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!

NIKON AF-S 200-400/2.8G ED VR II/800e

cerett

Member
I am planning a trip (expedition cruise) up to Svalbard, Norway. I am thinking about purchasing this lens because of its useful focal range during this trip. How good is it with the higher resolving power of the 800e? Any comparison to the primes in this range? What about with the 1.4 teleconverter? Thanks . . .
 

JoelM

Well-known member
I did not know that that lens exists. Wow, that would be one hunken lens to haul around. If you're thinking of the f4, that's still big, but I've heard it is impressive.

HTH,

Joel
 

glenerrolrd

Workshop Member
The 200-400/4 is best at near and intermediate distances . It is less impressive at 400mm (and infinity) and isn t much good with the 1.4x or 2x extenders . You will see this on a D800E.

Your alternative is the 300/2.8VR and the two extenders . You will get better IQ at infinity and the two extenders work well if you can stop down .

You will benefit from a good Monopod .

The 200-400 would be best if you were working at closer distances and wanted the zoom to facilitate best framing . Its an excellent lens for sports for example(like tennis).
 

cerett

Member
I did not know that that lens exists. Wow, that would be one hunken lens to haul around. If you're thinking of the f4, that's still big, but I've heard it is impressive.

HTH,

Joel
Sorry about that - it does not exist. If it did, it would be a monster. I meant, of course, the f4.
 

D&A

Well-known member
The 200-400/4 is best at near and intermediate distances . It is less impressive at 400mm (and infinity) and isn t much good with the 1.4x or 2x extenders . You will see this on a D800E.

Your alternative is the 300/2.8VR and the two extenders . You will get better IQ at infinity and the two extenders work well if you can stop down .

You will benefit from a good Monopod .

The 200-400 would be best if you were working at closer distances and wanted the zoom to facilitate best framing . Its an excellent lens for sports for example(like tennis).
Precisely my findings and I think we both previously discussed all these particular aspects (and more) in a previous thread here on Getdpi. Additionally alternative set-ups were discussed.

Dave (D&A)
 
Last edited:

cerett

Member
Precisely my findings and I think we both previously discussed all these particular aspects (and more) in a previous thread here on Getdpi. Additonally alternative set-ups were discussed.

Dave (D&A)
Yes, you did and I found it (September 2012). Thank you.
 

D&A

Well-known member
Yes, you did and I found it (September 2012). Thank you.
Great, glad you found it! There was a considerable amount of user feedback from what I recall. All lenses have their strengths and weaknesses and the 200-400 f4 is no exception regardless how good it can be under specific kinds of use.

Dave (D&A)
 

Jorgen Udvang

Subscriber Member
An alternative, if you need a zoom, would be the Sigma 120-300mm f/2.8, which from what I've seen works fine with TCs. Just make sure you get a good copy. Sigma's QC can be a bit... relaxed, even with premium glass.
 

D&A

Well-known member
An alternative, if you need a zoom, would be the Sigma 120-300mm f/2.8, which from what I've seen works fine with TCs. Just make sure you get a good copy. Sigma's QC can be a bit... relaxed, even with premium glass.
Yes, an interesting alternative, but different in many ways. I used one for many years with both Sigma's 1.4x and 2x. The native lens by itself is very good (assuming it's a good copy as menioned)...and is generally good with the 1.4x . With the 2x, it's fair at best and I would say leave it out of the equation when deciding positives and negatives.

Overall from close to mid range shooting, I'd give the edge in acuity and overall image impact to the Nikon 200-400, but for portability and generally all around use, the Sigma does well. Although their focal lengths overlap, I found for a lot of reasons, they often have different intented uses. Thats what I found when having both to shoot with.

Dave (D&A)
 

robsteve

Subscriber
How about the 70-200mm f2.8, plus 400mm prime and the converters? When you want to go long, a prime will always give better performance.
 
Top