Nikon 200-400mm F4...

Hairyduck

Hairyduck

Suspended / Banned
Messages
1,622
Name
Kevin
Edit My Images
Yes
Has anyone on here got one? I'm looking for an honest review of what they're like as I'm highly tempted to order one this week :bonk:

I've read the couple of online reviews on the web that I could find which seem to give the lens good reports but I'm sure half of these reviewers are on a back hander!
 
Good shout Hairyduck, I'm looking for one of these so it will be good to get some user knowledge ;)
 
Click on the thumnails, all taken with the 200-400 on a D300, have a look in my gallery, most if not all were using the 200-400, some with a 1.4TC. All of the insect / butterfly shots were using it ( close focus of 6 feet / 2m)

The Sparrowhawk was shot at f4.

I bought a TC17E II last week, yet to process the images but if still AF's with it and looks good wide open.

Absolutely superb lens





 
Amazing clarity in these shots - real quality - I'd love one of these!
 
Fantastic pics Martyn! With the TC17E do you still retain the autofocus? There were a few conflicting reports of this on the reviews I read online?

Martyn... said:
Click on the thumnails, all taken with the 200-400 on a D300, have a look in my gallery, most if not all were using the 200-400, some with a 1.4TC. All of the insect / butterfly shots were using it ( close focus of 6 feet / 2m)

The Sparrowhawk was shot at f4.

I bought a TC17E II last week, yet to process the images but if still AF's with it and looks good wide open.

Absolutely superb lens





Click to expand...
 
Yes AF works fine, in fact better than fine, I know what it says on the tables that it will only MF but that is Nikon protecting themselves, theoretically it shouldn't but I was out with it Saturday, which was a pretty overcast day and it snapped into focus just fine, I was in 4 figure ISO readings to give an idea how dull it was.

It is possible that the newer focusing computer on the latest cameras is more efficient that the ones in use when the TC17 was released, but no problem on a D300.

The TC17E II works fine on my 300f4 as well :thumbs:
 
Great info, I may have to go for the tc17e in that case then, or maybe go for the 1.4x to start with and spend more cash later, the tc17e doesn't fit my older style 300mm 2.8 I know that as I bought one a couple of years ago, knew I should have kept it instead of selling it on :bang:

Martyn... said:
Yes AF works fine, in fact better than fine, I know what it says on the tables that it will only MF but that is Nikon protecting themselves, theoretically it shouldn't but I was out with it Saturday, which was a pretty overcast day and it snapped into focus just fine, I was in 4 figure ISO readings to give an idea how dull it was.

It is possible that the newer focusing computer on the latest cameras is more efficient that the ones in use when the TC17 was released, but no problem on a D300.

The TC17E II works fine on my 300f4 as well :thumbs:
Click to expand...
 
Hairyduck said:
Great info, I may have to go for the tc17e in that case then, or maybe go for the 1.4x to start with and spend more cash later, the tc17e doesn't fit my older style 300mm 2.8 I know that as I bought one a couple of years ago, knew I should have kept it instead of selling it on :bang:
Click to expand...

It will fit if you grind the little tab off on the mount ring of the TC ;) it will void your warranty on it though.

I did the conversion on my TC14EII so it would fit a Sigma 500f4.5 (which I traded for the 200-400).
 
Aha! Any chance of a pic of which bit needs removing, I'll be doing that mod for sure if that's all that's needed
 
i have borrowed one before now and wow, i really want one, but cant justify the 3-4 times a year i would use it.

i find some images later tonight...
 
STOP IT........Please.....:bang:
 
Sensitive subject this. I had one and also had a stupid moment where I sold it. I have regretted it since. The new owner has however told me that he may sell it back to me later in the year. I live in hope.
I curse myself almost on a daily basis for selling it. I need to get my baby back.

Kev.
 
I've only recently seen a 200-400 at a race circuit and only two weeks ago at that.

The guy using it swears by it, but then again he would after spunking that much cash on it.

I am fairly sure its a good quality f4 zoom, with even results all the way from 200-400, but its big, heavy and looooong and still only f4.

For me and for the money, I'd still take a 300 2.8 and a 1.4x TC, best of both worlds and some change!
 
Thats exactly what I did. Still miss it though...


Kev.
 
I already have a 300mm 2.8, I'm just looking for a bit more length :eek: mainly for use with either a 1.4x or 1.7x converter too

desantnik said:
I've only recently seen a 200-400 at a race circuit and only two weeks ago at that.

The guy using it swears by it, but then again he would after spunking that much cash on it.

I am fairly sure its a good quality f4 zoom, with even results all the way from 200-400, but its big, heavy and looooong and still only f4.

For me and for the money, I'd still take a 300 2.8 and a 1.4x TC, best of both worlds and some change!
Click to expand...
 
Hairyduck said:
I already have a 300mm 2.8, I'm just looking for a bit more length :eek: mainly for use with either a 1.4x or 1.7x converter too
Click to expand...

It is a monster for 400mm f/4. You really have to need the zoom part of it's range.

If you are after reach, I can't help thinking that TCs on a zoom is perhaps not ideal?
 
I'd say that "no TC's on a zoom" is fairly common wisdom, but this 200-400 isn't any old zoom... its an example of what zooms could be if the manufactuers thought we'd actually be prepared to spend the money... and in that respect its rather unique.
 
A picture says a 1000 words

200 - 400 + TC17EII (680mm) ISO 1000 wide open @ f6.7, it is no ordinary zoom. First time with the combo at the weekend, light was a bit dull really to expect breathtaking results but looks promising.



 
Joe T said:
Everytime I arrive at a hide knackered after a long walk carrying the 400 2.8 I think about swapping it for a 200-400 f4....:lol:
Click to expand...

I came close to a used 600 f4 Joe, then I remembered how heavy they were :D
 
I've had the pleasure of using a 200-400 f4, a 400 2.8 and a 300 2.8 in figure skating.

If I had the wonger my choice would be a 400 2.8, second in line would be a 300 2.8 with a 1.4TC.

The 200-400 is a great lens but not as sharp as the primes IMO. If it's versatility over a marginally better image quality then maybe this would be a better option for you :shrug:

BTW, All top quality lenses of these focal ranges are going to be heavy - it's something that you have to accept and adapt to. ;) I have a lot of respect for the nature shooters that carry these fellers around on hikes :thumbs:

Infact the 200-400 was the lightest iirc.
 
Tomas Whitehouse said:
BTW, All top quality lenses of these focal ranges are going to be heavy. Infact the 200-400 was the lightest iirc.
Click to expand...

200-400 3.2kg
300 f2.8 2.8kg
400 42.8 4.6kg
500 f4 3.8kg
600 f4 5kg

So no, the 300 2.8 is the lightest :D

I am guessing the 500 f4 is probably the king in that bunch though - good reach and still sort of lightish....
 
I did also consider the 500mm but it costs a grand more which puts me off a bit...
 
Hairyduck said:
I did also consider the 500mm but it costs a grand more which puts me off a bit...
Click to expand...

So did I, but preferred the price, versatility, lighter weight and the close focus of the 200-400, wouldn't mind the 500f4 though ... if I win the lottery :D
 
That was what stopped me making the jump of sin in the end. I'd need to replace my 500/4 with the same and have a 200-400 for it to be worthwhile. That got a touch pricey!
 
Well there may be a large parcel arriving for me tomorrow...

:nuts:
 
TBH. since I got the Sigma 120-300, I have probably used that as much as anything else.The 1.4 takes it to the 400 end. It also complements the 300-800 perfectly I feel.But I would still love one of these babies it is just a cost that I cannot justify at the moment........:cool:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top