1 and it doesn't let me down.
Having said that, I look at the IQ of the 200-500 images I see here and have no doubt it will be in my future for personal use on my D500. It just won't be replacing my 200-400 for what I do.

It's funny, the 200-500 price/quality buzz reminds me of the film days when Nikon brought out the 75-150e constant f3.5 budget zoom with it's cheap plastic aperture ring that just happened to have stunning IQ for the price. I still have one.



Jul 25, 2016 at 09:34 PM
amlsml
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #18 · p.1 #18 · Has the Nikon 200-400 f/4 fallen from grace?


I will echo Spectro. I use my 200-400 Version 1 for all field sports . Coupled with the D500 it is the perfect combo. In all of the photo wells I see the Canon guys with their new 200-400, most with the 1.4 off. Most Nikon guys are 200-400 or 300 2.8. For night games and infield shots I am fooling with the 120-300 2.8 Sigma Sport and the D500.
I also own the 200-500VR and it is an awesome lens. I use it for my personal stuff and my kids surfing. I may bring it to the ball park and shoot it for an inning to see if the editor can see any difference.

I see new sports photographers asking what is the best sport combo to shoot their kids, With todays prices the 200-400, and a D3S is a great option.



Jul 26, 2016 at 08:02 AM
graham_martin
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #19 · p.1 #19 · Has the Nikon 200-400 f/4 fallen from grace?


I have the D3s and a Sigma 150-600 for sports, but now you have me thinking that perhaps I should re-think the 200-400.


Jul 26, 2016 at 08:26 AM
DGC1
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #20 · p.1 #20 · Has the Nikon 200-400 f/4 fallen from grace?


Steve Perry wrote:
I had the first version of the 200-400 and loved the idea of it, but really didn't like the lens that much. It was crazy sharp up close, but at a distance it was just unacceptable. We parted ways and although promised to remain friends have since drifted into bitterness about the whole affair


Ditto.



Jul 26, 2016 at 09:31 AM
1
       2       3       4       end




FM Forums | Nikon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

1
       2       3       4       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.