Nikon 200-400mm F4...

I have been looking at this for about 3 months now.The info i gathered was that the 200-400 didnt take a tc as well as the 400, 500 or 600 but thats understandable as its a zoom.Im plumping for a 500 f4 due to weight issues and its the only big prime that can realistically be hand held for any length of time. I dont always carry a tripod with me so the 500 seems like the one for me.I like the look of the 200-400 but as im keeping my Sigma 120-300 then i dont see a need for it just now due to the Siggy having the 1.4tc added.

I would have loved a 600 and tc but weight and the need to carry a tripod doesnt suit me a great deal, suppose thats where the 200-400 comes in as it has a very useful focal length and can be handheld, with a lower weight than most of the others.
 
The 600mm was on my list briefly, but the thought of lugging it around on trips abroad etc didn't appeal, it's also damned hard to justify the expense for what is in effect hobby use. My aunt has one I could always borrow anyway ;)
 
Nice one Kev!

I looked at the Canon 600 when I got my 500, but the fact it is much harder to take as hand luggage was a clincher.

As for quality, I know one very well respected pro wildlife photographer who's longest lens is the 200-400 and he takes some fine images...
 
Now that is handy......:thumbs:

The lenses are not that heavy,you do get used to carrying them about,honest....:lol:
 
markyboy.1967 said:
The info i gathered was that the 200-400 didnt take a tc as well as the 400, 500 or 600 but thats understandable as its a zoom.
Click to expand...

Probably not, but it looks pretty good to me in the image of the Bluetit above, and it snapped into focus, which to be honest surprised me as I thought that it would slow down a fair bit considering Nikon say it will only MF on the 200-400.

As you already have the Siggy, the 500 f4 is probably the way to go.
 
Hairyduck said:
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!
Click to expand...
I have one, had for a few years now - I reviewed it here. Fantastic lens, and is also my official lens of choice for travelling as the 600 is just nowhere near as portable. The 200-400 fits in hand luggage restrictions with ease and is also light enough to cart about without too much effort.

Plays fairly well enough with the 1.4 TC and is 'ok' with the 1.7 but in either case the focus speed is reduced (less so for the 1.4 if the light is ok).
 
Thanks Richard, I read your review previously and was glad to see that you thought it was a great lens. Mine is due to arrive any minute :D
 
Hairyduck said:
Thanks Richard, I read your review previously and was glad to see that you thought it was a great lens. Mine is due to arrive any minute :D
Click to expand...
Good choice!! :D

You are going to love it. Do you shoot with FX or DX? Thanks to the effective field of view of DX it becomes even more versatile (especially for close focus) and then stick a 1.4 on and you are laughing...that's why it makes such a great travel lens. Still a fantastic performer on FX as well though!
 
How long/heavy is the Nikon 200-400mm compared to the 100-400mm L Canon?
I used to have the Canon but recently switched to Nikon. Just wondered how different they physically were.
atb, steve
 
I'll be shooting with DX for the minute, the cash was either going on a lens or a d3x, I opted for glass first given that new camera models are imminent!

Richard Peters said:
Good choice!! :D

You are going to love it. Do you shoot with FX or DX? Thanks to the effective field of view of DX it becomes even more versatile (especially for close focus) and then stick a 1.4 on and you are laughing...that's why it makes such a great travel lens. Still a fantastic performer on FX as well though!
Click to expand...
 
it's a lot bigger and heavier, 3.2kg compared to about 1.2kg for the canon, and a whole lot longer too

steviejasp said:
How long/heavy is the Nikon 200-400mm compared to the 100-400mm L Canon?
I used to have the Canon but recently switched to Nikon. Just wondered how different they physically were.
atb, steve
Click to expand...
 
steviejasp said:
How long/heavy is the Nikon 200-400mm compared to the 100-400mm L Canon?
Click to expand...

200-400 = 124x358mm and 3.2kg
100-400 = 92x189mm and 1.4kg

Three times the size, three times the price, probably twice as good overall - thats the law of diminishing returns for you!

The Nikon 80-400 is the equivalent of the 100-400 really, the 200-400 is unique to Nikon in that its a proper high quality long zoom.
 
Thanks chaps.
Do the aviation toggers hand hold these??:thinking:
I was fine with the Canon but i reckon the Nikon would be a struggle.
Have to hire me one of these next year for RIAT:D
 
steviejasp said:
Do the aviation toggers hand hold these??:thinking:
Click to expand...

There are a couple in the US who do, I wouldn't want to for too long :D

Stick a Wimberley Sidekick on a monopod, should take the load off the arms, and provide free movement.
 
the beast has landed... I think I'm in love...

beast.jpg
 
Slobber......
 
Now now, don't get too carried away I'm not going to clean the forum up after you :p
 
I'm liking this club already! I'm eagerly awaiting some wildlife appearing in the garden but I think they've all be warned and are keeping away :(
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top