OK that got your attention.
Given everyone's fascination with the 200-400, I say it is time for Nikon to come out with
a 300-600 for the rest of us FX shooters.
Maybe I'm alone on this one, but a 400/4 that allows you to crop down to 200/4 just doesn't seem that compelling to me. Add the price into the mix, and thanks, but I'll pass.
Especially after previously owning a 400/2.8.
In comparison, the 200/2, 300/2.8, 400/2.8, 500/4, 600/4, are just too good, and a definite notch up in IQ over the zoom.
However, if nikon could design & build a 300-600/4 w/VR and ideally a DO design, then they would have an absolute winner on their hands.

What are your thoughts on this?

Would it come with a lens case or a truck?

So you don't like the 200 to 400 because you don't find being able to zoom out to 200mm that useful but being able to zoom out to 300mm would prove benifital ?

you also don't like the price of a 200-400 because of price but would still like a 300-600 even though it would probably cost 2-3 times as much as the 200-400

You also don't like the 200-400 because the primes have better IQ, yet you want a 300-600, which would be even harder to build, and you want it with a DO design, which in itself lessens image quality even more If your not happy with the IQ of the 200-400, you definatly wouldnt be happy with the IQ of a DO zoom. Ever shot the Canon 400 D0 f4 ? Its not a bad lens, but optically its behind a 300 2.8 and 400, and adding a zoom to the mix is only going to hurt matters more.

Might be a winner but then again, from your own requirments, I don't think they'd count you as a buyer =)

The ability to zoom inherently requires more glass, more size/weight, and more cost than a prime of equivalent quality. The 600/4 is 10 pounds and $9,000; so the 300-600 would be at least 15-18 pounds and $12K to $15K. How many of those do you think they'd sell? Maybe a 300-600/5.6, but again I don't think they'd sell enough to make it worthwhile.

Yes, the primes have a slight edge in IQ over the 200-400. But as the saying goes, they suck at all other focal lengths.

Just put a 1.4 TC on the 200-400

millsart wrote:


Might be a winner but then again, from your own requirments, I don't think they'd count you as a buyer =)


En contraire, mon frère. I'd be down there purchasing one in about 2 shakes.

Chris Dees wrote:
Just put a 1.4 TC on the 200-400
+1

Guy

Chris Dees wrote:
Just put a 1.4 TC on the 200-400


Sure,
That way I can reduce the IQ even further.

Far better and cheaper/lighter than your example would be a 200/2 with a 1.4, 1.7, and even a 2.
Or go to a 300, 400, 500 etc. All would be better options than extending a 200-400.
Heck, even better would be a D300 w/ the 200-400.

But my point was.... picture the same D300 with a 300-600/4 native lens on it.

Not that I'm unhappy with what I have and what's available, mind you, I'm just airing my
wish for a potentially "perfect" long lens solution.

wow

The 200-400 was the most compelling reason for me to come back to Nikon- and I shoot on FX as well as DX. In addition to being impossibly large, heavy, and exponentially more expensive, a 300-600/4 lens doesn't make that much sense.

I definitely do not share your concerns and I don't think that a lens like that would ever be considered to manufacture or design. Consider the two target market for a long lens like this- sports and wildlife shooters.

Sports:
Most sports shooters that cover field sports, shoot at around 400mm-500mm on the long end, and need to zoom out to at least 200 for a closer subject. It's a great lens for covering a variety of sports as it is- for football or soccer games in good light where one needs to get additional reach through compromising the wide end, the D300 or a 1.4x TC is fine as well- essentially you have a 280-560mm/5.6 with the TC, and the FOV of a 300-600mm on the DX body.

While a 300-600/4 would cover the 500mm region for field sports, 300 just isn't wide enough for close shots (with the TC you can just take it off)- and if you need 500mm-600mm to start out with, you will be just fine with a 400/2.8+ 1.4x TC, 500/4 or 600/4 plus an extra body with a 70-200, honestly.

Wildlife:
If you're shooting wildlife with the 200-400, you're too short on FX, you'll need a 500 or 600 anyhow, and having 300-599mm isn't all that necessary. Most shooters have gotten by happily with their 500's and 600's. If you've shot wildlife, you'll know what I mean- even the 500 and 600s are stretched to their limits with TC's.


From what I've seen of the 200-400, the IQ is more than good enough- having the ability to zoom out immediately to get the right shot without switching to a second body is a significant advantage- much more important to me personally than any extra pixel peeping sharpness I can glean. I'm coming from a Canon 300 2.8 IS and 400 2.8 IS (both excellent lenses) and I am loving the 200-400 more every time I use it.

A 600/4 and 500/4 are already huge and expensive- do you think adding 300-599mm to a lens like that will make it cheaper and handholdable? I just don't see people needing that. To top that off, Canon's manifestation of DO has yielded mixed results- the 400/4, while light and handholdable, is worse in sharpness and contrast than the 400/5.6L- and while you can shoot RAW to correct your photos in PP- this is not something that sports shooters on a deadline have the ability to do. The 400 DO was expensive (still expensive for the image quality) and Canon did not make too many of those.
Unless Nikon can improve DO technology, it's best they stay away from it.


Maybe I'm alone on this one, but a 400/4 that allows you to crop down to 200/4 just doesn't seem that compelling to me.
From what you are saying it seems that you think 200 is not wide enough? If you need even wider Nikon does make the 80-400...

ponderosabob wrote:
Chris Dees wrote:
Just put a 1.4 TC on the 200-400


Sure,
That way I can reduce the IQ even further.

Far better and cheaper/lighter than your example would be a 200/2 with a 1.4, 1.7, and even a 2.
Or go to a 300, 400, 500 etc. All would be better options than extending a 200-400.
Heck, even better would be a D300 w/ the 200-400.

But my point was.... picture the same D300 with a 300-600/4 native lens on it.

Not that I'm unhappy with what I have and what's available, mind you, I'm just airing my
wish for a potentially "perfect" long lens solution.




Nikons 2x TC is quite bad and I fail to see how a 200 f2 with a 2x TC would make any sense if you've got a 200-400 f4 and want to shoot at 400mm. The zoom is going to give much better performance than the 200 w/ a 2x.

I've shot the 200-400 with a 1.4 and 1.7x and its surprisingly good. AF is a little slower but it looked to me as good as my 400 2.8 with TC's. The 400 on its own beats the 200-400 in terms of IQ and also AF but with TC's they are pretty equal I was surprised to find

You'd expect the zoom to take more of a hit since it is a zoom, but it really holds up very well and takes to TC's nicely.

If you've got the light a 200-400 with a 1.4x is an ideal daytime field sports lens and more useful than a 400 with 1.4x because I've been burned by that combo on a lot of deep passes as its just too much reach. Being able to back off would be very useful.

millsart wrote:


I've shot the 200-400 with a 1.4 and 1.7x and its surprisingly good. AF is a little slower but it looked to me as good as my 400 2.8 with TC's. The 400 on its own beats the 200-400 in terms of IQ and also AF but with TC's they are pretty equal I was surprised to find

You'd expect the zoom to take more of a hit since it is a zoom, but it really holds up very well and takes to TC's nicely.



I disagree completely.
The 400/2.8 w/1.4 TC or 1.7TC is better optically, and much quicker than a naked 200-400.
At least this has been my experience.

However, my experience has to do with wildlife, and tracking BIF, not sports action. I can see
where the 200-400 would be invaluable in that situation.

I agree with Ponderosa My 400 2.8 afs-I is far sharper than either of my 200-400's were. And with the price savings I paid for a D300 and 85 1.8 for the action that gets real close

Hmmm weird, at a soccer match I was able to use my 400 2.8 AF-S II and another shooters 200-400 and I kept swapping them with and without TC's during the match to test out the 200-400 as I was thinking of buying one.

The 200-400 worked VERY well with the 1.4x and didnt show any degradation at all I could see, same as the 400 2.8.

200-400 was probably the sharpest zoom lens I've ever shot with. Or at least that one was.....

I'd be a bit unhappy if I paid $5000 and it looked no better than my 70-200

Guys, I'm genuinely sorry that your 200-400 lenses were not sharp, or your cameras weren't perfectly adjusted, or you had too much coffee. Or something. I really am... you've missed out on a great lens. Pardon the patronizing tone, but let us please remember that our individual opinions are just that: opinions. Others can and will disagree.

Obviously I'm one of those who disagree. I've failed to detect any visible degradation of image quality in a 200-400 with or without a 1.4x TC, and I've put about 25,000 clicks through that lens (maybe 2/3 with TC, 1/3 without). For instance, these three are all from a D200/200-400/1.4x, fully-zoomed-out to 550mm and wide-open at f/5.6; and I can clearly see color variations within individual hairs on her:

I'd love to have a 200-600/4, but it would probably break my arms, not to mention put a dent in the pocketbook.

EBH

Wow I'm sold,Rodolfo Paiz's
# 3 is to good, I can smell that shot
Was going to buy a 300-2.8 VR knowing it would be a little to long sometimes
But am rethinking that now, 200-400 looking good
( I know this has nothing to do with the post)

Speaking of the 200-400mm f/4, I rented one this weekend. I used it today to shoot a cycling event (time trial). It's a fantastic lens. I'll rent it again. The $60 weekend rental fee (Friday after 3:00 pm until Tuesday at 10:00 am) is cheap. And if it's not reserved, then the rental fee is only $30 for the same time period. What a deal!

~Ted

turnert wrote:
Speaking of the 200-400mm f/4, I rented one this weekend. I used it today to shoot a cycling event (time trial). It's a fantastic lens. I'll rent it again. The $60 weekend rental fee (Friday after 3:00 pm until Tuesday at 10:00 am) is cheap. And if it's not reserved, then the rental fee is only $30 for the same time period. What a deal!

~Ted


Wow, you have got the greatest rental place near where you are. Anything I can rent is a 4 hour round trip or mail-order and the prices either way are a lot higher. Lucky man you are.

Andre

Andre,

Well, the prices are great, but it's also nearly a 4-hour round-trip for me as well. The shop is in Portland, but I drive through there quite a bit anyway. This time; however, I may ship the lens back instead of driving back to Portland, hopefully without a second day rental charge if I time it right.

Here's what they have available:
http://www.prophotosupply.com/p-rental.htm

~Ted