|
|
martyn.
Online
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jul 29, 2007
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 251
|
|
Review Date: Feb 17, 2010
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Sharp wide open, fast positive focus, great range for in flight shots, nice to zoom out to locate the subject, then zoom in for the shot, 6ft close focus distance.
|
|
Cons:
|
Not quite as sharp on distant subjects as a prime.
|
|
I use mine for birds all year, and butterflies and dragonflies through the summer.
I have used it with the 1.4 and 1.7 TC (on a D300), still sharp wide open with the 1.4, and pretty good with the 1.7 even wide open. AF is fine with both TC's, although a bit slower with the 1.7.
I really do enjoy using this lens, and the images it produces, the flexibility of the zoom, and the close focus distance make this a keeper for me, even though I have added a 500 AF-S II to my collection.
|
|
 Feb 17, 2010
|
|
thanhuy
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Apr 1, 2009
Location: United States
Posts: 11
|
|
Review Date: Dec 12, 2009
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $6,000.00
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Very well built, excellent optical design. Handholdable, very sharp even at 400mm and at wide open but perfect at f5.6
|
|
Cons:
|
little pricey
|
|
very practical out in the field. Easy to manuever when tracking or hunting BIF. I was told by some friend that this lens isn't worth it for the price and wasn't sharp as they expect but it turns out much better than I imagine. Now I'm very satisfied with it...
|
|
|
Dec 12, 2009
|
|
Ocean 6
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Aug 13, 2004
Location: Germany
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Nov 22, 2009
|
Recommend? no |
Price paid: $5,500.00
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
Zoom, good Details
|
|
Cons:
|
VR without good performance,
too long,
should beginn at 100 mm,
AF not really fast,
not really sharp at f:4,0
not very brillant before f: 8
Price much to high,
|
|
Three years with it, enough!
Olympus 2,8/90-250 mm is far better, even with 1,4x and 2x Converters.
Nikon has no really good Zoom behind 24-70 mm!
Nikon is great with the 4,0/500 mm and 4,0/600 mm,
but this Zoom is not good enough, I' ve worked with three different, none comes close to a fast prime!
|
|
|
Nov 22, 2009
|
|
zuman
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jan 28, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 52
|
|
Review Date: Jun 5, 2009
|
Recommend? |
Price paid: $4,000.00
|
|
Pros:
|
See my review above
|
|
Cons:
|
See my review above
|
|
I continue to be impressed by the 200-400mm now that I'm primarily using a D3.
The following hyena shot (taken in South Africa) was at 400mm (1/250, f/5.6, ISO 400), and was hand-held. I don't think I could have done much better with a prime.
http://www.pbase.com/zuman/image/113401060
|
|
|
Jun 5, 2009
|
|
dale keith
Offline
Buy and Sell: On
Registered: Jan 10, 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 36
|
|
Review Date: Apr 11, 2009
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $4,100.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
The 200-400 has been a great addition to my lens cache. I use it with a D2X and absolutely love the images. I have used the 1.4X extender and have had no issues. I tried the 2X and did experience auto focus lags. I love the total package including the case. The weight does not bother me.
|
|
Cons:
|
None except for price increases
|
|
In my amateur opinion the 200-400 VR lens is nothing short of great. I did purchase an RRS foot to fit the lens to my Wimberly head. I have had great success with the lens with no issues related to focus or sharpness. I have been using the lens since it first came on the market hence the price I paid. I have not done all the comparisons as others. I look at the images I get and just say as others do, WOW! It's a keeper.
|
|
|
Apr 11, 2009
|
|
burningheart
Offline
Image Upload: On
Registered: Mar 20, 2005
Location: Canada
Posts: 1405
|
|
Review Date: Jul 30, 2008
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Beautiful Bokeh, sharp at F4, easy to move from 200mm to 400mm, Great IQ
|
|
Cons:
|
Little slow to autofocus on a Fujifilm S5Pro, the lens bag is too big for my liking. The lens hood shoud be builtin
|
|
I have pondereed this lens for a longtime, though not a Nikon user I do have the Fujifilm s3Pro UVIR camera and the Fujifilm S5 Pro. When the G adapter was developed to allow Nikon G lenses be mounted on Canon cameras that gave me one more reason to look at this lens. Though I do not yet have the adapter I have used this lens a lot on the S5.
The colors coming off this lens are just great, The Bokeh at F4 is terrific smooth and creamy. The detail is crisp at F4, I wish the Canon 100-400 gave this type of detail.
The lens is easily handheld, and easy to change focal length and manually focus when needed. The Canon 100-400 although also a good lens does not allow you took change focal length and manually focus as quick.
This lens has quickly become a favorite of mine, In good light fast to autofocus, not as quick is lower lighting as occasionally it would miss and then hunt all the way in or out before returning to the correct focus. This could be due to the Fujifilm.
I would have preferred a builtin hood versus the screw on type.
|
|
|
Jul 30, 2008
|
|
dkwp
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Mar 22, 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Jun 30, 2008
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
The Zoom range gives great versatility, fast, sharp wide open.
|
|
Cons:
|
Does not handle the 1.4 tc as good as I hoped. It hunts a little with it attached and the images is considirable softer.
|
|
I have given this lens a 10/10. For a zoom lens it is extremely sharp wide open and at the far end. I was worried about all the mixed reviews I read, but I can honestly say this lens is worth it and I strongly recommend it. I rivals fixed focal lenses. I owned the Canon 500mm f4 IS and the 200-400 comes very close.
Coupled with my D3 this lens is super fast and versatile. I use the 1.4 tc with this lens and have managed to get real sharp images. It slowes down with it attached and I find the focus hunts from time to time, but for a zoom lens this is as good as it gets.
The Canon 100-400mm f4 IS can not come close to this lens no matter what people say. I owned the 100-400mm lens and I would not rate it as a professional lens. There is a reason the 200-400mm cost so much more, it is so much better.
Don
www.dkwildlifeimages.com
|
|
|
Jun 30, 2008
|
|
Julius
Offline
Buy and Sell: On
Registered: Jan 26, 2002
Location: United States
Posts: 844
|
|
Review Date: Jun 5, 2008
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $5,000.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
This lens is a real GEM, top notch craftsmanship with excellent lens design resulting in razor sharp images at every focal lengths even wide open.
|
|
Cons:
|
None.
|
|
This zoom lens has the fixed focal length lens quality in the whole range between 200-400mm. It works real well even with the TC-14EII teleconverter although it is sharper when stopped down by one f/stop.
I found this lens to be extremely versatile for wild life pictures where the zoom lens is very handy for composing without the need to move with the camera. If your main interest is taking pictures of small birds it may not be long enough even with the 1.4x extender. For large birds and mammals it is the perfect lens. The VR is very effective and since it is not very heavy it is even hand holdable for a short while for shooting birds in flight.
As usual with most Nikon pro lens, the quality of craftsmanship is first class, cannot get any better.
|
|
|
Jun 5, 2008
|
|
Thang
Offline
Buy and Sell: On
Registered: Jan 25, 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 7402
|
|
Review Date: Apr 9, 2008
|
Recommend? |
Price paid: Not Indicated
|
|
I completely disagreed with your view of this lens Howard. I would definitely use this lens for nature/wildlife photography, something other than sport. Could it be that you have an average sample? don't know... All I know is my lens is sharper than the 300 2.8 AFS + 14E TC at f/4!
|
|
|
Apr 9, 2008
|
|
Howard Passman
Offline
Buy and Sell: On
Registered: Mar 24, 2003
Location: United States
Posts: 646
|
|
Review Date: Oct 29, 2007
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $5,199.00
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
Great zoom range for several types of shooting. Good reach on DX crop cameras.
|
|
Cons:
|
Sorry, I wouldn't give a nickle extra for VR. Not as sharp as 300mm f/2.8 or 400mm f/2.8 and not qite as sharp as the 70-200mm f/2.8 on 200mm
|
|
Maybe my expectations were too high for this lens, but I don't find it near as sharp as my 300mm f/2.8 AF-SII. I compared the 300 against the 200-400 set at 300. There was a loss of detail and a slight loss of contrast and saturation.
Next. I compared it to the 70-200mm set at 200 and the 200-400 set at 200. It held up better. Seemed insignificant in differences. However, in every day shooting I can see the difference in contrast and saturation between the 200-400 and the 70-200.
The lens does however work great for sports. The AFS is as quick and sure as the 300mm f/2.8 AF-SII, which I find to be a hair less effective than the 70-200mm.
You will notice the loss in speed if you are used to shooting f/2.8. I compensated by bumping my ISO up. This works fine for sports, but generally for nature it introduces too much noise with the D200. I find even at 640ISO I don't like what it does to the detail in the images.
Would I buy it again? For sports, yes. I would definitely recommend not giving up a prime and replacing it with this lens. Keep the prime or don't get this lens except for sports use.
|
|
|
Oct 29, 2007
|
|
Thang
Offline
Buy and Sell: On
Registered: Jan 25, 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 7402
|
|
|
Oct 15, 2007
|
|
zuman
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jan 28, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 52
|
|
Review Date: Sep 19, 2007
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $4,400.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Color saturation, sharpness, focusing speed, zoom range, VR
|
|
Cons:
|
Physical length, f/4 challenges without a D3
|
|
The 200-400mm f/4 VR has proven to be my most valuable wildlife lens. Its color rendition and overall IQ are nothing short of stunning, and it comes as close as I can imagine to super-tele prime performance.
An f/4 maximum aperture can sometimes be a challenge on a wildlife lens, but the high ISO performance promised for the D3 obliterates this obstacle.
The only remaining issue is that of dealing with the 200-400 hanging from a Sidekick on a monopod when conditions are cramped. Physics is physics, however, and short of a diffractive optics approach (which is certainly not universally embraced), a physically large lens is the only real-world solution.
Take a look at this bush hyrax at original size (click that option on the pbase page) and look at the hair and eyes to see what this incredible lens can do: http://www.pbase.com/zuman/image/75305755
|
|
|
Sep 19, 2007
|
|
|
