cohenfive wrote:
congrats on the purchase, i'm excited for mine. the one i'm getting is mint used with some extras and is also a good deal..only way i'd do it....
i think the days of breaking even or even making a profit may be gone. with nikon raising lens prices, the people who bought lenses at the old prices can come out great, but at the newer, higher prices it may prove to more difficult i believe.
I dumped all of my Canon gear last year right after a price increase and bought all of my Nikon gear right before they raised all of their prices. I don't think I've ever been so lucky.
Do get lots of practice, though. Make the lens earn its living, enjoy it even more than what you paid for it, and of course your muscles will need a little time to adapt to the specific tiny nuances of any new tool in order to give the best possible results.
I had the 200/400, a good lens. Sold it after 6mos (took my bath) and moved to a lighter alternative (300 2.8 + a DX camera - I also have a 1.4).
If you park walk 20' and shoot, the 200/400 might work handheld. I needed a tripod (minimum a monopod) to shoot long. So if you have to hike in somewhere, the weight of the lens + the weight of a capable tripod is substantial or if you're shooting an event for a period of time - it gets tiresome.
Rags Hef wrote:
I had the 200/400, a good lens. Sold it after 6mos (took my bath) and moved to a lighter alternative (300 2.8 + a DX camera - I also have a 1.4).
If you park walk 20' and shoot, the 200/400 might work handheld. I needed a tripod (minimum a monopod) to shoot long. So if you have to hike in somewhere, the weight of the lens + the weight of a capable tripod is substantial or if you're shooting an event for a period of time - it gets tiresome.
And it's low light capability is 50/50
My take
Rags
Isn't the 300 2.8 only 1lbs lighter than the 200/400 ?
I came from a 400 2.8 so either seemed a bit of a lighter option for me. The 300 is a bit more compact though so it does fit into a smaller bag easier.
I moved to a Think Tank roller and my back has been thanking me ever since lol
I think the low light capability has more to do with the camera. The lens focuses fine in a dark room pointing into a closet! (I haven't done much with mine yet. It's been raining!
a related question...while i'm hoping to be able to lug it around (the lens is coming not only with the nikon bag but also a kinesis back/harness), if i did want to get a monopod what you would guys suggests that doesn't break the bank?
Whether you shoot handheld, monopod, or tripod with Wimberley, will primarily depend on what and where you shoot. I went through two cheap tripods before deciding that it didn't make sense to put $8,000 worth of gear on top of a $100 tripod. Weakest link in the chain and all that.
So now, I use Gitzo. Others may work just as well, but I do suggest you invest carefully in your support gear. The good stuff will last for many more years than the cheap stuff, justifying its higher cost, and I feel better about the safety of my stuff while using it.
As to specific recommendations: your idea of "not breaking the bank" is different from other people's. What budget did you have in mind?
i had a feisol tripod/giottos ballhead which i sold as i just don't shoot statonary often, and try to find other ways of bracing myself when i do. i bought the tripod for a backcountry hike in the sierra this summer and at the last minute decided to leave it in the car trunk, which for me was a good decision.
i'm thinking similar quality for a monopod for this thing if i need it...not sure if carbon or just a good aluminum one will suffice, as the weight difference on a monopod won't be as great. thanks.
Carbon is both lighter and stronger than aluminum, especially in torsional rigidity and vibration damping, so the cost does have some paybacks. Just more info so you can pick whichever one fits you best.
i'm probably going to use the lens for a bit handheld and if i feel i will need a tripod will post for one. i was at the presidents cup matches saturday and was watching some of the press photographers. they had monopod setups where you could rotate the entire camera/lens to go from landscape to portrait aspect in about three seconds...that looked pretty interesting but i didn't see what setup they had (looked big/bulky).
You don't need any additional equipment for that. Screw the monopod onto the lens collar, and then simply loosening the lens collar screws will allow you to rotate the lens and camera to any orientation within the collar. All built in and ready for you in any Nikon lens 70-200 or bigger. No bulk at all, they may have been using other additional equipment.
Good luck on your acquisition. I bought a Manfrotto 685 B monopod. It adjusts easily on the fly with a handle friction lock, no clamps /screw tube locks. It also has the capacity
One thing you might want to explain to your other half is if you buy now, in 6 months time the US Dollar will be worth a lot less than it is now. Good Nikon glass is a sound investment, even more so when you see the results.
I have both the 200-400mm and the 80-400mm and the 200-400mm is very sharp and of course faster. If you have the money it's worth it. Plus it takes the 1.4x TC very well.
cohenfive wrote:
i have a sigma 80-400os that i've been happy with for quite a while, but have been considering getting something either faster/sharper or with more reach. i'm considering (not sure if i have the budget though) the nikon 200-400vr or maybe a sigma 150-500os as replacement.
my question for you 200-400vr owners is how much sharper i can expect images to be with that lens relative to one of the lower end lenses (nikon or sigma 80-400) that i have experience with? if you shoot mostly in decent light can you really tell much of a difference in iq? i know the nikon 80-400 is pretty slow to focus, but the sigma is a bit better--is the nikon that much faster still?
i may do nothing here as the sigma 80-400 has performed pretty well for me over the couple of years that i've owned it, but i've seen some amazing images taken with the 200-400 and am hoping to get some views from those who have used both. thanks!...Show more →
well it's all done now...i have a d3, a bunch of fx glass including the 200-400, and a monopod. i've only taken the 200-400 out once so far, and just in our yard, but when i put up some of the test shots on our 22 inch screen for my wife to look at she was gaping at the sharpness. this is going to be a fun lens to take on our bird watching weekend next month in the sacramento wildlife refuge...i know it's only 400mm but that should be good enough. the lens is heavy as others have warned but i think i will be able to handhold it for not too long periods of time. the monopod will get use, that's for sure!
i had a ton of stuff to get sold to make room for all the new gear and between here and my local cl things went really well. now i just need to take more pictures and stop being afraid of bumping the iso up way high!
