Thanks for the link, Louis. This it interesting...old Thom found improved IQ with the protective filter off at distance!
I recall starting a thread on this a year or so ago and was ripped by many saying there was no noticeable difference.
I know what I saw and would add the bokeh at longer distances suffered, the busier the BG. IIRC the paranoid plodders
on the Cafe were the most vocal "Nikon has that front element on there for a reason" Yeah, that's why they give you
the great little zippered case to store it in. Maybe I should start getting paid for MY reviews I'm just sayin'
Now this lens makes sense to me. Looking back, I was always a bit puzzled as to why sometimes the lens was really crisp, and other times it wasn't. The further out the subject, the less sharp this lens is - and my images agree with Thom's assessment. Also explains why (as I've said in many other 200-400 posts), I don't like the lens with a TC very much.
Good read And I think I'll get even better use from this lens now.
Although certainly not even near the class of the 200-400, I noticed my 70-300 produced much better images past 250mm with the filter off than it did with the filter on ---- much better. The results on with flat lighting and low contrast objects were miserable.
My first reaction was I'd simply got a lemon of a filter but I borrowed 2 other brands with the same result. I hate to shoot without a filter but I need the ability to shoot between 250 and 300mm's.
well, I don't agree with him, I have very sharp pictures from a large distance, and the lens is very usable with the 1.7TC (under normal light of course), and removing the protection filter didn't change anything when I tried.
I purchased one as soon as they came out and I find his write-up to be quite accurate. I also sold mine simply because my primes produced consistently better results, I do on occasion miss the zoom feature but, I have always been able to work around that loss.
I was recently going through some of my 200-400mm pictures and found that this to be quite true.
Other: Another strange bit to the 200-400mm is that its color transmission properties are little bit off from the other exotics. The glass in the 200-400mm seems to transmit a bit more blue than expected. I'm constantly having to do minor tweaks to my 200-400mm shots with white balance because of this.
Now the TC thing is really a matter of personal preference and dependent on the subject and your expected results. Any TC will degrade the IQ of a lens and the bigger the TC the more it will degrade it. I would say that I have had fair to mediocre luck with the 1.7tc and the 200-400mm zoom, better luck with the 1.4tc as anyone would expect.
I don't think Thom was trying to cast a dark shadow on the lens, he was just giving it a quite thorough review and I would say a very accurate one.
I think these last two statements sums up why this lens is so popular and will continue to be so.
* For close-in subjects, you give up next to nothing except aperture against the 400mm. Or the 70-200mm at 200mm. Or either 300mm. That's pretty remarkable for a complex zoom.
* Fast enough to remove distracting backgrounds most of the time, long enough to pull in subjects you can't quite approach, versatile enough to zoom back for the big animals, just small and light enough to manage in a Land Cruiser.
Thom is welcome to his opinion and he certaily has more experience than I do.. The recent blog from the guy who shot the Super Bowl cover shot said that the 200-400 was his favorite lens. Maybe there really is some sample variation.
trenchmonkey wrote:
....IIRC the paranoid plodders
on the Cafe were the most vocal "Nikon has that front element on there for a reason"....
I remember that thread
If we follow that logic faithfully we shouldn't be replacing collars on the 300 f4 teles and others as 'Nikon put their own there for a reason'.... wonder what the hell their reason was?! Sure wasn't efficacy.
I've been debating between the 200-400 f/4 and the 300 f/2.8. They're comparable in size, weight, focal length and price. I'd mainly use the lens for safaris and air shows, where the zoom provides a functional advantage. It is not an option to leave your vehicle to walk in the wilderness, and constantly swapping TCs is very awkward in that dusty environment while action can happen at any moment. Even Thom admits that the 200-400 is an excellent safari lens.
I think what makes this decision hard is that the 300 f/2.8 is truly an epic glass that actually costs a little less than the 200-400, which is "just" excellent. But let's face it, what better choices do we have for an African safari? Taking a 70-200 + TC on one body, and a 300 f/2.8 + TC on another? Perhaps, but composing by cropping in post isn't a substitute for a great zoom lens.
Birding is entirely different, where nothing is ever long enough, so having a zoom has little to no value anyway. A great budget option for hobbyists who want to go super long may be an old manual focus 500mm, which is optically as good as it gets.
As a primarily Canon shooter, the 200-400 is one of the few Nikon lenses I've lusted after and is one of the biggest reasons I added a Nikon body to my kit. I owned one before and used it with a D700 and found I got superb results with the TC-14EII even wide open. I have a TC-20EIII coming this week, can't wait to see what the results are like (I'm not expecting miracles, just curious).
When I do eventually go on safari, the 200-400 will definitely come with me, paired with my Canon 800
cppguy wrote:
I've been debating between the 200-400 f/4 and the 300 f/2.8. They're comparable in size, weight, focal length and price. I'd mainly use the lens for safaris and air shows, where the zoom provides a functional advantage. It is not an option to leave your vehicle to walk in the wilderness, and constantly swapping TCs is very awkward in that dusty environment while action can happen at any moment. Even Thom admits that the 200-400 is an excellent safari lens.
I think what makes this decision hard is that the 300 f/2.8 is truly an epic glass that actually costs a little less than the 200-400, which is "just" excellent. But let's face it, what better choices do we have for an African safari? Taking a 70-200 + TC on one body, and a 300 f/2.8 + TC on another? Perhaps, but composing by cropping in post isn't a substitute for a great zoom lens.
Birding is entirely different, where nothing is ever long enough, so having a zoom has little to no value anyway. A great budget option for hobbyists who want to go super long may be an old manual focus 500mm, which is optically as good as it gets....Show more →
I own both lenses, and it would be hard to pick one over the other. The 300 2.8 is fast, sharp, and fast I use it when the light gets low or when I need a semi-manageable lens to hand hold. Takes TCs pretty good too, although I usually strap on longer glass when the 300 isn't long enough.
However, when traveling though parks where sometimes shooting from the car is your only shot, the 200-400 rules the day. Doesn't take long with the 300 to realize you tend to be too close or too far all the time.
If I was taking just one of the two on safari, I'd have to go with the 200-400.
bikinchris wrote:
Thom is welcome to his opinion and he certaily has more experience than I do.. The recent blog from the guy who shot the Super Bowl cover shot said that the 200-400 was his favorite lens. Maybe there really is some sample variation.
You may have noticed in his review that he actually says that the football guys love the lens, and that most football shots will be close enough in that the lenses issues at distance won't show up. It's not like the review pans the lens. It just points out that there's a tradeoff of sharpness at long focal distances for the convenience and size of the zoom, relative to a 400 f2/8.
PennsyBill wrote:
Although certainly not even near the class of the 200-400, I noticed my 70-300 produced much better images past 250mm with the filter off than it did with the filter on ---- much better. The results on with flat lighting and low contrast objects were miserable.
My first reaction was I'd simply got a lemon of a filter but I borrowed 2 other brands with the same result. I hate to shoot without a filter but I need the ability to shoot between 250 and 300mm's.
I gather that you are referring to a typical optional add-on filter such as a UV filter. The filter on the front of the 200-400 is a bit different. It's more of a removable protective front lens element than an optional filter. Removing it exposes the main element to ... the elements (sorry).
trenchmonkey wrote:
I recall starting a thread on this a year or so ago and was ripped by many saying there was no noticeable difference.
Well there you go TM - that's what you get for daring to be different on an internet forum Seems like it happens to all of us, if that's any consolation.
cppguy wrote:
I've been debating between the 200-400 f/4 and the 300 f/2.8. They're comparable in size, weight, focal length and price. I'd mainly use the lens for safaris and air shows, where the zoom provides a functional advantage. It is not an option to leave your vehicle to walk in the wilderness, and constantly swapping TCs is very awkward in that dusty environment while action can happen at any moment. Even Thom admits that the 200-400 is an excellent safari lens.
I think what makes this decision hard is that the 300 f/2.8 is truly an epic glass that actually costs a little less than the 200-400, which is "just" excellent. But let's face it, what better choices do we have for an African safari? Taking a 70-200 + TC on one body, and a 300 f/2.8 + TC on another? Perhaps, but composing by cropping in post isn't a substitute for a great zoom lens.
Birding is entirely different, where nothing is ever long enough, so having a zoom has little to no value anyway. A great budget option for hobbyists who want to go super long may be an old manual focus 500mm, which is optically as good as it gets....Show more →
If you have to make a choice between the 200-400mm VR and the 300mm VR, go for the 300. You can get a new copy for less than $5000 at US1 Photo. You will not find a new 200-400mm VR for less than $5,800.
I bought a brand new 200-400mm about three weeks ago after a discussion that we had in this forum. So far, I am "happy" with the lens but I have found that using it with a teleconverter is not your best option. I took some pictures in a terrible low light without a TC and they came out relatively well. I was shooting without a tripod or a monopod and I had some difficulty keeping the lens straight but at the end, I got some decent shoots.
This week I attached a TC-14 II (1.4x) to the 200-400mm and the results were not so great, even under better light conditions. There is a noticeable degradation in IQ when shooting with a TC at 550mm. On other hand, using a TC-14 II or a TC-17 II with a AFS 400 f/2.8 is not that bad. My impression is that with f/2.8 prime long lenses teleconverters work much better than with any zoom, including the 70-200mm.
In the mentioned review, I have found the technical explanation for this potential shortcoming, According to Thom:
"Actual performance is somewhere around t/5. This is somewhat normal for a zoom lens with complex optics (each air/glass surface is less than perfect in transmitting light), but it's going to be a real issue for many users of this lens. This is one of the reasons why teleconverters aren't a great choice on this lens. Even with a TC-14E the lens is approaching t/8, which is outside Nikon's AF specs."
Until recently I used a Sigma 150-500mm and I was always complaining of the increasing softening of images taken above 350mm.
No doubt about, the Nikon 200-400 is a sharper lens (in comparison to the Sigma 150-500). But when you add a TC to get at least 550mm of focal length, the images that you get don’t seem to justify the $5000 in price difference between the Sigma 150-500 and the Nikon 200-400mm. I don't know, maybe I had higher expectations regarding the 200-400mm.
Yeah, that's why they give you 
Maybe I should start getting paid for MY reviews
I'm just sayin' 
And I think I'll get even better use from this lens now.