The GetDPI Photography Forum

Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!

Any users of the Nikon 200-400/4 VRG and 300/2.8 VRG?

Bryan Stephens

Workshop Member
Roger, the new 300 is not quite as large as you might think, especially compared to the older 300 2.8 (which I had to lug around for three days at the US Open back in 1992). It actually is not much larger than the 70 - 200.
 

Bryan Stephens

Workshop Member
Lens whore number 2 is at it again. LOL

Hell he has more than me now. I'm moving into the 2 spot fast. LOL
Good thing I haven't let you see my camera cabinet...... With my two Zeiss lenses that I just purchased, I think my lens count is now up to 14 Nikon lenses.
:grin:
 

Jack

Sr. Administrator
Staff member
Jack

I have shot both over the summer for various sports projects, and am impressed with both lenses. Of course, the 300 2.8 is the better of the two lenses (I might be displaying a small amount of bias as I owned one until recently), but as it is a fixed focal length, you don't have the flexibility that you do with the other. For sports, you can't beat the 300 2.8 and I think it is a staple in every sports photojournalists arsenal

I shot the 200 - 400 when I shot the Arnold Classic bodybuilding event and it was extremely low light, but on my D3s at ISO 800 i was able to shoot with a monopod and capture great images.

I used the 1.4 converter on the 300 for a recent football game in the spring and again, the 300 performed as expected.

I guess it depends on your needs. The 200 - 400 is more versatile, but is a slower lens.
Just my 2 cents....
Bryan,

You are of course bringing both to Zion with you?


:ROTFL::ROTFL::ROTFL:
 

Bryan Stephens

Workshop Member
LOL. I wish I had them. If I did, you know I would bring them.

I owned the 300 2.8 VR until last year when I sold it to fund the purchase of my, ahem.....tech cam equipment. :facesmack:

I rented the 300 2.8 VRII this summer as well as the 200 - 400 f4.

I wish I had the disposable funds to get another 300 2.8. It was my favorite lens for sports (which is what I used to primarily shoot) and in its place I now use the 200 f2. (which will be coming with me to Zion.) :loco:
 

glenerrolrd

Workshop Member
Roger, the new 300 is not quite as large as you might think, especially compared to the older 300 2.8 (which I had to lug around for three days at the US Open back in 1992). It actually is not much larger than the 70 - 200.
Agree I have one and with the exception of this year ..I shot at the US Open the last three years . Its getting to the point though that I might need an IV to handle 6-8 hrs .....so I am more conservative than I once was .

In Florida ..I just take the focal length I need ..the car is always close by ..but if I am moving around the long primes ..even the 200/2 is a load . :D
 

djonesii

Workshop Member
Poor boy in the crowd .... Sigma 120-300 2.8

When I made my choice,

The IQ of the 300 2.8 non-VR nikon was just a tiny bit better than the Sigma.

However, as an all rounder, being able to zoom is just sooo handy.

Especially if you don't know what is just round the corner.

I was birding at a state park, stumbled onto a mama gator with babies all around her, and she was on the bank. The 300mm + TC and 400mm shooters were all in the lens change mess, and I just zoomed.

It was handy.

Dave
 

D&A

Well-known member
It's does get fatiguing to lug either one of these lenses around all day, especially when used on the job and there is little time to take a break. The physical size of the 300 f2.8 VR as discussed is actually quite compact, but like it's little brother the 200f2, is quite dense in terms of mass and thus the fatigue. For fast moving sports and large wildlife in good light, I actually prefer the 200-400 for it's quick framing/zooming capability...but for everything else I much prefer the 300 f2.8 with both teleconverters.

Now if Nikon would cut the price of each in 1/2, I'd say get both :).

Dave (D&A)
 
Last edited:

GrahamWelland

Subscriber & Workshop Member
Interesting read ... I'm surprised that noone has mentioned the vignetting with the 200-400VR.

I owned and used this lens for a number of years and certainly wide open it required correction of light fall off. An absolutely stellar lens overall for versatility with some limitations at infinity. For wildlife in particular it is superb. For compressive landscapes it also is extremely useful and I used it for this extensively although it wasn't as good as either 200 or 300 prime at infinity.
 

Bryan Stephens

Workshop Member
I used the VRII version of both over the summer, and can say that I believe you are correct Joe, although for what I shot with the two lenses, I usually crop the frame a bit
 

Jack

Sr. Administrator
Staff member
Well, we can see why I'm having trouble choosing -- the "choice" is versatility versus ultimate IQ... Obviously, a great argument can be made for owning both, but money aside, the issue I see with that approach is my past history. That has been, EVERY time I had a similar choice to make with larger glass, the lens I left behind OR the one that was NOT mounted at the critical instant, was ALWAYS the one that would have been the better choice to use.

Current thinking is go for ultimate IQ with the realization that having 36MP does allow for a moderate amount of post cropping if necessary :D
 

fultonpics

New member
while just a low level member here, i can offer this for what's it worth:

the 200-400 has advantages--great for sports during the daytime however not as sharp as the 300 or 400 2.8 lenses in my experience. I owned all three but ended up opting for the 400 2.8. several working nikon shooters i shoot with went with a 200-400 but now want to trade back for a 2.8. The 300 2.8 I owned was super sharp and held a 1.7 converter well. For what I do, the 400 2.8/D4 gets used 90% of the time and can't be beat.

btw, you can rent both at keeble and draw your own conclusions.
 

D&A

Well-known member
Well, we can see why I'm having trouble choosing -- the "choice" is versatility versus ultimate IQ... Obviously, a great argument can be made for owning both, but money aside, the issue I see with that approach is my past history. That has been, EVERY time I had a similar choice to make with larger glass, the lens I left behind OR the one that was NOT mounted at the critical instant, was ALWAYS the one that would have been the better choice to use.

Current thinking is go for ultimate IQ with the realization that having 36MP does allow for a moderate amount of post cropping if necessary :D
Jack of course one can make the case for either of these two lenses endlessly. At the end of the day although one lens or the other may be missed in certain circumstances, if you analize the majority of types of shooting you'll do with the lens, it's moderately straight forward which one to select.

1. If you think you'll find yourself wanting or needing 600mm at any point, it's a no brainer (the 300 f2.8 with the 2x)

2. If you think you might fairly often shoot in low light, again it's the 300 f2.8

3. For relative compactness in size, esepcially while its in some sort of case or backpack, the 300 f2.8 gets the nod.

4. If you'll be shooting larger wildlife, then the versitilty of the zoom cannot be underestimated, therefore the 200-400.

5. For those times where you might be in close relative to your subject distance, I did fine the ability to zoom back to200mm a help.

6. If you know you would be satisfied staying in the range of 200-400mm in decent light and not often shooting subjects at great distances, I would definitely opt for the 200-400, regardless of slight light dropoff when shooting wide open. The lens comes into it's own within these parameters. Anything outside this rannge, and performance can precipitously drop off and herefore would make the 300 f2.8 plus teleconverters the prefered choice.

Dave (D&A)
 

stngoldberg

Well-known member
I am surprised when reading that many contributors don't find the Nikon 200-400 sharp with the 1.4 extender attached at 400mm. Here is an image taken at Bosque last November-razor sharp-550mm using the 200-400 on a D3, 1/1250 sec at f5.6. ISO 1600.
I hand hold the 200-400mm finding that my percentage of keepers are much higher than using a tripod
Stanley
 

Jack

Sr. Administrator
Staff member
FIrst off, a huge thanks to everybody who responded -- you gave me the data I needed. Ironically, in the end I ended up going an entirely different direction -- at least for the interim. I found a good deal on a demo Sigma 120-300/2.8 APO ED OS. I demoed it and at 300mm wide open, it is stellar centrally to 90% out from center, very good from there to the edges, then falls off to a little soft at the extreme corners. And extreme corners are not usually a concern for me when I'm using a 300. It is also excellent back at 120 wide open, but perhaps not quite as good as at the 300 mark. Anyway, I was very impressed and decided to let it serve in the interim. I am certain the Nikon 300/2.8 prime is a better optic, but equally certain this Sigma is an incredibly good lens for the money so will be using it until I jump on a larger Nikon prime -- which means I may now move right up to the 400 or 600.

The one nit on the Sigma is it won't accept Nikon extenders with the tab. So I either need to grind the offending part of the mount tab on the Sigma to fit, or grind the tabs off the extenders. Have not decided which way to go yet. If I grind the tab on the Nikon 2xIII, I could conceivably stack the 1.4x in front of it. While I know IQ will be seriously deteriorated, I used to do it with my Canon's when the extra length was more important than absolute IQ.
 

D&A

Well-known member
FIrst off, a huge thanks to everybody who responded -- you gave me the data I needed. Ironically, in the end I ended up going an entirely different direction -- at least for the interim. I found a good deal on a demo Sigma 120-300/2.8 APO ED OS. I demoed it and at 300mm wide open, it is stellar centrally to 90% out from center, very good from there to the edges, then falls off to a little soft at the extreme corners. And extreme corners are not usually a concern for me when I'm using a 300. It is also excellent back at 120 wide open, but perhaps not quite as good as at the 300 mark. Anyway, I was very impressed and decided to let it serve in the interim. I am certain the Nikon 300/2.8 prime is a better optic, but equally certain this Sigma is an incredibly good lens for the money so will be using it until I jump on a larger Nikon prime -- which means I may now move right up to the 400 or 600.

The one nit on the Sigma is it won't accept Nikon extenders with the tab. So I either need to grind the offending part of the mount tab on the Sigma to fit, or grind the tabs off the extenders. Have not decided which way to go yet. If I grind the tab on the Nikon 2xIII, I could conceivably stack the 1.4x in front of it. While I know IQ will be seriously deteriorated, I used to do it with my Canon's when the extra length was more important than absolute IQ.
Jack,

One of the reasons I didn't mention the Sigma 120-300 f2.8 OS as a possible choice is I thought I recommend it in the past to you (or maybe it was Guy)and I thought you might have tested the previous version of this lens with is sans OS. Correct me if I'm wrong?

In any case it a remarkable little performer for what it costs when all things are taken into consideration. I switched over to their discontinued 100-300 f4 which is a stellar lens and I often prefer it to the Nikon 70-200 f2.8, espcially when the Nikon is used with the 1.4x and the Sigma 100-300 f4 is kept "native". The SIgma 100-300 f4 actually does fairly well with their 1.4x, making a reasonably performing 140-420 f5.6 lens that clearly outperforms all their (Sigma's) 150-500 type lenses.

Regarding the 120-300 f2.8, I tested the non OS version extensively with Sigma's own 1.4x and 2x. It of course doesn't come close to a Nikon 300 f2.8 with or without the Nikon converters, but the Sigma with Sigma's own 1.4x does extremely well and with the 2x, the central part of the frame is quite good. I'm not sure one would want to take this any further and stack converters with this lens...but thats just me.

I knew someone who ground down the nibs on the Nikon converters and used them with the 120-300 f2.8 and thought they might have held the edge vs. Sigma's own converters, but I'm not sure by how much. I also believe you may or may not get correctly working AF. I know if you try a Sigma 1.4x on certain Nikon lenses, the lens simply "hunts".

Lastly if I was to gring down anything, I would do it on the converters, not the lens, but again thats just me.

Dave (D&A)
 
Top