Nikon 'expert' Thom Hogan considers the 200-400 to be a mixed bag but is unclear as to why, except to say that it may be a bit softer than he expected at longer shooting distances. A year later he still has not published a review of the lens and unfortunately the other test sites rarely get their hands on the expensive lenses like this one. Fortunately, I'm happy with mine.
Alan321 wrote:
Nikon 'expert' Thom Hogan considers the 200-400 to be a mixed bag but is unclear as to why, except to say that it may be a bit softer than he expected at longer shooting distances. A year later he still has not published a review of the lens and unfortunately the other test sites rarely get their hands on the expensive lenses like this one. Fortunately, I'm happy with mine.
- Alan
I've been following Thom's comments on this lens for some time and although he has yet to publish his review, all the hints he's dropped matches my experience with this lens; it's as sharp as any prime at short-to-mid range, but softens at longer ranges (i.e. infinity focus). And although the 200-400VR can be used with a TC14EII I find the IQ suffers too much, especially at mid-to-long distances. The strength of the 2-4 is the ability to zoom and close focus (which I really like myself). Still, I never got the impression Thom was really enamoured with this lens and was rather suprised to see that he has one in his bag.
Several times I've considered trading my 200-400VR for the 300/2.8 but I just don't want to give up the versatility. I'd really like the extra speed of the f2.8 for BIF but figure more capable bodies should make up for the lack of speed in the future (using higher ISO).
The only thing is I wonder if Nikon has plans to update the 200-400VR with VRII/Nano and fix the softness at distance -- somewhat like they did with the 300VRII.
FWIW, here's a few of my examples taken with the D300+200-400VR all hand held...
(I'm only going to provide links because the FM resizing engine hammers sharpness)
Gary Irwin wrote:
And although the 200-400VR can be used with a TC14EII I find the IQ suffers too much, especially at mid-to-long distances.
There's always a factor of individual tastes and opinions, but just in case I'd suggest that you have your TC checked by Nikon. Most people with 200-400 lenses to whom I've spoken have trouble differentiating between the naked and TC images at any distance and feel that the loss of IQ is very small. This is not to say that you're incorrect, but just to add a note that there may be a technical and fixable reason why you are getting this result.
Gary Irwin wrote:
FWIW, here's a few of my examples taken with the D300+200-400VR all hand held...
(I'm only going to provide links because the FM resizing engine hammers sharpness)
How does that resizing engine work? I've never had an image of mine get resized by FM, whether it's a linked image or an uploaded one.
You may already know this, but just in case... just resize your images separately, then put the links between the [ frame ] and [ / frame ] tags to have them show up here without any resizing at all. You can also link directly to the right-size image you want from Pbase.
I've really wanted this lens for some time, it's has been at the top of my NAS list for at least a couple of years. Got to use one for an hour one day on my D300 at a NP and fell in love.
Figuring out how to scrape together $6K for it is another story...
There's always a factor of individual tastes and opinions, but just in case I'd suggest that you have your TC checked by Nikon. Most people with 200-400 lenses to whom I've spoken have trouble differentiating between the naked and TC images at any distance and feel that the loss of IQ is very small. This is not to say that you're incorrect, but just to add a note that there may be a technical and fixable reason why you are getting this result.
That's a fair point as I have never really tested my TC14EII and I understand that there can be sample variations with teleconverters.
And I'd didn't mean to suggest the TC14EII degrades the IQ a lot on the 200-400VR, but if distance shots (where I'm most likely to use it) are slightly soft to begin with the TC certainly isn't helping.
FWIW I use TC's on my 500VR all the time with no complaints, but I just don't like how they it work on my 200-400VR, and I'm not alone in my opinion. Try a search....
How does that resizing engine work? I've never had an image of mine get resized by FM, whether it's a linked image or an uploaded one.
You may already know this, but just in case... just resize your images separately, then put the links between the [ frame ] and [ / frame ] tags to have them show up here without any resizing at all. You can also link directly to the right-size image you want from Pbase.
I have posted linked images on FM before with no resizing, but somehow the FM images look softer than the same size originals on my PBase site. I've seen this before on other other forums and I've always just blamed the photo-display engine. Anyway, to get around this problem I now just tend to provide to the photo on my pbase site.
Rodolfo Paiz wrote:
There's always a factor of individual tastes and opinions, but just in case I'd suggest that you have your TC checked by Nikon. Most people with 200-400 lenses to whom I've spoken have trouble differentiating between the naked and TC images at any distance and feel that the loss of IQ is very small. This is not to say that you're incorrect, but just to add a note that there may be a technical and fixable reason why you are getting this result.
I found the 200-400 with and without the TC14EII images to be indistinguisable on a D700. On a D300, the lens had to stopped down just a little bit with the TC to get the same level of sharpness.
The difference of its performance on FX vs. DX might be one of the reasons there is a variety of opinions regarding it.
Conversely the 500 (which admitted I've only tried briefly) is superb even with the TC wide open on DX.
One piece of advice I'd give to prospective buyers - don't get rid of your DX bodies. I love the fact that my D200 gives me an extra 200mm due to that sensor's "crop factor." I find it's a more effective solution to adding additional range without the penalties imposed by a TC. Would avoid using a TC with this lens if you're shooting in fading light since a TC makes the focus system hunt a little more than normal when you're shooting in less than stellar light conditions. Don't get me wrong, it's focusing is still fast, but you'll notice a difference once you put that TC on.
Other things to consider - that tripod you use to hold in high esteem may not hold up as well under the weight of this chunky monkey. A gimbal mount makes this lens perform a lot better. Oh, so you say you'll just use your current ball head? Well, your present ball head may start groaning too once it realizes what you're putting on it. This stuff adds up after a while worse than a high maintenance girl friend. I never hesitated when it came to buying this lens, it's all the other "stuff" you've got to take into consideration once you move to lens this size.
thedigitalbean wrote:
I found the 200-400 with and without the TC14EII images to be indistinguisable on a D700. On a D300, the lens had to stopped down just a little bit with the TC to get the same level of sharpness.
Conversely the 500 (which admitted I've only tried briefly) is superb even with the TC wide open on DX.
You know, that's interesting. I've don't think I ever really used my 200-400 on my D3 - only D300 and D3x - and I find the same to be true, I need to stop down a bit to get the kind of sharpness I want if I use my TC.
(However, I tend to stop even naked lenses down at least a half stop - even my seller 500 VR - it just tightens the sharpness up a bit)
I was hoping Ray Barlow would have taken notice of this thread and chimed in with more examples of what this lens is capable of producing. Ray uses the 200-400 extensively and with both the 1.4 & 1.7 TCs.
I have taken the liberty of supplying a link to his pbase galleries though a google of Raymond J Barlow will produce far more. http://www.pbase.com/raymondjbarlow
Take care. Bob
Wade, that whole set is beautiful... wow! Share a few of your aviation images with us in the "Mustangs Air-to-Air" thread when you have the time... you'll fit in just fine!
wyoben wrote:
I was on the fence about this and the 500.
Though they are close siblings, in the end the two are different enough so that each is the "best" answer for very different needs. The prime will have slightly faster AF, slightly better IQ, and will tolerate TC's slightly better. It's also 100mm longer, obvious but still important sometimes. On the other hand, the zoom can zoom! And it'll give you 95% of the AF/IQ/TC capability that the 500 will, but not that last 100mm.
If in doubt, rent each for a week and use 'em both. You will probably find that you clearly prefer one to the other, but you gotta find out which one it is, the hard way: get out and shoot stuff with it.
Here's my question about this lens — can you effectively shoot night sports with it on a D3s in poorly lit high school stadiums? And by poorly lit, I mean ISO 3200 1/400 f/2.8 at best, and occasionally a stop or two worse. (And that's on a Canon meter... is it true that Nikons typically meter differently than Canons?)
