Comments on: Nikon AF-S 200-400mm f/4G ED VR II announced

By: Micah

Micah — Tue, 04 May 2010 05:33:50 +0000

Aaaactually, the TC20E drops you down TWO stops. And focus ain’t great in low light. Oh, I see what you’re saying…one stop of light versus the 200-400. Righto. The 70-200 with the TC14E is wonderful! But yeah, the TC20E is not great with that lens.

Besides being a stop slower, the DOF and bokeh are different. Bokeh and isolation on the 200-400 are AWESOME!

The 200-400 is indeed a great lens. Wonderfully sharp. Not THE sharpest, but better than anything else in this range. The only thing that might compare to it at the long end would be the 200/2 with a TC20. But you don’t have zoom with that combo. Although it’s easier to hand hold than the 200-400. It’s technically possible to shoot handheld with the 200-400…but not for very long! Pics come out great handheld, but it’ll tire you out right quick.

By: Injured Gonad

Injured Gonad — Thu, 29 Apr 2010 09:18:25 +0000

you’re looking in the wron place for your ‘improvements’…

By: bho

bho — Thu, 29 Apr 2010 07:33:17 +0000

Pro??..a true Pro would not call that crappy plastic lenses…only ignorant would do that…

By: PHB

PHB — Thu, 29 Apr 2010 01:38:47 +0000

Oh not again. All the FX lenses work on DX. Many professionals still shoot with DX today, particularly if they want to take shots of distant objects handheld. Relatively few professionals shoot with DX alone though, or entirely rule out the possibility of needing/wanting to acquire an FX body in the future.

There is little point to a DX version of the 200-400, it would be almost exactly as big, bulky and probably have to cost more as demand would be split between the FX and DX versions.

The only point where DX lenses offer major savings over the FX versions is at the wide end. The 35mm f/1.8 is stunning and amazingly cheap. It does not qualify for a gold band because its built to a $200 price point. But its still a great lens to have.

Nikon does in fact still make a no holds barred full size body DX camera in case you hadn’t noticed. Its called the D3x. (Ok you get a FX mode free). I don’t think we will see another full body DX camera but only because 12MP is enough for almost all applications which means that a 24MP can do double duty. If you really need more you will probably want to be going for the bigger lenses anyway.

At the wide end, the 10-24 would have to cost at least as much as the 14-24 to be as good. And what would be the point? The absolute best optical quality is only sometimes the best lens. The 14-24 is great for everything except for weight, size and the ‘scratch me’ front element.

By: Seppl

Seppl — Wed, 28 Apr 2010 22:12:23 +0000

I don’t like the MTF chart. [NR] admin, could you just give us other charts that look cooler? I mean, 7.000 bugs … and a few crappy lines, can’t be, ah?

By: ArtTwisted

ArtTwisted — Wed, 28 Apr 2010 20:19:28 +0000

35 f2, 50 1.8, 85 1.5, you can get all three of those for about a grand, thats pretty affordable.

By: ArtTwisted

ArtTwisted — Wed, 28 Apr 2010 20:17:03 +0000

then buy the 85 1.8, its pretty cheap

By: Jesus

Jesus — Wed, 28 Apr 2010 17:18:43 +0000

i wont be able to pay a 85 1,4, i want a 85 1,8

By: Jesus

Jesus — Wed, 28 Apr 2010 17:17:29 +0000

i want some more dx primes, something like 70mm 1,8 dx
a 16-50 2,8 dx would be cool too…

MOST IMPORTANT lens: AFS 85mm 1,8 < 400 $

Nikon should release some affordable primes, there aint much people ready to pay 7 grands for a f4 zoom lens…

By: KSPGM

KSPGM — Wed, 28 Apr 2010 12:34:48 +0000

Exactly ! I did not have the 18-200 VR but recently bought the 18-200 VRII . I think that that little switch on the side (which is pretty useless as the lens does still creep!) cost me £100. Clever Nikon – but it does ‘piss-off’ their loyal customers. Can they not see that?

By: pethunia

pethunia — Wed, 28 Apr 2010 08:16:39 +0000

I thought for a while this was one of the un-diputable top-lenses of Nikon. Almost flawless. And now THIS is the lense they improve. That is devine, or madness, and not unlikely both..

By: Dr SCSI

Dr SCSI — Wed, 28 Apr 2010 07:11:27 +0000

@shivas,

“Or you can get the 70-200 VR2, slap on a TC 2.0 and you’ll be sort of there. . .”

Been there, done that, no fun…
You get 140-400 f/5.6, so you get a larger zoom factor but you lose a stop of light. Not to mention the optical quality goes to sheit real fast, especially in the corners.

Now I have never shot or seen the 200-400 in person, but I am certain it is a HELL of a lens. I am just not certain how useable it would be. It weighs 7 pounds, tie that to a pro fx body and you add another 2-3 pounds. Try lugging that thing around for any length of time, it will wear you out. Heck, my 70-200 hardly gets used because it is too short in focal length, and too damned heavy. I prefer the D300 and the 18-200 kit lens I have over the D3 and the 70-200 in most cases.
The reason I bought the TC-2 was to extend the 70-200 for birding use, and I discovered you can forget it! You need like 600mm and greater to do decent bird shots in the wild. The lens I am looking at now for birding is the Sigma 300-800mm f/5.6. No image stabilization, but this will be used on a tripod with a gimbal head anyway, so I.S. loss is no big deal. Plus the zoom range is more useable than any of the current Nikon pro super telephotos offer, and it costs the same as the 200-400 from Nikon. Something to think about….

By: Dr SCSI

Dr SCSI — Wed, 28 Apr 2010 06:59:53 +0000

@Micah,
+1 “I’d be pissed if Nikon came out with a true Pro grade prime for DX before they come out with a fast FX 35mm lens.”
I totaly agree with your well written assesment. For all you others out there, if you make money with DX, congradulations. If you make money with FX, congradulations. If you make money with your point and shoot, congradulations. You are all pros!
Now, as far as I know, a pro lens sets itself apart from a non-pro lens based on build quality and workmanship. I own several FX lenses and a DX Kit lens. I like them all. But if I were going out on a paid job in harsh environments where my equipment would get banged around, I would definitely leave the DX gear at home. Unless of course the risk of breaking a DX lens didn’t matter to me. The FX lenses are just built with a solid feal that you don’t worry about them so much when you plop them into a carrying case or backback. As for my DX lens, I am always afraid the plastic will crack with the off axis forces being applied as I bang it around. Yes, if you didn’t notice, I am hard on gear and I am by no means a pro who goes to the coldest and hotest locations on this earth. So if you shoot DX, and you make money at it, you should at least consider backup gear, otherwise one day you may be facing a lawsuit from one of your clients if that DX lens just happens to break. Ask any Pro wedding photographer how critical backup gear is required, and they could probably tell you horror stories about failed flashes, batteries, etc. Even those shooting FX on someone elses budget will have backup gear to the backup gear. With FX Pro gear, there is a greater sense of security and peace of mind.

By: Simon

Simon — Wed, 28 Apr 2010 05:42:08 +0000

Which means no real improvement

By: Rob

Rob — Wed, 28 Apr 2010 05:36:29 +0000

Buy the 200-400 and put it on your D40. I’m a newb but that would work eh?

By: Bob Wilber

Bob Wilber — Wed, 28 Apr 2010 00:15:56 +0000

I know a pro that up until very recently made a very good living selling prints from his $350.00 SONY POINT AND SHOOT.

A VERY, VERY GOOD LIVING.

By: Bob Wilber

Bob Wilber — Wed, 28 Apr 2010 00:01:57 +0000

hah wrote…

“a professional DX lens is an oxymoron”

He should know, he’s a moron.

(and I use a Nikon FX, but what an absolutely stupid statement)

By: gnohz

gnohz — Wed, 28 Apr 2010 00:01:31 +0000

Thanks a lot for your personal opinion. Appreciate it
I agree that this 200-400 lens is a little different than past announcements. It was here all of a sudden with so limited rumours.

Since this was a rather unusual announcement, hope that Nikon still has something up their sleeves!

By: Edward Nafzger

Edward Nafzger — Tue, 27 Apr 2010 23:45:52 +0000

It´s already on nikon usa

By: Matprat

Matprat — Tue, 27 Apr 2010 21:46:37 +0000

Ugggggg! New 85mm f1.4 already!!!!!!