Ai_Print Offline Upload & Sell: Off
|
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 truly professional lens whereas the 200-500, while no slouch, is more aimed at the serious amateur or semi-professional....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.
|