hyken wrote:
For those of you who are thinking about a cover for this lens, I have always liked the RolanPro covers. This was a straightforward install, I will adjust a little once I use it for a month or so. Ordered off of Amazon from China, fast shipment, 4 days via FedEx.
The hood was the most difficult, more or less. Just had to realign the release 5x or so. Everything else is velcro.
Of course, I just noticed I forgot to remove the numerical labels .
Thanks for sharing. I hadn't even thought to search for it yet as I thought it would be awhile. Was hoping I could get the dark shadow camo I have on my 300GM but doesn't look like they have that one (yet?). I'll probably just order the Jungle or Reed.
Was the fitment for the rear most piece good? Their 400GM one was poor and stuck off the end a bit making it risky that the lens and TCs locked properly. Although my 600GM, 200-600 and 300GM ones were good fitment.
I wish I could only order some of those pieces and save some $$ . I won't be covering any of the black parts of the lens.
I used a Chasing Birds cover on the 300 f2.8 and I liked the fit but there are times when I'd like to take a section off easily. Other than the hood are the RolanPro's sections easily removable? It appears they attach via a velcro wrap?
Seems to be OK, I kind of remember this piece being an issue on the 400 as well. Just put this cover on today so time will tell how much they loosen. Having said that, I used the heck out of my 400 f/2.8 and they stayed in place pretty well.
hyken wrote:
Seems to be OK, I kind of remember this piece being an issue on the 400 as well. Just put this cover on today so time will tell how much they loosen. Having said that, I used the heck out of my 400 f/2.8 and they stayed in place pretty well.
Thanks. That looks good. Mine have all held up well. My 600GM is the oldest from ~2021 or so.
Lethimcook wrote:
This might be a silly thought but don't built in TCs on zooms just make the lens a variable aperture zoom?
I for one agree with the approach of the 300GM without TCs. It's lightweight, and anyone that wants a TC can buy the appropriate one, and then shift said TCs onto the lens they want to use at the moment. It's modular. Rather than pay for a built-in TC 3-4 times you just pay once, and deal with the quirks of putting them on or off lenses.
A prime (with or without TC) works well if you have subjects easily framed at the proper distance. Mostly you end up cropping and losing much of the IQ or too tight and completely missing the shot. I feel like that was enough in the 20th century and I'd rather have better zooms at any cost.
Steve Spencer wrote:
If that were true, then that would be a fail from Nikon for that lens. They ought to be able with a dedicated tuned TC get better performance than a generic TC that has to work with many different lenses and if they can't, then they should just introduce the lens without a buit-in TC, IMO. Maybe there was a construction issue with that lens and they had trouble making it to specifications and when the TC was engaged in at least some copies it didn't operate as it was designed.
I've seen people report that not just with the 180-400 but with the 400/600 primes. Usually it is very close but sometimes an external ends up being slightly better than the internal.
Same with Canon. My 200-400TC was slightly better with my external 1.4 vs the internal. But I'm sure there were others that had the opposite experience.
People always claim the internal ones should be so much better but user experience has proven that to be false for both Canon and Nikon.
arbitrage wrote:
I've seen people report that not just with the 180-400 but with the 400/600 primes. Usually it is very close but sometimes an external ends up being slightly better than the internal.
Same with Canon. My 200-400TC was slightly better with my external 1.4 vs the internal. But I'm sure there were others that had the opposite experience.
People always claim the internal ones should be so much better but user experience has proven that to be false for both Canon and Nikon.
The 1.4x III was a little better than the internal TC of the 200-400/4. I no longer have access to optical engineers to explain if it is a true limitation or depends on the particular combination. Maybe a lens designer here can chime in.
Great shots. Can't wait to get mine. These people here have nothing better to do than whine and pixel peep at 400% are not photographers, they are gear people that have nothing better too do and complain about everything (sell the lens and/or cancel your preorder.. Just ignore them and enjoy the lens as you say. Bunch of whiners.
Jun 17, 2026 at 04:09 PM
Steve Spencer Online • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
arbitrage wrote:
I've seen people report that not just with the 180-400 but with the 400/600 primes. Usually it is very close but sometimes an external ends up being slightly better than the internal.
Same with Canon. My 200-400TC was slightly better with my external 1.4 vs the internal. But I'm sure there were others that had the opposite experience.
People always claim the internal ones should be so much better but user experience has proven that to be false for both Canon and Nikon.
With Canon I was thinking of the RF 400 f/2.8 vs the RF 800 f/5.6 and the RF 600 f/4 vs the RF 1200 f/8. The longer lenses in each pair are the shorter lens with a custon 2X TC permanently built in and there seems to be pretty good consensus that the RF 800 f/5.6 is better than the RF 400 f/2.8 with the external 2X TC and the RF 1200 f/8 is better than the RF 600 f/4 with the external 2X TC.
I expect whether the built-in TC is better than the external TC may well depend on both the quality of the built-in TC and how well it is built and the qualty of the external TC and how well it is built. Copy variation could also play a role of course. For some lenses the internal TC might not provide any performance advantage, but for others it might.
.
. I won't be covering any of the black parts of the lens.
