Meleagris said:

One last consideration, if you buy the 600mm or 400mm, renting the 200-400mm is way cheaper.

JB

will they give you a discount if you own one of the other two :)

I would say I am wondering about the 800mm F5.6 that was announced a while back, but not sure if it will happen though. Hearing about it is one thing but being able to purchase it is another.

I own the 600mm f/4 and would not trade it for anything the world. It is RAZOR sharp (sorry but I disagree with Thom Hogan) and the AF is amazing. Is shoot everything from birds to Thoroughbred racing with it. I have used the 200-400 extensively and love the lens but as others have said it is a totally different lens. It is very nice for shooting large animals where you can get close...but I usually wish for more lens, not less. I am considering getting one to compliment the 600 as others have done.

I find a way to make my 600mm work for most of the things I do. For me, the reach is appreciated over the 400mm and I just do not believe the extender gives you the quality of the lens only. Since most of what I need is long...the 600 is a no brainer for me.

As others have stated, you might consider the 500mm if you are considering the 200-400. The weight savings is substantial. The 600mm (and 400) is a beast and requires some extra planning when traveling.

One last consideration, if you buy the 600mm or 400mm, renting the 200-400mm is way cheaper.

JB

I own both the 200-400 and 600mmm vr lenses and they are quite different. If i am going out to shoot birds I take the 600 and it is most often too short. When I am traveling by airplane I only take the 200-400mm and do not shoot birds because it fits into a checked bag and still leaves room for clothing. The 600mm even in its own smalller bag will not fit in a carry on anything. I shoot a D3X and print many 24X36 images and I try to not use any tela-converters because of the degrading of the image. The 200-400 is too short for morst birding situations but works on larger animals and long senics very nicely. I had the 500mm F4 and bought the 200-400 and I found that i was not using the 500mm because there was not enough differance. Then I traded fort the 600mm F4 VR and I now use both. If you can only get one The 500mm VR would be my choice and I have owned all three. The VR does make a difference.

Chrisjhood said:
I am in the market for a new large lens and am having a hard time deciding which is the way to go. I have done a ton of reading and havent been able to make up my mind yet so I thought I would ask you all.

Forget the 200-400mm, it´s not even near the quality of either the 400mm or the 600mm.

If you want a lighter lens than the 400 or the 600, get the 500mm f/4 instead.

You can also look at some 2nd hand VR I version (1st ten) as there's not really that much difference between them and the 1st gen should be 30-40% cheaper

good decision Chris, You will not regret it

scoobysmak said:
Here is what I did on the issue, I had the same debate but the 600mm wasn't really high on the list for me but I did look into it.

1. I really wanted the zoom feature of the 200-400mm, for sports this is great unless its like a night time game, then the extra stop of light might be a bit more usefull but make me move around much more and possibly miss a shot. Since I pretty much figured that if I was shooting day time sports with a zoom I figured the 70-200mm VRII with a 1.7 TC-E could suffice unless I got a lot of request for this type shot. This gives me a 120-340mm F4.8 for my daytime stuff.

2. Now the choice between the 400mm and the 600mm, well the 400mm is a bit more versitale when I picked up my lens since the smallest F stop cameras could autofocus was F5.6. If I used a 2.0 TC-E I could get the same reach as the 600mm with a TC-E 1.4 but would problaby have to sacrifice some quality for my combination. The price was another factor, the 400mm was a tad cheaper and the finishing blow to the 600mm; I can pack my 400mm 2.8 VR lens in a pelican 1510 case that is rated as an FAA carry on item. I will say that some smaller planes you have to use the check bag at the ramp but most larger planes it fits in the overhead bin just fine.

This was my thoughts on the issue but depending on if your getting paid for this or its more of a hobby would make me look more into the issue of what I really need out of my gear.

So you chose the the 400 2.8?

After reading all the posts and talking with a few people about my needs and what I will use this lens the most for its seems as if the 200-400mm is the best one for me. The zoom capabilities and because its lighter and that will hurt me back that much less when i go to a lot of the remote locations that i will be shooting at. As for now I think the 400 2.8 and 600 will have to stay on the wish list.

Here is what I did on the issue, I had the same debate but the 600mm wasn't really high on the list for me but I did look into it.

1. I really wanted the zoom feature of the 200-400mm, for sports this is great unless its like a night time game, then the extra stop of light might be a bit more usefull but make me move around much more and possibly miss a shot. Since I pretty much figured that if I was shooting day time sports with a zoom I figured the 70-200mm VRII with a 1.7 TC-E could suffice unless I got a lot of request for this type shot. This gives me a 120-340mm F4.8 for my daytime stuff.

2. Now the choice between the 400mm and the 600mm, well the 400mm is a bit more versitale when I picked up my lens since the smallest F stop cameras could autofocus was F5.6. If I used a 2.0 TC-E I could get the same reach as the 600mm with a TC-E 1.4 but would problaby have to sacrifice some quality for my combination. The price was another factor, the 400mm was a tad cheaper and the finishing blow to the 600mm; I can pack my 400mm 2.8 VR lens in a pelican 1510 case that is rated as an FAA carry on item. I will say that some smaller planes you have to use the check bag at the ramp but most larger planes it fits in the overhead bin just fine.

This was my thoughts on the issue but depending on if your getting paid for this or its more of a hobby would make me look more into the issue of what I really need out of my gear.

msmoto said:
I fully appreciete the issue...and for me this is about being old and figuring if I am to play... better do it now.
And, it is fun to discuss the difference in one's corporate jet....and that of your competitor....LOL

Please don't stop on my account. Fantasizing is much more enjoyable than working.

I think if one were shooting crop sensor, the 300mm f/2.8 is more sensible. But to be able to get out at 800mm on full frame...really nice. I think I might have to try hand holding the 400 to see if it does work. If one sits down, this may actually be practical.

Got to love Tom Hogan.

And I quote:

"I've shot with my 400mm all over the world now: Eagles on the ice between Japan and Russia, lions in Africa, Geese in the US, and much more. I've used it in sports shooting, including some shooting under lousy lights, and I've used it for the occasional odd landscape shot. I've never been disappointed with the results. Do you know how good a woman would have to be for me to say that about her? I've never been disappointed by the lens."

"A three week rental on this lens is about US$1000 (plus shipping). A one-week rental is about half that. So, the question you have to ask yourself is how much you actually shoot with it. If you make one long trip a year to a workshop or favorite location where this lens is going to get used, you're better off renting. Just give yourself enough lead time to test a rental lens before the trip (and maybe do an AF Fine Tune). I'd also suggest you rent the lens prior to purchasing it and really try it in practice. This is a lot of lens to handle, and frankly, not everyone is up to it."

+1 Enough said.

In closing, I totally agree with Adamz on the 300 2.8...being "the most versatile." As I have said before, this will the my next lens.

I fully appreciete the issue...and for me this is about being old and figuring if I am to play... better do it now. I suppose years ago when I used two months salary to buy a new "F" body, I found out the equipment pays for itself, if the entire investment is consistent with one's desire to produce good work.

But, the subject here is a bit specific for shooting either for a good sports publisher or any client who is willing to pay top dollar for the perfect shot.

My recommendation for anyone is to rent the lens/body when needed unless one can truely justify the expendature.

And, it is fun to discuss the difference in one's corporate jet....and that of your competitor....LOL

You realize of course that for some of us this is a little like debating the relative merits of the Gulfstream 4 and the Gulfstream 5.

:)

@ spraynpray....camera/subject distance about 200 feet (60 m). And some cropping. This is just to demonstrate when stopped down a bit the 400 + TC-20EIII works well enough for me. And the bike is coming toward me about 50 mph (80 kph) so the continuous servo with the combination also works fairly well. I must admit I need to calibrate the combination, but it is close as it is.

And, I just read Thom Hogan's review...the part about the Sherpa's.. I use a Temco rolling bag which works well as a backpack. And the entire setup weighs about thirty pounds with some goodies in the bag....all so this 70 yo lady can carry this up and down three flights of stairs....slowly....LOL.

I will admit, when down at the seashore, it is in a LensCoat cover so as to avoid the salt spray and sand.

And once you ante up for this thing, not a lot of thought is given for the other big guns...But IMO the one to get is the 400mm f/2.8 as it is extremely versatile except for hand holding.

Wow msmoto - those are nice sharp shots of Josh Hayes! Even with 800mm you must have been close. Did you have a press pass?

I'll add Thom's review of N200-400/f4 as it's also one of the lenses discussed over here:
http://www.bythom.com/Nikkor-200-400mm-lensreview.htm

These 2 reviews,one on the 400 f2.8 and one on the 500 f4 are by Thom Hogan and well worth reading, towards the end of each they have some comparison notes against each other and also against the 600mm
http://www.bythom.com/nikkor-400mm-f28-lens-review.htm
http://www.bythom.com/nikkor-500mm-f4-lens-review.htm

He also does a comparison with using the 3 tele-converters, which is OK with which lens etc
I have the 500 and use it with the 1.4 with which it performs well.

I have the 200-400 and version 2 of the 600mm f/4. I bought the 600 used from KEH for close to half the cost of a new VR version, and have been very happy with it. I had the 500 before that, but decided in my old age to go for the longest reach and have not been disappointed. I carry the zoom when traveling since it is easy to grab and shoot compared to having to use the tripod with the 600. You can see some examples from both lenses on my FB page at: http://www.facebook.com/ken.christison.7 Most of them are with the 600, but the last series of the hawk were with the 200-400 at 400mm. I usde the 600 for everything from butterflies to birds and couldn't be happier. I use the 1.4TC with both quite often. I also use the 600 for shots of the sun and moon, using a solar filter for the sun. There are also a few pics on my Flickr page using the 600 at: http://www.flickr.com/photos/kenskritters/

@eric - I think You stated it right to the point, no matter how long lens You have it's always the distance that matters

Well, the 400mm f/2.8 VRII with the TC-20EIII is not too bad. Here is one..

http://www.flickr.com/photos/fantinesfotos/7339026528/sizes/o/in/set-72157629918001642/

1/1000 sec, f/14 ISO 2200 D4.

Or another of Josh Hayes...very, very quick on his Yamaha....

http://www.flickr.com/photos/fantinesfotos/7338985760/sizes/o/in/set-72157629918001642/

Also with the TC-20EIII.

I like the Induro copy of the Wimberley gimbal as it is very good for less bucks. The 400/2.8 is really nice but not hand holdable for me. I think the 200-400 is actually hand holdable. The 600mm......drool.....

Oh, a nice "face plant" ...same lens

http://www.flickr.com/photos/fantinesfotos/7632802598/sizes/o/in/set-72157630700786770/

I also use my 70-200mm f/2.8VRII with the TC-14EII and find this is excellent. SO, I have all the zoom I need plus can get out to 800mm on the D4...or 1200mm equivalent on my new D400.... Just kidding....LOL

I have the 200-400 and the 600. They are very different lenses and have different uses.

The 200-400 is a long zoom lens providing maximum flexibility. It's perfect for large mammals - bears, deer, elk, big horn sheep, etc. With these subjects, you are just as likely to need 200mm as 400mm so the zoom is important. I also use this lens with large birds such as wading birds and turkeys.

I use the 600 f/4 for birds. It's a little long for large wading birds, but for most birds it is great. It's a bit long for mammals unless you are looking for specific tight images. I would never use it for common large mammals. And my 600 f/4 is the sharpest lens I have ever used.

Both of these lenses work with the 1.4, 1.7 and 2.0 teleconverters. As you would expect, AF is slower and image quality drops slightly. The 1.4 teleconverter is quite good, but I find the 1.7 and 2.0 teleconverters slightly soft so they are limited to the right situations. With hi resolution cameras you might see the resolution difference at 100%, but not in final prints.

In terms of AF, the center sensor is the one that gets to f/8. You might get AF to work at adjoining cross sensors, but it is less reliable.

You mention reach, and that brings up a different problem. Long glass is not a substitute for getting closer. Outside of 100 yards, most lenses get softer. I suspect they are optimized for normal shooting distances. I've done testing of the 600mm and teleconverters including the new 2.0. It's a little soft at distances of 800 yards and beyond, but at 50 yards and closer is very sharp. On a D800 you can clearly tell the difference with and without any teleconverter. The 200-400 is a zoom (and softer than an an equivalent prime) and my observations are more pronounced with distant subjects on a 200-400 and the 1.7 or 2.0 teleconverters.

With both of these lenses support is critical. You'll have a lot more fun with a good gimbal head like the ones from Wimberley and RRS. You can get by with something like a Mongoose from 4th Generation Design if light weight is important.
http://stores.4gdphoto.com/-strse-118/M-dsh-3.6-~-Gimbal-Tripod/Detail.bok

My suggestion would be to not expect high sharpness with a 1.7 or 2.0 teleconverter. They are useful when needed, but if you need more reach you need to get closer or get longer glass. The 200-400 is probably the starting point for general work as flexibility will trump reach.

confusion indeed, You also forgot to mention that the poor's version of wildlife lens is n300/4 af-s + tc14 (I wish Nikon to update the 300mm with vr finally)

sevencrossing said:
The 200 -400 f 4 AND the 600 f4 seems to the weapons choice for those on an unlimited budget. The 400 f 2.8 is for those of us who cannot afford both

LOL, and the 70-200 2.8 +TC is the only option to those of us who can't afford either one of them! Reading through the comments I think we have managed to completely confuse the OP :-)

Chris

You may find this thread interesting

http://nikonrumors.com/forum/topic.php?id=8053

Like skint, the 400 f 2.8 + 1.4 TC is on my wish list

looking at well known wild life photographers

and talking to less known ones

The 200-400 f4 is very popular for mammals

but any zoom + D800 + TC does not seem a good combination. TCs work best with primes. The TC with magnify the inheritance defects of any zoom and the D800 has the resolution to show them

The 400 f 2.8 + TCs is popular with birders as is the 600 f4

The 400 f 2.8 + TCs is obvious more flexible than the 600 f 4

the 200 -400 f 4 AND the 600 f4 seems to the weapons choice for those on an unlimited budget. The 400 f 2.8 is for those of us who cannot afford both