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!
AF-S NIKKOR 200-400mm f/4G ED VR II
- Thread starter Hacker
- Start date
Jason Muelver
Member
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!!
Need to book some serious shoots for this, cause it falls under the "toy" and not "work" category, but me likey lots!!
Jorgen Udvang
Subscriber Member
With all the motorsports I have coming up this year, I guess it's just a question of many kidneys I can do without 
glenerrolrd
Workshop Member
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.
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.
ptomsu
Workshop Member
@Roger
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.
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.
glenerrolrd
Workshop Member
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.
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.
Lloyd
Active member
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!)
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!)
Jorgen Udvang
Subscriber Member
Ok, I'll run over to the gym right away, but will that help me afford all those lenses as well
Lloyd
Active member
:ROTFL: Yup... make yourself look like a fitness model, or an attractive gigolo. Sell your "services" for a while, and you'll be able to afford the glass!Ok, I'll run over to the gym right away, but will that help me afford all those lenses as well
The side benefit, of course, is that you'll now be able to lift it as well. :thumbup:
Jorgen Udvang
Subscriber Member
Yeah, as if... the girl who calls herself my girlfriend might disagree. She, on the other hand, might be willing to carry the memory cards though. If she gets paid:ROTFL: Yup... make yourself look like a fitness model, or an attractive gigolo. Sell your "services" for a while, and you'll be able to afford the glass!
m_driscoll
New member
Lloyd: Great runner photo. Superb composition and PP. I, also, have the old 200-400mm. I've got the old 300mm f/2.8 too. Interesting to see how much better the new versions are? Cheers, Matt.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!)
http://mdriscoll.zenfolio.com
Lloyd
Active member
Thanks Matt, much appreciated. I had a chance to shoot the new 400/2.8 in Boston, and I have to say that it's impressive (as is it's price tag!). The new 300, however, I can't say that I thought it was significantly better than the prior version.
m_driscoll
New member
Lloyd: You're welcome. It'll be fun to see more when you're allowed to post them. The photographer in Canada that i went on the bear trip with sold his 300mm f/2.8 and his 200mm f/2. He's using the new 70-200mm and the new 400mm. His testing showed the 70-200 w/TC-E20III to be close enough for most people (me). Doesn't get you to 800mm though. On the other hand, the 200-400mm w/TC-E14II gets you to 560mm (Brad wasn't impressed with the TC-E20 on the 200-400; might be OK for me, though). Most of my bear photos were below 500mm. In fact, the 500mm was too close. Above 500mm, I think you're shooting birds in flight and speed's important. Cheers, Matt
http://mdriscoll.zenfolio.com
ptomsu
Workshop Member
So would you say that the IQ of the new 2.8/300 is not good enough? What would be better in terms of IQ at this focal length?
Lloyd
Active member
It wasn't that I didn't think the IQ is good, as it certainly is. It's just that for my purposes, I didn't think it enough of an improvement over the prior version to justify me spending the money to upgrade. I think both the VRI and the VRII versions are terrific lenses. In the long glass, I think the 400/2.8 is the best of the bunch. (Note: I've not shot the 600. I'd love to have one, but it's not really suited to my primary work.) The 200/2 is next, then the 300/2.8 and then the 200-400/4. Actually, I think the 300/4 is a terrific, much underestimated lens.