Nikon Rumors Forum

where there’s smoke there’s forum fire

1. 

   Formatted
   

   member
   Joined: Jan '10
   Posts: 25

   offline

   About 2 weeks ago, I ordered a 200 - 400 Nikkor VR from a local shop that I thought reputable. Well it turns out they weren't and have since gone under, I paid by cheque which I have since canceled. So this may seem like a complete basket case. But I'm wondering is it?

   Maybe I made a mistake? Is that what I really want? I already have a 70-300 lens I shouldn't recover the same ground. I therefore suggest we look at finding something else.

   What I'm looking for?

   My budget is £4,000 ($5,800), I'm only looking for new or mint condition lens. I'm looking for my equipment to last a long time, something that will last a lifetime.

   I love to shoot sports, I generally don't do this indoors or with low light, but sometimes I do something that has versatility. Rowing, Cricket, Hockey, Rugby and Sailing are my favorite subjects.

   But my true passion lies with, Wildlife photography, next year I am working in Kenya from September for 3 months in a Dutch Eco-lodge, I will also be spending 3 weeks in April following the migration and possibly be heading to India. I want something that will cover the distance, a tele-converter is also what I'm looking at.

   To Conclude?

   Quality is a must! Speed is a must! Length is a Must!

   I've created this thread to make sure I make the right decision, some of the people on this forum have a insane amount of knowledge and so I know that with your help I can make the right decision.

   Posted 3 years ago #
2. 

   jonnyapple
   

   Goldfingers
   Joined: May '09
   Posts: 3,400

   offline

   Welcome to the forum, formatted. I'm sure people will have good advice for you, but in any case I'd wait for a month or so and see if Nikon announces anything (200-400 replacement?). I wish I had your budget. ;-)

   Posted 3 years ago #
3. 

   LemonToast
   

   junior member
   Joined: Jan '10
   Posts: 5

   offline

   Have you considered the Nikkor 300mm F2.8 with a 2x or 1.7x Teleconverter?
   Don't really have too much experience in the Big Black Nikkors, but thats what I'd get.

   There are a lot of 70-200f2.8s VRI coming at pretty decent prices on eBay and other places, but for wild life it may be a bit short, but it's range is very versatile.

   Posted 3 years ago #
4. 

   mb
   

   preferred member
   Joined: Apr '09
   Posts: 1,160

   offline

   200-400 is a fantastic lens if you can afford it and is extremely usable for wildlife.
   I see no reason (and there are no rumors) for a replacement any time soon.
   It is great all the way 200-400 and it starts where your 70-300 ends (70-300 is very good up to 200 but above that is a bit soft).
   It rivals 300mm f2.8 II at 300 f4 (I really doubt you will be using f2.8 for wildlife), it is much better at 400 compared to 300+TC-14 (420mm) and it is just a slightly larger.
   It could also be used with TC-14 for very good results so if there is a single lens that is a must for a serous wildlife shooter then this is it and I would go for TC-14E (280-560) as well (I would wait for a new TC-14E II though).

   Posted 3 years ago #
5. 

   PacificEagle
   

   preferred member
   Joined: Nov '09
   Posts: 105

   offline

   Formatted, I'm not sure what your camera is that your planning on using this new lens on, which would make a difference in what you might buy.
   I try to have versatility in my kit. I have the D300s and the D3s, so the ability to use my lenses on both is important. Having the D300s mean I gain that extra focal lenth on what ever lens I put on it. So I have the 70-200 f/2.8 VRII, 300mm f/2.8 VR for my big lenses with the TC-14E II and the TC-17E II to go with them. I am waiting for the new TC-20 III to add to my collection. So I have as much versatility as I can get with this set up, and I can shoot at 2.8 or add an TC and get more length but lose stops, but the pictures are still fantastic. I tried the 200-400 and it just didn't do it for me, especially when adding a TC.
   Not sure if this helps, but it sure works for me.

   Keith

   Posted 3 years ago #
6. 

   Gentoo
   

   preferred member
   Joined: Mar '09
   Posts: 1,538

   offline

   Mb I'm sure why you may not think that 2.8 wouldn't be used for wildlife. It is when birding that's for sure.

   As far as your choice of lenses, do not compare the 200-400 to the 70-300. They are similar ONLY in terms of FL and that's it. You're talking about two different classes of lenses entirely and the 200-400 will be able to get you results that the consumer lens doesn't know is possible.

   Having said that, as someone else suggested, I'd also look at the 300 2.8. Thanks to adamz, this is the lens I have now and the 200-400 was my original dream lens. I have the original AF-S non VR version and it's phenomenal! You can get the VRII version for a little cheaper than the 200-400 is these days. The 70-200 was also mentioned. A great lens too but for most wildlife (except for those tame ones in city parks) it's too short. Of all the lenses mentioned, the only one I haven't owned is the 200-400.

   Posted 3 years ago #
7. 

   adamz
   

   The Predator
   Joined: Mar '09
   Posts: 3,461

   offline

   formatted - welcome to the forum; in Your case I'll also go for the 300/2.8 + TC, if You have two cameras than I will put the 70-300 (great between 70-200, weak at 300) on one body and put the 300/2.8+TC17 (510mm/4.8) or 300/2.8 + TC14 (420/4.0) on the second body - You will get more portability than with 200-400 and a little bit better sharpness, not to mention the fact that 300/2.8 is far more handheldable than 200-400/f4 and that You will have no problems with taking it with You on board

   Posted 3 years ago #
8. 

   Gentoo
   

   preferred member
   Joined: Mar '09
   Posts: 1,538

   offline

   I agree with adamz on this one all the way.

   Posted 3 years ago #
9. 

   Formatted
   

   member
   Joined: Jan '10
   Posts: 25

   offline

   THank you very much for the replies so far!

   My camera setup at the moment is a D5000 and I'm waiting to pick up a D3 second hand on ebay (seen a few going for 1,500 in the last couple of weeks.)

   I'm looking at getting a 200-400 VR, with all the feadback I've had so far. Its just I need the extra focal length, I'm also looking to get a TC x1.4

   I've got a decent tripod and car clamp, so gear weight wise is not a big issue anyway.

   I was also wondering what you guys thought about http://www.kenrockwell.com/ I like the way the reviews are set out, but are they actually any good? Are there better websites?

   I've had my eye on the 200-400 for awhile now, so unless anyone can think of any reasons why its not the lens for me I'll start hunting around for a good deal.

   Posted 3 years ago #
10. 

    Willis
    

    preferred member
    Joined: Mar '09
    Posts: 1,123

    offline

    Oh No! A Rockwell question!

    Ken's fine, but you have to take his opinions with a grain of salt. They are, afterall, just his opinions. He doesn't tend to be very consistant in the way he evaluates things, so it can be challenging to see through his BS at times.

    Posted 3 years ago #
11. 

    mb
    

    preferred member
    Joined: Apr '09
    Posts: 1,160

    offline

    I too prefer zooms and this one, being only 80mm longer and half a kilo heavier then 300mm, is one extremely good and usable lens.
    But it is a big lens never the less so your D5000 will look more like an attachment then a camera when mounted.

    Posted 3 years ago #
12. 

    jonnyapple
    

    Goldfingers
    Joined: May '09
    Posts: 3,400

    offline

    mb said:
    200-400 is a fantastic lens if you can afford it and is extremely usable for wildlife.
    I see no reason (and there are no rumors) for a replacement any time soon.

    You're absolutely right, mb. I got it confused with the 80-400. Embarrassing! Sorry, formatted.

    Posted 3 years ago #
13. 

    adamz
    

    The Predator
    Joined: Mar '09
    Posts: 3,461

    offline

    mb - this 8 cm is a lot, trust me, I've played with both of them. also You can easily mount TC20 on 300/2.8 and get an affordable 600mm lens, and on 200-400 You can add only 1.4TC, as with any other the AF will either not work or be too sluggish.

    formatted - look closely on the d3 prices, a decent one should cost You between 2500-3000 USD. if the camera was used in studio than double check the articulation number, as there might be no single scratch on the body. I would also suggest You to get d300s instead of d3, as the 1.5x crop will give You a better reach.

    Posted 3 years ago #
14. 

    NikoDoby
    

    The Terminator
    Joined: May '09
    Posts: 6,598

    offline

    Wait, I don't mean to be a bad guy but are you seriously thinking of spending over $6000USD on a lens that you intend to use with a $700USD camera?! I'm sorry formatted but I find your story hard to believe and take seriously.

    I'm the first to admit that you don't need the latest, greatest, and most expensive camera body to get good shots with that lens but at that price the 200-400 is overkill and not an easy lens to take and carry with you on a vacation.

    Welcome to the forum and my apologies if I sound too harsh Formatted.

    Posted 3 years ago #
15. 

    Gentoo
    

    preferred member
    Joined: Mar '09
    Posts: 1,538

    offline

    adamz said:
    formatted - look closely on the d3 prices, a decent one should cost You between 2500-3000 USD. if the camera was used in studio than double check the articulation number, as there might be no single scratch on the body. I would also suggest You to get d300s instead of d3, as the 1.5x crop will give You a better reach.

    Again, very sound advice adamz. Formatted, if you were to put a 300 2.8 on a D300s and add a TC to it, you might be overwhelmed by what you might get from this combination. I have basically the same set up minus the good Nikon TC's and I couldn't be happier with it. I've actually held the 200-400 on a D3 before and despite some of the remarks, it's actually not that hard to hand-hold. However having said that, the new 300 2.8 is even easier to hand-hold, easier than my older version. If money isn't an issue to you, then by all means get the best you can.

    Posted 3 years ago #
16. 

    Formatted
    

    member
    Joined: Jan '10
    Posts: 25

    offline

    NikoDoby said:
    Wait, I don't mean to be a bad guy but are you seriously thinking of spending over $6000USD on a lens that you intend to use with a $700USD camera?!

    Well you've got to start somewhere, don't you? Why buy 2 pieces of semi-good equipment when I could get 1 amazing piece and then wait till I can afford another amazing piece.

    I've been taking photos for about a year now a digital camera, before my D5000 I had a canon Rebel Kit, but I prefer Nikon simply for the brand, and before that I used film with a old olympus. I'm not new to photography, just alittle lost when it comes to making the best decision.

    Thank you very much, for the people that have helped, I'll guess we shall see what Nikon annouces this week!

    Posted 3 years ago #
17. 

    Gentoo
    

    preferred member
    Joined: Mar '09
    Posts: 1,538

    offline

    Formatted said:
    Well you've got to start somewhere, don't you? Why buy 2 pieces of semi-good equipment when I could get 1 amazing piece and then wait till I can afford another amazing piece.

    Exactly! And in the long run you'll be happier with that decision. That's why I said if money isn't an issue, aim high.

    Posted 3 years ago #
18. 

    adamz
    

    The Predator
    Joined: Mar '09
    Posts: 3,461

    offline

    and I will disagree with You Gentoo - sure it's good to aim high, but there should be some reasonable limits. If You are driving a car than it's not bugatti veyron You take for the first drive.

    formatted - I get Your point of view and don't think that using an expensive lens with a cheap camera is wrong - for sure it's not if You know why and for what You are doing this. I'm not gonna judge You, as it's Your decision and Your money afterwords. Just please remember that 200-400/4 is an enormous piece of glass that needs to be used in a proper way to obtain good results, and needs training. If You haven't hold it Yourself for longer period of time, than I suggest You to get a piece of board - same length as this lens, put some stones on it, so the weight will be comparable and try to carry it with You for a longer period of time. Don't know about Your experience in using cameras off the beaten track, but my experience is simple: if You want to have Your gear at the end of Your travel stick it to Your butt, no matter what You do.
    Considering all the additional info You provided, I will suggest You to take a closer look either at 300/2.8 vr or at sigma 500/4.5, as I still think that 200-400 is not a good lens for You, at least not right now and certainly not for the shots You gonna do with it.

    Posted 3 years ago #
19. 

    shivaswrath
    

    preferred member
    Joined: Mar '09
    Posts: 841

    offline

    does the 200-400 even AF with the D5000?

    I'd get a body first - probably a D300(s) if you're looking for that long reach; if you can afford both a D3/D300, then go for it (I saw a D300 go for $899 recently and D3 nearly $2k, so you've got lots of cheap used choices out there!!)

    Posted 3 years ago #
20. 

    mb
    

    preferred member
    Joined: Apr '09
    Posts: 1,160

    offline

    shivaswrath said:
    does the 200-400 even AF with the D5000?

    I'd get a body first - probably a D300(s) if you're looking for that long reach; if you can afford both a D3/D300, then go for it (I saw a D300 go for $899 recently and D3 nearly $2k, so you've got lots of cheap used choices out there!!)

    Yes it does AF on D5000, it is AF-S and it does AF on any current Nikon with or without TC without a glitch.
    One other thing, 300 with TC is almost the same size and weight as 200-400 and its IQ is inferior even with humble TC-14 mounted, not to mention time and trouble to mount it on and of a TC, and 300 will never do 200 better then 70-200 as 200-400 does.

    Posted 3 years ago #
21. 

    NikoDoby
    

    The Terminator
    Joined: May '09
    Posts: 6,598

    offline

    Yes the 200-400 can auto focus with the D5000. I really do think you are just having fun with us on the forum. Your current set up is a D5000 and 18-55mm kit lens and you want us to believe you bought a $6000 dollar lens just so you can improve your photos?

    The only reason you don't have that $6000 dollar lens for your D5000 is because the store you bought it from suddenly went out of business before you could pick it up? As a high school student, you should be spending $6000 dollars on more important things than on one lens.

    Posted 3 years ago #
22. 

    adamz
    

    The Predator
    Joined: Mar '09
    Posts: 3,461

    offline

    mb - 200-400/f4 will work properly only with TC14, the AF may work (in some situations) with TC17 and certainly will not work with TC20 (unless You point directly towards the sun). as for size, if 10cm of difference is "almost the same size" for You than for me this discussion is pointless

    Posted 3 years ago #
23. 

    mb
    

    preferred member
    Joined: Apr '09
    Posts: 1,160

    offline

    adamz said:
    mb - 200-400/f4 will work properly only with TC14, the AF may work (in some situations) with TC17 and certainly will not work with TC20 (unless You point directly towards the sun). as for size, if 10cm of difference is "almost the same size" for You than for me this discussion is pointless

    With TC-14 300mm is around 300mm long and 3050g, 200-400 is 360mm long and 3275g, yes in my view they are almost the same.
    And no, 200-400 will probably not focus with TC-17 and almost certainly not with TC-20, but it will AF without any problems with TC-14. 300 IQ will suffer with TC-14, more so with TC-17 and it will really be kind of “better then nothing” with TC-20.
    200-400 is more versatile and usable lens then 300 for wild life in my view, but you are welcome to think otherwise.

    Posted 3 years ago #
24. 

    Gentoo
    

    preferred member
    Joined: Mar '09
    Posts: 1,538

    offline

    adamz said:
    and I will disagree with You Gentoo - sure it's good to aim high, but there should be some reasonable limits. If You are driving a car than it's not bugatti veyron You take for the first drive.

    formatted - I get Your point of view and don't think that using an expensive lens with a cheap camera is wrong - for sure it's not if You know why and for what You are doing this. I'm not gonna judge You, as it's Your decision and Your money afterwords. Just please remember that 200-400/4 is an enormous piece of glass that needs to be used in a proper way to obtain good results, and needs training. If You haven't hold it Yourself for longer period of time, than I suggest You to get a piece of board - same length as this lens, put some stones on it, so the weight will be comparable and try to carry it with You for a longer period of time. Don't know about Your experience in using cameras off the beaten track, but my experience is simple: if You want to have Your gear at the end of Your travel stick it to Your butt, no matter what You do.
    Considering all the additional info You provided, I will suggest You to take a closer look either at 300/2.8 vr or at sigma 500/4.5, as I still think that 200-400 is not a good lens for You, at least not right now and certainly not for the shots You gonna do with it.

    Really? All that? LMAO! Dude he's not buying a house LOL.

    Formatted, adamz disagrees with me most of the time, he seems to enjoy it lol

    Now I've held that 200-400 and despite the doom laden warnings about it weighing as much as a 6 ton hippo, it's really not that bad. Don't take my word for it, go to a place that will let you hold one...the lens...not a piece of wood LMAO! I will never get over that one lol

    However adamz does have a really good point about the 300 2.8. He knows what he's talking about here. I got a 300 2.8 precisely because of adamz's advice. I hand hold mine and it's a monster to hold but it can be done. If you're not used to a lens the size of either of these, it will take some practice and training as adamz said to get used to it. However, you're never really going to perfect such a technique if you don't get of your own to practice with.

    Posted 3 years ago #
25. 

    PB PM
    

    preferred member
    Joined: Jan '10
    Posts: 2,217

    offline

    You might want to do some weight lifting too, get the arm strength up! I find it hard enough to hand hold the 300mm F4 AF-S for long periods of time and it is only 1400g, and I am used to working with heavy stuff from work!

    Posted 3 years ago #

RSS feed for this topic

Topic Closed

This topic has been closed to new replies.