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?

Jack

Sr. Administrator
Staff member
If so, talk to me :D I am debating between both and would like to hear user impressions about image quality and focus performance, as well as how they work with the 1.4x and 2x extenders.

Thanks in advance!
 

Guy Mancuso

Administrator, Instructor
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

Than again there is Bob the silent one. I'm taking the 3 spot on faith, Bob may have all the mods. beat. Lol
 

fotophil

Member
You need to borrow or rent the Nikon 200 - 400mm Zoom for testing with extenders. The lens is popular among bird and sports photographers because it is convenient and performs well at moderate distances. My understanding is that it is not a strong performing lens at infinity and I would be surprised if it works as well with extenders as does the 300mm f/2.8 prime. In my experience the fast 300mm lenses from both Nikon and Canon are very hard to beat.
 

glenerrolrd

Workshop Member
This one is easy to describe but difficult to choose. The 300/2.8 VR2 is superior in every measure of IQ either with or without the extenders. In fact the IQ is stunning similar to the 200/2 . This is because the design did not compromise to keep size down .

The 300/2.8 with the newest 2x AF is fast enough to shoot Polo . Its not as strong as the 600/4 but a heck of a lock more versatile and portable . Nikon needs a new 1.4extender as up to date as the 2x .....you would expect a big jump in performance (going from 2x to 1.4X but they seem similar ). I find few if any limitations to the 300/2.8 and the two extenders ......except its darn heavy .

The 200-400/4 handles beautifully and is a joy to use . If you need to be in a fixed position (like a lot of telephoto work ) its pretty great to be able to frame precisely . The IQ is best between 200-300 and at distances short of infinity . It is a great lens for say tennis where you move from 200 on one end to 400 on the other .

I do not like it with either of the extenders and just stop using them. Surfing required from 300mm to 560mm so using a 1.4x seemed perfect . Images just lost too much contrast .

I enjoy the 300/2.8 and the 2 extenders much more than the 200-400. But when you need a zoom to frame ..you need one . The IQ is pretty close comparing the 300 + 1.4X to the 200-400 at 400 ..so you do have a choice.
 

Paul2660

Well-known member
Jack:

I have never used the 300 F2.8 but have worked with 2 separate 200-400 F4 lenses, both had vr 1 of the VR. I have used both the 1.4 and 2.0x converters.

Coming from Canon, the 200-400 is really an amazing lens. I found no fall off in sharpness with the 1.4x (which allows for AF) and just a slight amount with the 2.0x converter.

I have used it at F4 to F11 so far mainly working smaller birds and the results are just amazing, as you will see detail into the facial feathers. This is also where the DX mode of the D800 is very handy. It allows you to go ahead and get the crop done while shooting. After all is done you still have a 15mp file to work with.

Focus is sharp, even at F4 and the AF seems to be excellent. The Bokeh is joy to look at as the smoothness is great.

I have worked with this lens on a tripod and hand held. You can get some excellent shots even at F4 1/400 with the lens. I was surprised at just how well it works hand held, but it does require some rest between series. All my hand held work as been from prone or sitting in a blind. I not worked with the lens standing but will assume it will be a lot harder to keep work with unless you have a monopod.

My Tripod arrangement is currently no Wimberley type setup, so I am mainly using my RRS BH-55 and the RRS Arca replacement foot. Live view at night with the moon is wonderful. The details this lens will pull from the moon even with the 2x on is excellent, Aperture range F5.6 to F8.

In the field I am not carrying it on the camera, but instead use the Nikon lens pack that comes with it. It's just too big and heavy to carry around in the woods. It's pretty fast to change out and the padded case is offers excellent protection (but is not waterproof so rainy day's are troublesome).

I purchased a used one as the price diff is about 2K. This particular lens was very clean but the AF motor is a bit noisy. Focus appear dead on and VR is as quiet as the other 200-400 I used extensively (however that lens was much more quiet with AF). I am still considering a return due to the AF motor but have 10 more days to consider it.

I have not worked the lens as infinity except for night work of the moon (all focused with live view) Those shots were amazing. I hope to get it out tomorrow when the weather clears and shoot some static buildings at about 2 miles to check on infinity.

If you like I can send you some raws all D4 or D800, mainly between F4 and F5.6 all hand held.

Paul
 

rclewis

New member
I have and use both the 300 2.8 vrgII and the 200-400 vr1, which I use mostly for sports. The 300 works very well with the 1.4 and 1.7 extenders. I have used the 300 plus 1.7 to shoot basketball coaches from the far end of the court, and it works as well as the 500 4. I have also used the 300 plus 1.7 hand held to shoot candid portraits of women watching Bar Mitzvahs at the Western Wall. See my book, Faces of Israel, on Blurb.com. I have used the 1.4 extender on the 200-400 for baseball, and the results were not bad. I try not to use any extender if possible since I have the 200, 300, 400, 500, and 600mm lenses and I feel that there is a reduction in focus ability if not image quality. The 2.0 ver 3 extender is optically very good, but detracts from the ability to focus, so I seldom use it. For trips to Israel, I have settled on the 300 vrg II and 1.7 as the best combination for me.

Richard C. Lewis
 

D&A

Well-known member
This one is easy to describe but difficult to choose. The 300/2.8 VR2 is superior in every measure of IQ either with or without the extenders. In fact the IQ is stunning similar to the 200/2 . This is because the design did not compromise to keep size down .

The 300/2.8 with the newest 2x AF is fast enough to shoot Polo . Its not as strong as the 600/4 but a heck of a lock more versatile and portable . Nikon needs a new 1.4extender as up to date as the 2x .....you would expect a big jump in performance (going from 2x to 1.4X but they seem similar ). I find few if any limitations to the 300/2.8 and the two extenders ......except its darn heavy .

The 200-400/4 handles beautifully and is a joy to use . If you need to be in a fixed position (like a lot of telephoto work ) its pretty great to be able to frame precisely . The IQ is best between 200-300 and at distances short of infinity . It is a great lens for say tennis where you move from 200 on one end to 400 on the other .

I do not like it with either of the extenders and just stop using them. Surfing required from 300mm to 560mm so using a 1.4x seemed perfect . Images just lost too much contrast .

I enjoy the 300/2.8 and the 2 extenders much more than the 200-400. But when you need a zoom to frame ..you need one . The IQ is pretty close comparing the 300 + 1.4X to the 200-400 at 400 ..so you do have a choice.
Roger has nailed all the major points quite accurately. After using the latest versions of both these lenses (with and without the Nikon 1.4x and their latest 2x), there is little to fault with the 300 f2.8 VR I and II (they are virtually identical except noth having the zoom/framing capbilities of the 200-400 f4.

This latter lens is quite impressive at close to mid focusing range throughtout its various focal lengths but does grow somewhat optically less impressive when subject distances approach infinity. As Roger mentioned, it's also strongest at 200-300mm, but is still quite capable at 400mm, but again, when subject distances are within mid range or closer. As Je mentioned, many have obtained impressive detailed shots with this lens. The trick is to play to its strengths. I too was not impressed with use of a teleconverter with this lens, except perhaps the 1.4x when shot at close range. The zooming capabilities of the 200-400 are seductive, but if you can live without that, the 200 f2.8 VR does not disappoint, with and without both converters and short of a 600 f4, is an impressive way to get long reach.

Dave (D&A)
 

Landscapelover

Senior Subscriber Member
Jack... I have both the Nikon 200-400 f/4 VRI and Nikon 300mm f/2.4 AFS II (Not a VR).
The 200-400mm is sharp as much as you want for bigger animals and big birds with or W/O TC 14 E2. The TC 2.0 E3 is also OK but AF doesn't work. The zoom is very convenient. VR is great. I am small but can handhold it for 10-15 minutes.
The Nikon 300mm f/2.4 AFS II is sharp with both TC 14 EII and TC 20 EIII. I don't like the TC 17 EII I also have at all. It works very well with handholding but more commonly with monopod or tripod.
Although the Nikon 300mm is good, I like the Nikon 200mm f/2 VR I with TC 14 E2 and TC 20 E2 better.
The next lens from here would be 600mm which can reach up to 1, 200mm FF with TC. Cannon 600mm IS is great and cheaper than Nikon.
 

Jack

Sr. Administrator
Staff member
Thanks for the great info so far, huge help! What you've all collectively stated is the reason I'm struggling LOL! I don't shoot much wildlife or sports any more, but want a lens that will be in the car and can be pressed into service when something presents itself. I also like longer lenses to compress features on certain landscapes or even lifestyle shoots. Clearly the 200-400 is more versatile, but the excellent IQ of the 300/2.8 is very compelling and at this point probably the overriding factor.
 

mark1958

Member
The problem is that you want the best lens to use for: some landscapes, lifestyle shoots and on occasion wildlife/sports----- no perfect solution. If you remove the wildlife parameter (or only need rarely) then i think the 300/2.8 with the 1.4 and 2.0x TC would be a better choice. Here is my reasoning (not based on actual use).

1) lighter and smaller
2) Gives you f2.8 that might be useful in lifestyle shooting
3) Can always use TC with decent results (as noted) as needed.
4) If you decide you want to consider wildlife in the future add a 500 or 600mm.

Another option would be to get the 300/4 (works well with the 1.4x -- have not tried the 2x yet) and a 500mm/4 VRII. THe 300/4 would work for landscapes (light and can be handheld even without VR), and the 500/4 would work for wildlife.
 

Dan Bellyk

New member
The problem is that you want the best lens to use for: some landscapes, lifestyle shoots and on occasion wildlife/sports----- no perfect solution. If you remove the wildlife parameter (or only need rarely) then i think the 300/2.8 with the 1.4 and 2.0x TC would be a better choice. Here is my reasoning (not based on actual use).

1) lighter and smaller
2) Gives you f2.8 that might be useful in lifestyle shooting
3) Can always use TC with decent results (as noted) as needed.
4) If you decide you want to consider wildlife in the future add a 500 or 600mm.

Another option would be to get the 300/4 (works well with the 1.4x -- have not tried the 2x yet) and a 500mm/4 VRII. THe 300/4 would work for landscapes (light and can be handheld even without VR), and the 500/4 would work for wildlife.

And the 300 f/4 is great with tubes. Check out Ronnie Gaubert work, he was one of my favourite nature photographers but unfortunately passed away last year from
Lou Gehrig’s disease, please take some time and look through his work...It's amazing!

Ronnie Gaubert's "Nature of Louisiana 2007" Photo Gallery by Ronnie Gaubert at pbase.com
 

D&A

Well-known member
But the 200mm simply isn't long enough for most wildlife photography. 300-400mm gets you in the game. 600mm is the ultimate tool for the job. And if you're shooting wildlife, you're likely not going to be carrying more than one of these monsters in your bag. Another advantage of the 200-400mm VR II is that it can be shot handheld. I've done it with good results (for a very limited period of time of course).

Joe
Hi Joe & All,

Joe, excellent comments! In my post which you quoted, I mistakenly wrote 200mm at one point, when I was actually referring to the 300 f2.8 VR and completely agree that 200mm isn't all that useful or long enough for shooting mostn wildlife.

Jack, based on your stated goals for one of these lenses, I would personally suggest the 300 f2.8 VR The VR I version is fine as it has nano coating like the VRII version and is optically identical. Only difference is maybe 3/4 stop increase in useable VR.

With regards to various comments made in various posts in this thread, although The 400 f2.8 is often used on the sidelines, the 200-400 is both versatile and popular for such purposes. For
Arger wildlife (mammals and large birds) etc.) the 200-400 again is a excellent lens for their capture. It does perform well at 400mm especially when shot at closer range but as a whole, resolution and acuity noticeably drops off for those whom whatever reason choose o shoot distant landscapes of attempt to bring in distance subjects at or near infinity. This is where the 300 f2.8 really shines, regardless of subject distance and unlike the 200-400, does extremely well with the 1.4x and latest 2x converters. I too am not a fan of the 1.7x .

It's not just the slow speed of the 200-400 with any converter that's the issue, but optically it's just not impressive with them.

Think of the 300 f2.8 in many ways like the 200 f2 in terms of performance....that close whereas the 200-400 is quite impressive at close to mid range and although may not quite match the 300 f2.8 in shear clarity, is still impressive, especially at mid and close range.

If you expect to do a fair amount of shooting at or close to 600mm, then in my opinion, there is only one choice when choosing between these two lenses.

Dave (D&A)
 

D&A

Well-known member
Damn it! Now I'm convinced, too. I just ordered the 300mm f/2.8 VR II. The cash from selling my Leica stuff had to go somewhere. :ROTFL:

Joe
LOL! Joe what goes around eventually comes back around (a variation on the usual saying, knowing you used to use lots of long Nikon glass)....and I can fully identify with your enthusiam. As you well know, the 1.4x is a must for ultimate versility of this lens and knowing how much we both generally dislike teleconverters, you won't be disappointed in the use of the 1.4x on the 300 f2.8 VRII. Even the new 2x does well with this lens but then some relatively small to moderate compromises has to be expected.

Dave (D&A)
 

Jack

Sr. Administrator
Staff member
I haven't pulled the trigger yet, but the 300/2.8 is in my sights :ROTFL:
 

glenerrolrd

Workshop Member
You will enjoy the 300/2.8VR2 . A large lens but one that you can keep in the car . Very mobile and gets you to 400 -600 with the extenders. Quite a lot of capability in a manageable package .
 

Bryan Stephens

Workshop 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....
 
Top