I'm looking to buy the Nikon 400mm f/2.8. It seems that this lens is out of stock everywhere. Is Nikon going to come out with a new version?
Nikon 400mm f/2.8
(17 posts) (11 voices)-
Posted 2 years ago #
-
Didn't this lens already get a recent update? At over $8000 dollars it's just a high priced item that not very many places will stock. You'd probably have better luck getting it through your local Nikon rep, but Amazon and Adorama say they have it in stock.
Posted 2 years ago # -
Do you know if the lens will be updated anytime in the near future? Seems like a good candidate like the 300mm.
Posted 2 years ago # -
photorocket - this lens already has all "new" things such as: N coating, VR II - so there's not gonna be an update to this lens soon. apart from that, for what kind of photography are You gonna use it? if You going to put it on tripod, than You can consider the old version (pre VR), as IQ is quite the same between this lenses, which can't be spoken about the price; as for availability - well.. it's exotic lens, so wouldn't expect to see it on shelves
Posted 2 years ago # -
Well I finally got mine, here are the results and figure others might have had the same.
Okay today was good and bad, I got the lens in my hand(s). I was like a kid in a candy store of course but after I opened the case I was like uh, wow I need to look at a ruler again, this thing is massive. Not exactly a bad but I thought I might be able to grab the lens barrel in some situations, uh no either get a forklift or hold the tripod mount (some of this was I didn't want to damage it but you get my point).
I have a gimble head waiting for me to pick it up at my local camera store but they were closed today so I have to wait until tomorrow. Well I wanted to test this today (I think anyone would do the same in this situation). I put on my trusty 70-200 fired at two different subjects out my bedroom window (at 200mm). Then I switch lenses and go for the gusto. Imagine this.....my boss has to drink his morning cup of coffee or he has the "shakes". Now don't let him have his morning cup of coffee and hand him a laser pointer to aim at a target 2000 yards away....this is about what how much motion I had in holding this hand held.
I am your average guy about 6ft around 200lbs. I am not a body builder but no wimp either. I am not sure if I could have focused on the broad side of a barn like this. I know it takes good technique and lots of practice but what a wake up call. I knew I would need the gimble head but figured I might be able to get one or two shots off before I lose my subject, at this moment that doesn't look like a good theory. Either way hopefully tomorrow I can pick up my gimble head and take way better test shots than I did today.
Update.....
Well I got the gimble head but was shipped with the wrong mounting plate. I should get the correct mounting plate to me this week, I hope. At this point I do wonder if other people that have used this lens have the same impression that I do, or do I just need to practice with it that bad.Posted 1 year ago # -
Part of the issue is focal length. With the 1.4x TC on my 300mm F4 it is just a little bit longer (but weighs a lot less) and it is still hard to keep the AF point on your subject hand held. Once you're over 300mm a tripod is a must for good results, IMO.
Posted 1 year ago # -
scoobysmak - so I guess now it's time to get Your butt to gym :), but seriously indeed 400/2.8 is a monster and hard but manageable to handhold - at least much more manageable than 600/4.
PB - on a daily basis I shoot with 300/4 af-s + TC17 and never had a problem with sharpness. so IMHO, it all depends on personal preferences.
Posted 1 year ago # -
Mmm Buyen Big Mama Lenses don't you,.. :-)
Well : Congratulations with your new wonderful big bad lens !! I hope you'l shoot loads of wondefull pics with it ( i'm jelous, i cannot afford stuff like that at all.. :-{ )
Anyway, do you not have a good monopod to put underneath this heavyweight yet ?
I gues these are essential for lense like this...
Beanbags are also good and versatile ( for shooting out of (car-) windows and the like...Posted 1 year ago # -
Scoobysmak, congratulations on the new lens. It's the one lens that I would still like to add to my collection (or maybe the 200-400?). Do me a favour, please send me the cardboard shipping box. I so want to see my wife's reaction when I tell her I've gone out and bought one :-)
Posted 1 year ago # -
I feel your pain scoobysmak. The 200-400mm is nasty as well I usually shoot it on a monopod. I remember being surprised how massive it was in length and width. The 300mm VR is actually not too bad but still massive. I didn't even like the weight of the 70-200mm VR! haha Nikon has always been about the weight...Look forward to seeing a few shots with that 400mm on here.
Posted 1 year ago # -
adamz said:but seriously indeed 400/2.8 is a monster and hard but manageable to handhold - at least much more manageable than 600/4.
PB - on a daily basis I shoot with 300/4 af-s + TC17 and never had a problem with sharpness. so IMHO, it all depends on personal preferences.
i don't think the 400 is far more manageable than the 600. the 400 is a bloody monster.
i also think it is mainly the weight that will lead to your inability to get good shots hand held. i can shoot my 300 2.8 on my d300s (450mm equiv.) and get perfectly good shots hand held. I suppose vrII may be helping, but it's hard to say.
i certainly wouldn't hand hold the 400.
Posted 1 year ago # -
Gareth, can you show us some pictures of tha monster?
Posted 1 year ago # -
hard to find a comparison, you won't appreciate how big it is until you see it in person.
but it's
this
http://www.flickr.com/photos/lolpmac/5790711053/in/photostream/vs this
http://www.flickr.com/photos/lolpmac/5790708007/in/photostream/smaller than this, though
Posted 1 year ago # -
Well I am still waiting for the correct mounting plate. It should be here by next Tuesday at the latest but I want to play with it now. To keep me occupied, I went ahead and renewed my gym membership just in the meantime, lol.
Posted 1 year ago # -
why dont you mount it directly on the top of a monopod. the pod will screw into the standard plate and you're away.
Posted 1 year ago # -
Hey, let's wake this thread up.... I have found some newby stuff about the 400 mm lens. First, at age 69, I no longer have to go to the gym, just carry the lens around for awhile and I have a workout. But seriously, the Manfrotto gimbal mount, inexpensive, but very heavy in itself, when combined with the 400 makes a very sweet system which just glides on top of the monopod or tripod. The only caution is to set up the balance so the camera/ lens does not fall violently forward or back. I shoot mainly cars with the lens and so I am behind a safe barrier, sort of. Thus I can actually use a tripod as necessary and take a nap between shots (old folks do this) without having to turn the monopod upside down and set the camera lens on the ground. Nice in the morning when ground is wet. And the advantage is the fitness workout of carrying the rig plus a second body with the 70-200 for the close ups when the cars spit dirt or grass on you.
Gosh, Hope all have a Happy Holiday Season.
See my profile for a few thousand shots on website
Ms. Tommie Lauer
Posted 1 year ago #
Reply
You must log in to post.
