hello,
is there somebody with experience with both the nikkor af-s 200-400/4 and the af-s 300/4
regarding image quality and autofocus speed.
what i hear on this forum is that the 200-400/4 is not on par with the vr 300/2.8,
but maybe it comes close to the 'smaller brother' the af-s 300/4?
any experience?
thanks
I can't comment on the 200-400, but I can say that the 300 f4 and 300 2.8 are very close in image quality when technique is there. I don't hesitate to use either in any situation.
I have both and I think the IQ is the same but obviously the 200-400 is much larger. I haven't had any issues with AF speed so I don't think there is a dramatic difference although the 300 should be faster.
Personally, I think they are all so superb it would be hard to tell, but if I had to pick, I'd believe the 300 f/2.8 AFS VR to be just a slight cut above in most respects. I'd rather have the smaller 300, either f/2.8 or f/4, and use a Nikon 1.4 converter over the much larger 200-400 f/4.
This is such a very common choice people have to make in the Nikon world. After many months of thinking about it and renting all of them, I went the 300 f/2.8 route.
I had the 200-400 but traded it for a 500 afs v1. IQ, reach and teleconverter performance are all better.
I have also had the 300 afs f4 and loved it. The size is great and IQ with 1.4 and (less) 1.7 were also very good.
I now have the 300 2.8 vr and if I had it to do over again I'd just skip right to this lens, though it is a lot more expensive than the f4. Size is right for me and the IQ with and without TCs is just killer.
gunner.sip wrote:
what i hear on this forum is that the 200-400/4 is not on par with the vr 300/2.8,
but maybe it comes close to the 'smaller brother' the af-s 300/4?
I don't know in which part of this forum you hear that, but I'll tell you that not everyone thinks that way! As a matter of fact, here's a recent thread where the 200-400/4 was being compared in every relevant way (IQ, AF speed, etc.) to the 400/2.8 prime. The comparison was not unfavorable. Here's a link to that thread, which I really suggest you read:
The 200-400/4 is large, because it must be in order to provide f/4 at 400mm. It's also a zoom, which makes it larger but also infinitely more flexible. It takes a 1.4x TC so well that I, and many others, cannot tell the difference between images with/without the TC unless EXIF is available. It has impeccable image quality, and has no reason to stand even a step back from any of the "big gun" primes. This lens costs $6,000, and it's worth every penny.
The 300/4 is a great lens. Small, portable, useful. No VR, which can matter in some cases. But still a great lens. And yet, there's no real comparison between the two. Every Nikon long lens, including the 300/4 but especially the 200/2, 300/2.8, 200-400/4, 400/2.8, 500/4, and 600/4, delivers great images and can be counted on at all times. I have nothing against the 300/4 or any of the other primes... but if you need what the 200-400 can do (and which no other lens on the market can do!) then there is no other choice.
The question is not what the lens can do... the question is what do you need the lens to do? Is the 300/4 what you need, or the 200-400/4? Or maybe the 70-200/2.8 plus a 1.4x TC? Lots of ways to get an image at 300mm, but we've got to weigh in your needs and preferences and limits and budget.
Guidenet wrote:
I'd rather have the smaller 300, either f/2.8 or f/4, and use a Nikon 1.4 converter over the much larger 200-400 f/4.
Any of those are valid choices. But remember that the 300/4 is a lighter, smaller, $1300 lens that does what it does very well. And the 300/2.8 can be used with a 1.4x TC to get 420/4 and still get great IQ... but it's not light at all (6.3 pounds, just 1 pound lighter than the 200-400 and 1.5 pounds lighter than the 500/4). And both of them suck badly from 200-299mm and 301-400mm. Even with TC's, you can't change focal length on the fly.
Each choice is valid, for different persons at different times. There is no single "best" choice for all people.
I own all three - a 200-400, 300 2.8, and 300 f4. I believe if I took a photo of the same thing with each lens, I would not be able to pick which was which. That said, nowadays the 300 f4 mostly sits in the bag. Now, if that sucker had vr, then I'd use it a LOT more. But, as it stands, the 200-400 and 300 2.8 get the nod most days.
Steve, I can give your 300 f4 a little exercise now and then if you send it to me
Steve Perry wrote:
I own all three - a 200-400, 300 2.8, and 300 f4. I believe if I took a photo of the same thing with each lens, I would not be able to pick which was which. That said, nowadays the 300 f4 mostly sits in the bag. Now, if that sucker had vr, then I'd use it a LOT more. But, as it stands, the 200-400 and 300 2.8 get the nod most days.
gunner.sip wrote:
what i hear on this forum is that the 200-400/4 is not on par with the vr 300/2.8,
Where do people hear these things ? Who are the mysterious "they" who make these claims ?
There have been plenty of threads about the 200-400 in recent months and it always seems those who actually own the lens, or who have owned, in addition to those who have a 300, 400, 600 etc to compare it with, always state that its quite on par, and in many ways even better.
To each his own of course, but I'm just always confused where people are getting their info because everything I always see and read on the forums, in addition to what I see shooting each week firsthand, never seems to match up, not just with the 200-400 but with lens and camera bodies in general.
Perhaps there is a secret rrs newsfeed of the cold hard camera "facts" that I'm not aware of ? lol
Nov 11, 2009 at 01:28 PM
Andre Labonte Offline • • • • • • Upload & Sell: Off
millsart wrote:
Where do people hear these things ? Who are the mysterious "they" who make these claims ?
There have been plenty of threads about the 200-400 in recent months and it always seems those who actually own the lens, or who have owned, in addition to those who have a 300, 400, 600 etc to compare it with, always state that its quite on par, and in many ways even better.
To each his own of course, but I'm just always confused where people are getting their info because everything I always see and read on the forums, in addition to what I see shooting each week firsthand, never seems to match up, not just with the 200-400 but with lens and camera bodies in general.
Perhaps there is a secret rrs newsfeed of the cold hard camera "facts" that I'm not aware of ? lol...Show more →
I think people make the "logical" extension that because the 200-400 is a zoom and one stop slower, then clearly it cannot be as good as the equally or more expensive primes.
Of course, this is why guys like Moose Peterson and Bjorn R. and other well respected photogs rave about the 200-400.
the 200-400 is awesome. I own the 300 2.8 as well but rely on the 200-400 a lot more, and I've never felt that it lacked sharpness.
In daylight, it's pretty much the best sports telephoto out, since you can put it on a D300 and run it at 300-600 effective. Slap a 1.4 on it and it's golden.
I love my 300 2.8, don't get me wrong, but it's a bit of a specialist lens compared to the versatility of the 200-400.
My own approach to researching gear is to ignore input from anyone who doesn't have actual hands-on experience with the item being discussed. Better still if that individual is using whatever it is for the same application and output that I would be.
Nov 11, 2009 at 07:14 PM
Andre Labonte Offline • • • • • • Upload & Sell: Off
jbear wrote:
My own approach to researching gear is to ignore input from anyone who doesn't have actual hands-on experience with the item being discussed. Better still if that individual is using whatever it is for the same application and output that I would be.
extension that because the 200-400 is a zoom and one stop slower, then clearly it cannot be as good as the equally or more expensive primes. 