I saw that on PDN this morning. Nearly shorted out my laptop from drool.
Need to book some serious shoots for this, cause it falls under the "toy" and not "work" category, but me likey lots!!
With all the motorsports I have coming up this year, I guess it's just a question of many kidneys I can do without
This and a D3S will be a killer combo for my dance stuff in the larger venues. Have to see what I can do about it.
This is on my medium term shopping list as well, long awaited update - THX Nikon!
I have had the prior version for two years now and optically its the same as the VR2(except for the nano coating). A few things you may want to know about the lens. First the big plus is that it is a zoom with a great usable range. If you shoot sports or events where you have a fixed position this allows you to make best use of the frame. Like all the Nikon long lenses it handles perfectly ..has excellent balance on a monopod which is the best way to use it.
A couple of disadvantages....it is optimized for closer distances . This is a fill the frame lens for a sport shooter. It looses some of its zip at over 50M . Not at the same level as the 400/2.8 or the new 300/2.8 . Those are best in class lenses ..the 200-400 is a notch down. Next it suffers when used with even a 1.4X extender.
Nikon will surely introduce a new version of the 1.4x extender (similar to the new 2x extender released with the 300/2.8).
So it depends on how valuable the zoom range is . I would rather have the 300/2.8VR2 and wait for the 1.4X extender. The tests with the new 2x extender are pretty good and thats the same 600mm/5.6 equivalent.
See Thom Hogan s evaluations . but yes the 200-400/4 is still a great lens just not maybe the best that Nikon offers. Of course I want the 400/2.8 but a will need additional weight training to use it.
I am sorry but I am not clear. At a price of $7000 is this a Leica zoom or a Nikon zoom???
if what you say about this lens is true - and I do not doubt it - then a better solution for me would be the 2.8/300 with a 2x and 1.4x converters, as soon as the new ones are available.
Must say the new 2.8/300 is really intriguing. Will have to rethink if I need the zoom range - maybe I can overcome parts of it with my 2.8/70-200 VR2 and a TC2.
The 200-400/4 is a sports shooters dream lens. If you are shooting in a stadium you maybe assigned a fixed location. The other alternative is to use a 70-200 on one body and a 400/2.8 or 300/2.8 with various extenders . This gives you the variety you may need but not the speed in changing views.
The logic is that its more likely you will get the "money shot" with a zoom .
I find the 200-400/4 great for sports which is what I got it for.
Next year I will get the 300/2.8Vr2 and the extenders after the new ones are released.
I agree, the 200-400/4 is a terrific sports lens. I've had mine since it was first introduced, and the new one will have to really impress me to justify the cost of the upgrade. I also agree that it shines closer in. Here's an example:
This past week I shot the Boston Marathon (and unfortunately can't post much, until after John Hancock decides what it's using), and there I used (in addition to my 70-200 VRII, which was my primary lens), both the new 400/2.8 and the 300/2.8. Both are simply stellar... I was constantly amazed at what we were getting with them. Not as versatile for action sports, but wow. (You'd better hit the gym, btw, as that 400 in particular will test your resolve!)
Lloyd, another master shot, thank you!