Andre Labonte wrote:
Actually, if you have the 200-400 and the 600 and a 1.4 TC, you have all the range covered. The only reason to go with the 200, 300, 400, or 500 primes is if you need the speed. Where you have the 200 f/2 and a 1.4 TC, there is no need for the 300 f/2.8. The 400 and 500 are needed only if you need the speed over 200-400 and the 200-400 with a 1.4 TC respectively.

Arrrrrgh! This is exactly the point that keeps me going round and round. I agree with you completely, and I'd really like to pair an 840/5.6 (600/4+1.4x) on one body with the 200-400 on the other. But the weight, heft, and cost of the 600 definitely gives me pause and makes me consider the 500.

Lighter weight, easier handholdability (and I handhold in most situations), and greater ease of balance (plus $2,500) versus the extra reach. Sigh... I dunno.

The 600VR is about 20% more expensive than the 500VR. IMHO there's no substitute length.

The 200-400 + 600VR fits nicely side by side (with body attached) in a Kata-502 backpack and a large tripod + Wimberley at the side. There's space for some other gear, but not much.
Most of the time I pair the 600VR with the D300 (+ 1.7x TC) and 200-400 with the D3 (with or without 1.4x TC).

I can handhold the 600VR only for a couple of minutes, there's where the 200-400 comes in.
The 600VR should be on a tripod or monopod.

Rodolfo Paiz wrote:
Andre Labonte wrote:
Actually, if you have the 200-400 and the 600 and a 1.4 TC, you have all the range covered. The only reason to go with the 200, 300, 400, or 500 primes is if you need the speed. Where you have the 200 f/2 and a 1.4 TC, there is no need for the 300 f/2.8. The 400 and 500 are needed only if you need the speed over 200-400 and the 200-400 with a 1.4 TC respectively.

Arrrrrgh! This is exactly the point that keeps me going round and round. I agree with you completely, and I'd really like to pair an 840/5.6 (600/4+1.4x) on one body with the 200-400 on the other. But the weight, heft, and cost of the 600 definitely gives me pause and makes me consider the 500.

Lighter weight, easier handholdability (and I handhold in most situations), and greater ease of balance (plus $2,500) versus the extra reach. Sigh... I dunno.

Glad I could add to your torment . My statment was based on focal length and f-stop numbers only. Ergonomics, portability, cost, those are all other factors to consider. Personally, if I had the money, my choice of leses would be: 200, 200-400 and 500 .... the 500 over the 600 for all the reasons you state.

millsart wrote:
Humanoid wrote:
I would like to see some images 100% crops or have access to some of these images (fullsize) with and without TC's for comparisons from the 200-400.


Thats totally missing the point of the thread though. As 4 pages have shown, IQ is not something that should really be a factor in the decision process between the two.

No client or publication is going to complain that the files aren't sharp enough from either of these lens, with or without a tc.

300 w/ 1.4x, 200-400, 400 2.8...... Any of those represent the best possible image quality availible and differences between them are meaningless in the real world.

Everyone is intitled to their opinion but I disagree. Nice political answer though . If one is shooting wildlife focal length and sharpness are critical and if one lens fits the bill over the other sobeit.

90 5.0 wrote:
Humanoid wrote:
I would like to see some images 100% crops or have access to some of these images (fullsize) with and without TC's for comparisons from the 200-400.


Friends don't let friends pixel peep.



Friends are overated.

Andre Labonte wrote:
Humanoid wrote:
I would like to see some images 100% crops or have access to some of these images (fullsize) with and without TC's for comparisons from the 200-400.



Some people just done seem to get it!



Well if you're going to take the time to type a silly response perhaps you could try and type something that would explain your thoughts. Are you saying sample images at 100% are worthless and all reviews should not have any samples for peeps to view. Frankly, I don't get your reply!

Maybe you prefer a lens that is less sharp and focuses slowering than another lens at the long end of the focal range. There has been quite a bit of talk concerning TC's on the 200-400 and I find it contradictory and a little more support would be a nice change if its not to much trouble .

Humanoid wrote:
Andre Labonte wrote:
Humanoid wrote:
I would like to see some images 100% crops or have access to some of these images (fullsize) with and without TC's for comparisons from the 200-400.



Some people just done seem to get it!



Well if you're going to take the time to type a silly response perhaps you could try and type something that would explain your thoughts. Are you saying sample images at 100% are worthless and all reviews should not have any samples for peeps to view. Frankly, I don't get your reply!

Maybe you prefer a lens that is less sharp and focuses slowering than another lens at the long end of the focal range. There has been quite a bit of talk concerning TC's on the 200-400 and I find it contradictory and a little more support would be a nice change if its not to much trouble .




Again, did you actually read through this entire thread and several other ones on the 200-400 in recent months ? Tons of great shooters, many of which are very well known and respected professionals in their field, all have weighted in about this sharpness issue.

I get asked about my 200-400 at every game I shoot and the questions from my fellow peers are always about how useful do I find the range, do I find f4 to be a limitation on some fields, hows the balance etc. I've never once had anyone come up and ask me to email them some 100% crops. Its a non factor because its a given its going to be sharp enough for any published professional work.

millsart wrote:
Humanoid wrote:
Andre Labonte wrote:
Humanoid wrote:
I would like to see some images 100% crops or have access to some of these images (fullsize) with and without TC's for comparisons from the 200-400.



Some people just done seem to get it!



Well if you're going to take the time to type a silly response perhaps you could try and type something that would explain your thoughts. Are you saying sample images at 100% are worthless and all reviews should not have any samples for peeps to view. Frankly, I don't get your reply!

Maybe you prefer a lens that is less sharp and focuses slowering than another lens at the long end of the focal range. There has been quite a bit of talk concerning TC's on the 200-400 and I find it contradictory and a little more support would be a nice change if its not to much trouble .




Again, did you actually read through this entire thread and several other ones on the 200-400 in recent months ? Tons of great shooters, many of which are very well known and respected professionals in their field, all have weighted in about this sharpness issue.

I've seen quite a bit of work from many over the years and Raymond Barlow is probably one that I think of first when it comes to the 200-400. Of course thats wildlife shooting and the area of my concern. Why would I care if a publisher deems my image sharp enough when I don't. I don't care about a buck but, I suppose if your pleasing someone else I guess it doesn't matter.

I get asked about my 200-400 at every game I shoot and the questions from my fellow peers are always about how useful do I find the range, do I find f4 to be a limitation on some fields, hows the balance etc. I've never once had anyone come up and ask me to email them some 100% crops. Its a non factor because its a given its going to be sharp enough for any published professional work.

I've seen quite a bit of work from many over the years and Raymond Barlow is probably one that I think of first when it comes to the 200-400. Of course thats wildlife shooting and the area of my concern. Why would I care if a publisher deems my image sharp enough when I don't. I don't care about a buck but, I suppose if your pleasing someone else I guess it doesn't matter.

Shooting at 400mm is closer to the minimum focal range for wildlife shooting. That's where TC's come in to play. A 300 VR lens or 300mm f4 AFS with TC17eII is 510mm and very sharp while maintaining AF. Though, the f4 lens will focus much slooooower the higher ISO capabilities of today's DSLR's allow us to get the shutter speeds to an exceptable setting.

For sports, I Don't believe there is a better lens for the job then the 200-400 zoom and I don't believe there is a better zoom period.

Thank you for your response!

Ray

millsart wrote:
Humanoid wrote:
Andre Labonte wrote:
Humanoid wrote:
I would like to see some images 100% crops or have access to some of these images (fullsize) with and without TC's for comparisons from the 200-400.



Some people just done seem to get it!



Well if you're going to take the time to type a silly response perhaps you could try and type something that would explain your thoughts. Are you saying sample images at 100% are worthless and all reviews should not have any samples for peeps to view. Frankly, I don't get your reply!

Maybe you prefer a lens that is less sharp and focuses slowering than another lens at the long end of the focal range. There has been quite a bit of talk concerning TC's on the 200-400 and I find it contradictory and a little more support would be a nice change if its not to much trouble .




Again, did you actually read through this entire thread and several other ones on the 200-400 in recent months ? Tons of great shooters, many of which are very well known and respected professionals in their field, all have weighted in about this sharpness issue.

I get asked about my 200-400 at every game I shoot and the questions from my fellow peers are always about how useful do I find the range, do I find f4 to be a limitation on some fields, hows the balance etc. I've never once had anyone come up and ask me to email them some 100% crops. Its a non factor because its a given its going to be sharp enough for any published professional work.


+10 to this. Thank you millsart for explaing the obvious yet again. Obvious IF you read through this entire thread.

Humanoid wrote:

Shooting at 400mm is closer to the minimum focal range for wildlife shooting. That's where TC's come in to play. A 300 VR lens or 300mm f4 AFS with TC17eII is 510mm and very sharp while maintaining AF. Though, the f4 lens will focus much slooooower the higher ISO capabilities of today's DSLR's allow us to get the shutter speeds to an exceptable setting.




I think you've answered your own question then regarding if the 200-400 would be a good choice for your needs, and you did so without having to rely on 100% crops lol

If wildlife shooting, especially on a FX body, 400mm would indeed be the minimum I'd want and frankly its a bit short even.

For such a pursuit, a 200-400 makes little sense because the zoom range which is very useful for a long pass in a football game isn't going to be any benefit.

Your going to want the longest/fastest lens you can get so you can further maximize reach with TC's as even a 500mm often would lead you wanting more.

When I was a Canon shooter I had a 500 f4 on a 1.3x crop 1D mkIII body for my limited wildlife interest and I had a 1.4x TC on there about 95% of the time, so thats 700mm with a 1.3x crop and of I still wanted more.

For your needs I'd rule out anything but at least 500 f4 really. I think the 200-400 is an awesome lens for sure, but for primarily wildlife pursuits, especially birding, all your getting for your $6300 is a lens thats going to feel short. Some respected wildlife shooters do use them, and under certain conditions it would indeed be great, but they also have a 600 f4 you'll notice.

I guess if you can afford a 600 f4 and a 200-400 then you've got it made with the perfect two lens combo. (How'd you hike with both of them I don't know though!)

millsart wrote:
Humanoid wrote:

Shooting at 400mm is closer to the minimum focal range for wildlife shooting. That's where TC's come in to play. A 300 VR lens or 300mm f4 AFS with TC17eII is 510mm and very sharp while maintaining AF. Though, the f4 lens will focus much slooooower the higher ISO capabilities of today's DSLR's allow us to get the shutter speeds to an exceptable setting.




I think you've answered your own question then regarding if the 200-400 would be a good choice for your needs, and you did so without having to rely on 100% crops lol

If wildlife shooting, especially on a FX body, 400mm would indeed be the minimum I'd want and frankly its a bit short even.

For such a pursuit, a 200-400 makes little sense because the zoom range which is very useful for a long pass in a football game isn't going to be any benefit.

Your going to want the longest/fastest lens you can get so you can further maximize reach with TC's as even a 500mm often would lead you wanting more.

When I was a Canon shooter I had a 500 f4 on a 1.3x crop 1D mkIII body for my limited wildlife interest and I had a 1.4x TC on there about 95% of the time, so thats 700mm with a 1.3x crop and of I still wanted more.

For your needs I'd rule out anything but at least 500 f4 really. I think the 200-400 is an awesome lens for sure, but for primarily wildlife pursuits, especially birding, all your getting for your $6300 is a lens thats going to feel short. Some respected wildlife shooters do use them, and under certain conditions it would indeed be great, but they also have a 600 f4 you'll notice.

I guess if you can afford a 600 f4 and a 200-400 then you've got it made with the perfect two lens combo. (How'd you hike with both of them I don't know though!)


Well...still didn't answer my question as BIF is critical and handholding a 200-400 is not a problem but handholding a 600 would be and forget hiking with it . So....a TC on a 200-400 would give the range needed but would it sacrafice IQ or AF tracking?

If I were buying a new lens a 500 f4 VR would be a great choice with a gimbal or wimberly and probably the one I would choose unless the 200-400 with TC's equaled the IQ of a 500 prime.

My comment to the OP is to rent the lenses and compare.

Humanoid wrote:
millsart wrote:
Humanoid wrote:

Shooting at 400mm is closer to the minimum focal range for wildlife shooting. That's where TC's come in to play. A 300 VR lens or 300mm f4 AFS with TC17eII is 510mm and very sharp while maintaining AF. Though, the f4 lens will focus much slooooower the higher ISO capabilities of today's DSLR's allow us to get the shutter speeds to an exceptable setting.




I think you've answered your own question then regarding if the 200-400 would be a good choice for your needs, and you did so without having to rely on 100% crops lol

If wildlife shooting, especially on a FX body, 400mm would indeed be the minimum I'd want and frankly its a bit short even.

For such a pursuit, a 200-400 makes little sense because the zoom range which is very useful for a long pass in a football game isn't going to be any benefit.

Your going to want the longest/fastest lens you can get so you can further maximize reach with TC's as even a 500mm often would lead you wanting more.

When I was a Canon shooter I had a 500 f4 on a 1.3x crop 1D mkIII body for my limited wildlife interest and I had a 1.4x TC on there about 95% of the time, so thats 700mm with a 1.3x crop and of I still wanted more.

For your needs I'd rule out anything but at least 500 f4 really. I think the 200-400 is an awesome lens for sure, but for primarily wildlife pursuits, especially birding, all your getting for your $6300 is a lens thats going to feel short. Some respected wildlife shooters do use them, and under certain conditions it would indeed be great, but they also have a 600 f4 you'll notice.

I guess if you can afford a 600 f4 and a 200-400 then you've got it made with the perfect two lens combo. (How'd you hike with both of them I don't know though!)


Well...still didn't answer my question as BIF is critical and handholding a 200-400 is not a problem but handholding a 600 would be and forget hiking with it . So....a TC on a 200-400 would give the range needed but would it sacrafice IQ or AF tracking?

If I were buying a new lens a 500 f4 VR would be a great choice with a gimbal or wimberly and probably the one I would choose unless the 200-400 with TC's equaled the IQ of a 500 prime.

My comment to the OP is to rent the lenses and compare.





Ah, now that makes sense. Would not a 200-400 + 500 combo also make sense. the zoom for flexability and the prime when you needed either the speed @ 500 or the extra reach with a TC?

Andre Labonte wrote:
Humanoid wrote:
millsart wrote:
Humanoid wrote:

Shooting at 400mm is closer to the minimum focal range for wildlife shooting. That's where TC's come in to play. A 300 VR lens or 300mm f4 AFS with TC17eII is 510mm and very sharp while maintaining AF. Though, the f4 lens will focus much slooooower the higher ISO capabilities of today's DSLR's allow us to get the shutter speeds to an exceptable setting.




I think you've answered your own question then regarding if the 200-400 would be a good choice for your needs, and you did so without having to rely on 100% crops lol

If wildlife shooting, especially on a FX body, 400mm would indeed be the minimum I'd want and frankly its a bit short even.

For such a pursuit, a 200-400 makes little sense because the zoom range which is very useful for a long pass in a football game isn't going to be any benefit.

Your going to want the longest/fastest lens you can get so you can further maximize reach with TC's as even a 500mm often would lead you wanting more.

When I was a Canon shooter I had a 500 f4 on a 1.3x crop 1D mkIII body for my limited wildlife interest and I had a 1.4x TC on there about 95% of the time, so thats 700mm with a 1.3x crop and of I still wanted more.

For your needs I'd rule out anything but at least 500 f4 really. I think the 200-400 is an awesome lens for sure, but for primarily wildlife pursuits, especially birding, all your getting for your $6300 is a lens thats going to feel short. Some respected wildlife shooters do use them, and under certain conditions it would indeed be great, but they also have a 600 f4 you'll notice.

I guess if you can afford a 600 f4 and a 200-400 then you've got it made with the perfect two lens combo. (How'd you hike with both of them I don't know though!)


Well...still didn't answer my question as BIF is critical and handholding a 200-400 is not a problem but handholding a 600 would be and forget hiking with it . So....a TC on a 200-400 would give the range needed but would it sacrafice IQ or AF tracking?

If I were buying a new lens a 500 f4 VR would be a great choice with a gimbal or wimberly and probably the one I would choose unless the 200-400 with TC's equaled the IQ of a 500 prime.

My comment to the OP is to rent the lenses and compare.





Ah, now that makes sense. Would not a 200-400 + 500 combo also make sense. the zoom for flexability and the prime when you needed either the speed @ 500 or the extra reach with a TC?

Very much so if money isn't an object and I know the 500mm takes TC's well.

Ray

Humanoid wrote:
A 300 VR lens or 300mm f4 AFS with TC17eII is 510mm and very sharp while maintaining AF. Though, the f4 lens will focus much slooooower the higher ISO capabilities of today's DSLR's allow us to get the shutter speeds to an exceptable setting.

The part about "slooooower" AF is simply not true, and is a statement typically made by those who haven't used the 200-400. The 300+1.7x yields a 510/4.8 while the 200-400+1.4x yields a 560/5.6. The zoom gives you 50mm extra, but loses half a stop. The AF on a D300 does get a little slower and less accurate at f/5.6... but the same thing happens at f/4.8 and there's very little difference between the two. I've shot both combos enough to know (especially the 200-400, through which I've put at least 60,000 clicks).

The AF speed/accuracy difference between the 510/4.8 and the 560/5.6 is just about the same as the difference between the naked 300/2.8 and 200-400/4: perceptible and real, but small enough to be negligible. It only matters when even the tiniest bit of speed matters... and if it matters that much, then the shooter should either be making enough money from his work, or care enough about his hobby, to really spend the money on the absolute best gear that could possibly be had at any price: and that would include pretty much all the big guns, since each serves a special purpose if that's what you need.

Also, please note that I compared the performance of the two lenses on a D300. On a D3 or D3x, the difference in performance is smaller because the camera's servos are stronger and the AF slightly faster and more accurate. Some of my best shots ever are from a trip to Africa with the 200-400+1.4x, even on a D200.

Humanoid wrote:
Well...still didn't answer my question as BIF is critical and handholding a 200-400 is not a problem but handholding a 600 would be and forget hiking with it . So....a TC on a 200-400 would give the range needed but would it sacrafice IQ or AF tracking?

Short answer: no. The AF performance and image quality of the 200-400, naked or with the 1.4x TC, is so close to matching what you can get from the 300 and 400 primes, that there is no functional difference. The only differences are the real-and-perceptible-but-small-enough-to-be-negligible performance delta I mentioned before and the maximum aperture you can get from each. If you absolutely need f/2 at 200, f/2.8 at 300 or 400, or f/4 at 500, then you need the prime. But I don't think you'll find yourself in a situation... any situation... ever... where the performance delta in AF and IQ between this zoom and any of the 300+ primes will be enough for you to say that you absolutely needed the prime to get the shot.

In fact, you've just made a clear case for the 200-400 yourself. Even if the 600 produced perceptibly sharper and perceptibly better images (which I'll argue it really doesn't), then that's still entirely useless to you if you can't get the shot at all because you can't lift it, right? So yes, sharpness is a factor, and AF is another, and IQ is another. But in all of those factors, the 200-400 holds its own extremely well. In the area of reach and maximum aperture it is beat by the primes, but in the area of handholdability and portability it excels.

Pixel peep all you like... there's plenty of images out there to look at. What I'm telling you, in case that opinion is useful to you, is that pixel peeping really is irrelevant and you'll end up wasting your time (at best) or making unwise decisions (at worst). Figure out what you need from reach and aperture, from weight and portability/handholdability, from convenience and cost, and those will tell you directly which lens you should get.

With any of these lenses, the limiting factor in image quality will be your own skill, not the lens. That's certainly true for me and for most shooters I've ever met.

Apologies to most of you since you've seen these images before, but just as a quick sample of what the 200-400 can do and why I keep saying that the limiting factor in its performance will almost always be the shooter.

Sharpness and resolution

Here's a T-38 smoking by at about 400 knots. You can clearly see the detail of the individual rivets. Not the fact that there are rivets, mind you... I mean the detail of what each rivet looks like! 1/2000 f/4 @ 400mm iso100.

NAS ---- GACK, Rodolfo, you are going to kill me with NAS!

Nice shots dude!

Thanks, Andre! We need to go shooting together sometime so you can really try it.

D200, D300, D3x, with TC, without TC... what this lens can do is simply beyond belief. Whatever small advantage it gives up to the primes in AF/IQ is sooooo worth it, it's not even funny.

The thing is sharp, i have no doubt its nikon pro glass unless something is way outa place its gonna be amazing, but the images posted say something and i may be wrong but ive only seen a few night shots... how many of you 200-400 shooters use it for night and how many have another teli 2.8 that comes out for the night?

I do very little night shooting at all, so I honestly have no idea how the 200-400 would compare to its brethren when there's no light to be had. However, my solution to that particular question is going to be a D3s for $5K instead of a faster lens for $8K-$10K.

Others will have to educate us (myself included) on the f/4 vs. f/2.8 question in night shooting. I'd speculate that the difference is very real in that case... one stop is one stop is one stop, here and in Kalamazoo, and double the shutter speed for night sports has got to be a factor to consider.

I do want one of the long primes in addition to the 200-400 (which I never plan on giving up), but I want it for reach not speed.

Rodolfo Paiz wrote:
I do very little night shooting at all, so I honestly have no idea how the 200-400 would compare to its brethren when there's no light to be had. However, my solution to that particular question is going to be a D3s for $5K instead of a faster lens for $8K-$10K.

I do want one of the long primes, but I want it for reach.

the d3 is amazing enough but i dont see a faster body as the be all end all...
this is what im interested to hear, i know you can get away with f4 at dusk with d1 lighitng (have done it 300+1.4) but not with much flub room

ps every time i think about swapping my 300 for th 200-400 i remember that im a 2.8 addict