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!

Way, waaaaaay sharper. Yes, there's an IQ difference. The AF is damn near as good as the 300/400mm primes... not quite, but close. The overall results you get from the "long gun prime line" (200/2, 300/2.8, 400/2.8, 500/4, and 600/4) in IQ, AF, etc. are all marginally better than the 200-400/4. But the only lens cheaper than the 200-400 ($6K) is the 200/2 at $5K, while all others are $8K to $11K. So yes, they have better performance... they should! The long-gun primes within its range also capture more light, which is another good reason why they're so big, so heavy, and so expensive. A very real benefit, and one you obviously pay for.

Aside from those? Bring any other lens of 200+ mm to the party, and the 200-400 will flog the daylights out of it, publicly humiliate it, stomp on its self-esteem, make it hurt in bearings it never knew it had, and send it whimpering back home to lick its wounds.

Not that I'm taking sides or anything, you understand...

your are killing me!! i have never heard the term 'cheaper' used in conjunction with the 200-400vr before, but i guess everything's relative. my shooting will be hand held and budget is a consideration, so the limit in size and price would be the 200-400mm...

but i guess you are saying it might be just a tad better.....

The 200-400 takes at least a monopod. It lives on my D300 and I always use a monopod and a RRS monopod head (so worth it!)

The lens is worth it, though I've seen some awfully nice pics posted here (mostly in good light) shot with the Nikon 80-400. The focusing speed can't be compared, though.

And I just saw a rumor that there could be an upgrade to the 80-400 soon (yeah, we've heard that for about five years now...)

Good luck.

I have had the 80-400 nikkor, and currently have the 200-400 nikkor.

The 200-400 is sharp wide open, throughout its zoom range, focus is much faster, as said needs at least a monopod.

The 80-400 is much lighter, and more compact.

Taken at the weekend with the 200-400 wide open at f4

the 200-400VR is WAY better than the Sigma, even if the Sigma is a good lens. AF is much faster and pictures are really sharp fully open. That's basically the biggest difference: I needed F8 or above on the Sigma 80-400OS to get good pictures and the 200-400VR has better IQ @f4, that's 2 stops better for an even better (much better) IQ. I am using the 200-400VR hand held 98% of the time, and the only drawback is weight, but you get used to it.
also see my mini-reviews
http://www.techniphoto.com/wiki/index.php?title=80-400mm_OS_Sigma
http://www.techniphoto.com/wiki/index.php?title=200-400mm_AF-S_VR_Nikkor

Guy

Remember you are comparing a $1000 lens to a $6000 lens.

Nikon 200-400 wide open at 330 mm. Taken last Sunday in overcast conditions.

thanks guys (and gals)...i know i'm comparing lenses in totally different price classes, but since there is nothing in between those ranges those are the only choices i have.

i've used my sigma 80-400 pretty extensively (including about 3k shots in tanzania 2 years ago) and think it performs pretty well if you stay in its sweet spot, which as was reviewed means f8-f16 or thereabouts. focus speed is decent, better than the nikon version, but not blazing.

i guess the comments are confirming what my gut has been telling me--the 200-400 opens up new possibilities because it's faster and shaper at any aperture but comes at a cost in terms of weight, size and mostly price.

i haven't broached the subject of this lens with my better half yet, but these days capital expenditures such as this have to be mutually agreed upon! at least with glass, if purchased well (i buy all my kit here on fm in mint used condition) i believe it holds 80-90% of its value over time so the actual 'cost of ownership' isn't really very high at all...much cheaper to own than rent something like this if you use it just a couple of times.

lots to chew over, but thanks again for the info and confirmation. i wish someone (probably sigma) would try to bridge the gap between the $1000 and $6000 price buckets. i think there would be a market for a higher quality long zoom in the $2000 range..

wait and see if the 100-500 afs vr turns up in the next couple of months. i have to say, i do like my nikon 80-400vr.

louis fusco wrote:
wait and see if the 100-500 afs vr turns up in the next couple of months. i have to say, i do like my nikon 80-400vr.

hadn't heard those rumblings, but if someone puts out that lens at a reasonable price i think i'd be all over it. but wait, sigma already has the 150-500 os which has the hsm motor...and the sigma is less than $1000 new..i'm not in a rush, but would like to have figured this out before we go away for a 'birding' weekend in mid december. thx.

cohenfive wrote:


hadn't heard those rumblings, but if someone puts out that lens at a reasonable price i think i'd be all over it. but wait, sigma already has the 150-500 os which has the hsm motor...and the sigma is less than $1000 new..i'm not in a rush, but would like to have figured this out before we go away for a 'birding' weekend in mid december. thx.


I used to have a Sigma, the 500 f4.5, it was not any good until around f7.1, and then I was never happy with the results, however others have reported good things with it, a case of sample variation. A shame but I traded it for the 200-400, image quality leaves the Sigma standing, but so it should at the cost.

My 200-400 spends more time on my camera than any other lens, which makes it a worthwhile expenditure for me. I understand your predicament, but if you pick one up used, and look after it, should the need arise you could resell it without loosing too much money, if any at all.

cohenfive wrote:
i wish someone (probably sigma) would try to bridge the gap between the $1000 and $6000 price buckets. i think there would be a market for a higher quality long zoom in the $2000 range...

I would bet that Nikon improves the 80-400 real soon now. It's old, and while it's a "nice" lens it is also definitely a notch or three below the other lenses around it in the lineup. That's likely going to be (IMHO) right under $2,000 and, if it does its job as well as the 70-300 VR does, then I'm going to buy the first one I see.

As for weight, it's all about what you shoot and how much you want to put into it. I remember being shocked at the size/weight of my new 70-200/2.8 back whenever! I got used to it. The 200-400 is heavy and long and expensive (but lighter and cheaper and shorter than the 400/500/600). If you want to use a monopod, tripod, or Wimberley, great... if your subject matter allows it, even better. Some things do not, like airshows where there is just too much fast movement in both the horizontal and the vertical. Handheld or head home.

Here's a couple of images to show of what the 200-400 can do, even in the hands of a rank amateur. Most are fully-zoomed-out and wide-open, and a few have the 1.4x TC added in to make the lens's life more interesting. All handheld.

Cheetah portrait. Kichwa Tembo Bateleur Camp in Masai Mara Wildlife Reserve, Kenya.
Nikon D200 + 200-400/4 + 1.4x TC, 1/500s f/5.6 @ 550mm iso200.

Here's a T-38 leaving the scene in a serious hurry. This thing was gone in a very real hurry, so the image you see here is cropped from the D3x's original 24.5MP all the way down to 3.5MP. A whopping 13% of the sensor, and most of what's left is still blue sky. Look at the details visible on the jet, and you have an idea of what this lens can deliver.

Nikon D3x + 200-400/4, 1/800 f/4 @ 400mm iso100

The 200-400 is a seriously sharp lens, even with a 1.4x TC. I've read a bit on the web, even from Bjorn I think it was, that its not great with a 1.4x but I'm just blown away with how sharp mine is, even wide open.

It easily rivals my 400 2.8 even

one of these just popped up on nikonians..is anybody here also a member there (i am a fm supporter only) who can get the email addy of the seller or is that bad form?

I don't know what they consider to be bad form. I wouldn't see anything wrong with it, because you're choosing to support the forums you want and that's an individual choice. MHO anyway.

Bottom line: Excellent glass cost money. I just sold my 200-400 on Nikonians and I'm trying to buy another lens (I keep getting out bid). You can get a used lens for the price you want, if you have patience and are realistic in valuing the lens.

Good luck.

This is a link to the Nikkor 100-500 AF-S VR that Louis mentioned:
http://nikonrumors.com/2009/09/28/more-nikon-lenses-rumors.aspx

Take care. Bob

if the rumors on the nikon 100-500vr turn out to be true i wonder if it would have a negative impact on the value of the 200-400vr..or is that just another league entirely and wouldn't be impacted. i'm so confused. my wife actually said to do what i want around my 'equipment'....i think she was talking about my camera gear...