Would you rather have a 200-400 or 400 2.8 VR assuming price was no object??

As a nature photographer, the 200-400 is more versatile. IQ is undoubtedly better with the 2.8 but I have no complaints about it with my 200-400. It's also LOTS smaller and easier to pack and carry.

The comparison is usually between the 300 2.8 and the 200-400, my understanding is that the 400 just kills it

Had both and just sold the 400 2.8. There was no noticeable sharpness differences and the zoom versatility is just priceless.

400 2.8 can still be nice for night games but anytime the light is enough for f4 (pretty often with a D3) I'd always prefer to be shooting with the zoom. As such, made no sense to keep a $7000 400 2.8 sitting around for a handful of night games a year.

200-400 is the best lens purchase I've ever bought. Works great with a 1.4x tc for a 280-560mm F5.6 zoom as well. No more getting burned with the 400 and TC when they throw a deep ball and your stuck at 560mm.

Even if the 200-400 cost the same as the 400 I'd still prefer the 200-400.

The weight savings is quite welcome as well. 200-400 isn't a light lens but its sure easier to walk around a golf course with. Just did the state high school tournament with it and it make it so much more pleasant. Not just in terms of weight, but also in terms of framing around the greens. With the 400 I was always having to try to position myself for the right framing and if it was too right, run up with my 70-200. With the 200-400 you can just turn the zoom and back it off a little if 400mm is a bit tight.

Priceless lens

I'm going thru that same dilema at the moment.I have the 400/2.8 and love the image quality.I shoot a lot of H.S. sports and the 2.8 was pretty much mandatory when I shot Canon. After switching back to Nikon with the D3 I'm thinking I could possibly get bye with the 200-400/4. I enjoy shooting Nature stuff when I'm not shooting sports so I thought the lighter weight of the zoom might be nice also.My other thought is to go with a 500/4. millsart makes a great argument towards going with the zoom, maybe I should just take his advise and go for the 200-400/4.

I usually like primes for wildlife, and honestly, a 400 2.8 is tempting, but on my last trip to Yellowstone, the 200-400 really came in handy for shots out the window.

Frankly, I don't think it takes a TC as well as a prime does, but used in its naked form, I'm generally pretty happy with it. My 300 2.8 is only slightly sharper (although my 500 f4 is definitely sharper). My guess is the 400 2.8 is a sharper optic, but it sucks from 200mm-399mm

Hard to argue against EITHER of these lenses, but...

400/f2.8VR would be the one for me. If absolute TOP IQ is your goal, the 400 and 300/f2.8's (ok, and the 200/f2VR) are as good as it gets. While the 200-400 is amazing in its own right, and truthfully for some will be the better option for the flexibility of shooting at 200 and 400 and everything in between, the IQ on the 400/f2.8 is just plain jaw-dropping even wide open.

Myself, I almost always go for the flexibility of a pro quality fast zoom now days. They are fast to frame, versatile, and with high ISO capable cameras my thinking the need for f2.8 has been greatly lessened. The VR makes it a killer!


Kent in SD

dj dunzie wrote:
Hard to argue against EITHER of these lenses, but...

400/f2.8VR would be the one for me. If absolute TOP IQ is your goal, the 400 and 300/f2.8's (ok, and the 200/f2VR) are as good as it gets. While the 200-400 is amazing in its own right, and truthfully for some will be the better option for the flexibility of shooting at 200 and 400 and everything in between, the IQ on the 400/f2.8 is just plain jaw-dropping even wide open.

light performance 2.8>4 even with the iso of the d3, and 2.8 isolation sure is purdy

ishootsports3 wrote:

light performance 2.8>4 even with the iso of the d3, and 2.8 isolation sure is purdy

Thing to remember though is unless you absolutely need the light, f2.8 is usually too thin of DOF. During daytime football games I'd shoot my 400 at f5.6 because I wanted more DOF.

When your shooting in a big stadium the background, in that case the fans, are just going to be a nice wash of color regardless of if its f2.8 or f4 or f5.6 etc. It looks great regardless.

F2.8 though is really a bit thin for things like a quarterback getting sacked because if your focused on the QB, then the linebacker who's diving into for the tackle isn't going to be sharp and then the image gets rejected because both subjects aren't sharp.

As long as you've got nice clean backgrounds I think it makes more sense to stop down in most cases.

dj dunzie wrote:

400/f2.8VR would be the one for me. If absolute TOP IQ is your goal, the 400 and 300/f2.8's (ok, and the 200/f2VR) are as good as it gets. While the 200-400 is amazing in its own right, and truthfully for some will be the better option for the flexibility of shooting at 200 and 400 and everything in between, the IQ on the 400/f2.8 is just plain jaw-dropping even wide open.


Got to remember as well that top IQ really doesn't make a break a great shot. Look at some of the double trucks in SI. They aren't always the most tack sharp shots you'll see, but they are of really amazing moments.

No one is going to publish a shot just because its jaw dropping sharp, even wide open. Thats fine and good when your doing a lens comparison test and posting in on a photo forum but in the real world its more about content.

No one is going to ever reject a shot from the 200-400 because if your pixel peeping it at 400% its not sharp enough.

What they can and will reject a shot for is if the framing is too tight. I think it was 2 or 3 years ago I have this great diving catch of OSU sensation Ted Ginn Jr and it was shot with a 400 with a 1.4x TC. Plenty sharp of course. Submitted it to the wire service with the rest of my stuff from that game and they got back in touch with me wanting the original file because they thought I might of cropped it a little.

SI's picture desk editor wanted it for one of the opening double trucks but they felt it was just a little tight and wouldn't work for the layout. No no sale.

Had I been a Nikon shooting with a 200-400 back then, I could of backed it off from 400mm to 350mm, had the framing just right and made the sale.

Of all the elements that going into a "perfect" shot, absolute sharpness isn't really that high on the list.

ScottSchupbach wrote:
...millsart makes a great argument towards going with the zoom...


No kidding; I'm almost ready to dump my 200VR and put the dough toward the 200-400/4.

Steve Perry wrote:
I usually like primes for wildlife, and honestly, a 400 2.8 is tempting, but on my last trip to Yellowstone, the 200-400 really came in handy for shots out the window.

Frankly, I don't think it takes a TC as well as a prime does, but used in its naked form, I'm generally pretty happy with it. My 300 2.8 is only slightly sharper (although my 500 f4 is definitely sharper). My guess is the 400 2.8 is a sharper optic, but it sucks from 200mm-399mm

Steve, you should get that 200-400 checked out (or especially the TC). I can see no difference in image quality at any magnification with my 1.4.
In fact, TC's should improve image quality on most lenses since it accepts only the more central rays of the main optics. Sounds like something is a lemon here

Millsart...+1

The quality of the picture is more important than sharpness!

tomb18 wrote:

Steve, you should get that 200-400 checked out (or especially the TC). I can see no difference in image quality at any magnification with my 1.4.
In fact, TC's should improve image quality on most lenses since it accepts only the more central rays of the main optics. Sounds like something is a lemon here

I've got to +1 that as well. Not sure about the TC improving quality part, but I know on my 200-400 I see no issues at all with a 1.4x and can't tell the images from my zoom with tc and the 400 with tc apart still. They are all just great sharp images be it a 200-400 native, 400 native, 400 with 1.4x or 200-400 with a 1.4x. Any of those will be plenty sharp, even viewed at 100%

I honestly was a bit surprised how well the 200-400 took to a TC as well. I figured being a zoom it might take its toll but its still plenty sharp, even wide open. I probably have a TC on the 75% of the time in fact. LOVE that nearly 300-600 range for football and soccer

tomb18 wrote:
Millsart...+1

The quality of the picture is more important than sharpness!

Don't let the pixel peepers hear you say that! They will take you DOWN!

millsart wrote:
Had both and just sold the 400 2.8. There was no noticeable sharpness differences and the zoom versatility is just priceless.

400 2.8 can still be nice for night games but anytime the light is enough for f4 (pretty often with a D3) I'd always prefer to be shooting with the zoom. As such, made no sense to keep a $7000 400 2.8 sitting around for a handful of night games a year.

200-400 is the best lens purchase I've ever bought. Works great with a 1.4x tc for a 280-560mm F5.6 zoom as well. No more getting burned with the 400 and TC when they throw a deep ball and your stuck at 560mm.

Even if the 200-400 cost the same as the 400 I'd still prefer the 200-400.

The weight savings is quite welcome as well. 200-400 isn't a light lens but its sure easier to walk around a golf course with. Just did the state high school tournament with it and it make it so much more pleasant. Not just in terms of weight, but also in terms of framing around the greens. With the 400 I was always having to try to position myself for the right framing and if it was too right, run up with my 70-200. With the 200-400 you can just turn the zoom and back it off a little if 400mm is a bit tight.

Priceless lens

I completely agree. Also, to me, it's not about money no object either, lens choice primarily comes down to intended use. Both lenses are excellent, but both have different uses.

The 400/2.8 is 41% more expensive, and 40% heavier, than the 200-400/4, based on Nikon specs and B&H prices today. I cannot tell the difference between images taken with or without the TC, and brother does it make a beautiful 280-560/5.6. I've seen and compared images with the 400/2.8, and yes the 400 is a little better, as well as being a little faster to AF.

But I said "a little", and that minor improvement in IQ/AF is waaay less important to me than the difference in weight, heft, fatigue from long use, versatility, and even cost. I've used the 200-400 for sports, wildlife, aviation, and even kids' portraits or candids while they play. Try that with a 400...

Agreed with others: the 200-400 is the best lens purchase I've ever made. So much so, that twice I've been forced to sell a 200-400 because I needed cash; and I buy it back as soon as I'm able. All three of my 200-400 lenses have been incredible.

tomb18 wrote:
Steve, you should get that 200-400 checked out (or especially the TC). I can see no difference in image quality at any magnification with my 1.4.

+1 as well.

Have a 400mm f/2.8 VR and absolutely love it!!

Still wish I had the money for a 200-400 tho

Any way you look at it, you're getting top tier optics. yeah, the 400mm 2.8 has better IQ than the 200-400... but can you REALLY tell the difference in normal use (not doing tests or pixel peeping)? you can't possibly go wrong with either choice, especially if you shoot with the latest sensors (D3, D700 or better). High ISO capabilities in recent/current bodies will more than make up for that one stop difference (unless it's bokeh and DOF you're after).