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. I have used the 400mm 2.8 before and was very please with the results, I also used it with a 1.7 teleconverter and was impressed with that. I have really taken a liking to the 200-400mm f4 vr 1 or 2 based on the fact that its smaller and lighter and gives you the opportunity to have a zoom. Wondering what other think about this lens and also how it works with the teleconverters. Lastly I am wondering about a 600mm f4 as a possibility because i felt at times with the 400 + 1.7 I was still wishing i was closer. i know im sure as someone that shoots wildlife you are always wanting to be closer so I am wondering what everyone thinks about these lenses and might be able to help me with my decision.
Thoughts on 200-400mm f4 vs 400mm f2.8 vs 600mm f4
(35 posts) (17 voices)-
Posted 5 months ago #
-
What you photograph will have a huge impact on which lens is best for you. The 400 2.8 is the sharpest, the 200-400 the most versatile, and the 600 is a monster that will reach out when you need to. Tell us what you shoot and which camera you use and maybe we can help.
Posted 5 months ago # -
The one person that comes to mind that can help you the most regarding these amazing lenses is: msmoto. I'm sure she will be able to point you in the right direction. With that said, ricochet has a good point...we await your response.
Lastly, before you make the capital investment in any of these lenses, renting then would be my recommendation for you to consider. Rent all three out at the same time and take them with you to a shoot and see which yields the best results to you. Then make your move.
Cheers...
Posted 5 months ago # -
I plan to shoot mostly wildlife with possibly sports down the road. Right now I shoot a D800 as well as a D300s. I work for a outdoor/hunting company and shooting lots of wildlife as well as hero type product shots that will fill websites and catalogs will be the main focus.
Posted 5 months ago # -
Give your usage, I would go with the 400 2.8 VR II.
Two reason I would go with this lens verser the 200-400 F4 & the 600 F4:
1) AF is not possible with the 1.7 teleconverter.
2) 2.8 The additional stop of light will come in handy for sure not to mention this lens is insanely sharp.Here is the link for the teleconverter compatibly chart:
http://www.nikonusa.com/en_INC/IMG/Assets/Common-Assets/Images/Teleconverter-Compatibility/en_US_Comp_chart.htmlBest of luck...
Posted 5 months ago # -
I personally have a 400 2.8 on my "one day" wish list, as I love fast glass and know I would always regret not getting the 2.8. You however mention what I would think are 2 very different disciplines.....wildlife and sport. I would suspect the 400/500/600 would be best for wildlife, but if I regularly shot 'ringside' I would have thought the 200-400 would be imperative? Do you find yourself shooting wildlife in low light? If not and you say that you use TC's, I think I would opt for the 600. Stick a 2x on it and put it on you D300s, and if 1800mm isn't close enough you must be standing in another country! :-)
P.S. I second Golf's suggestion about trying them side by side before taking the plunge.
Posted 5 months ago # -
One thing to keep in mind...shooting anything moving with a 300+ lens require good photography skills and lots of practice. Don't for a minute think that just because you get yourself a $6000-$11000 worth of glass every shot is going to be dead on....it will not be so. I would say 2 out of 10 shot will be a great result. You will have to deal with lighting, composition, framing, and your subjects cooperation. After all, the wildlife does not know what you are doing.
Lastly, for sport and fast moving wildlife, the D4 would be a far more effective body than your D800.
Posted 5 months ago # -
golf007sd said:
Give your usage, I would go with the 400 2.8 VR II.Two reason I would go with this lens verser the 200-400 F4 & the 600 F4:
1) AF is not possible with the 1.7 teleconverter.
2) 2.8 The additional stop of light will come in handy for sure not to mention this lens is insanely sharp.Here is the link for the teleconverter compatibly chart:
http://www.nikonusa.com/en_INC/IMG/Assets/Common-Assets/Images/Teleconverter-Compatibility/en_US_Comp_chart.htmlBest of luck...
Is that list - "is does not work" or that the available light is too low? With the new AF sensors, we can AF at F8 now. Or is it they don't fit. I read the explanation, but it didn't quite line up in my head. Just curious.
Posted 5 months ago # -
f4+tc-17 works though not perfectly in shady conditions
for Your kind of photography the best option will be to get 200-400/f4 + 600/f4, though if I had to decide which one of this two I wojld get the 300mm/2.8 first:) as it's the most versalite out of all of them.
200-400/4 is great ic You shoot zoo kind photography or go to africa where the animals are close enough
400/2.8 is more a sport lens, surly nice but if I had to haul it to remote location I would prefer 600/4
600/4 top of the cream for all wildlifers, excellent though extremely heavy and way to big for most overhead compartmentsthere's also one more lens that I think You should consider seriously: 500/4, especially when Hou have to hike to get the shot. it's much more compact than 400/2.8 and 600/4 and gives You pretty much the same coverage as 200-400/4+tc14 (you don't wanna put 1.7 on neither one of your lenses unless necessary). with 1.4tc it gives You 700mm/5.6 and it doesn't required as sturdy tripods as the two other primes.
Posted 5 months ago # -
sorry for errors, iphone keyboard is horrible when you type fast.
Posted 5 months ago # -
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
Posted 5 months ago # -
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 bothLOL, 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 :-)
Posted 5 months ago # -
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)
Posted 5 months ago # -
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.bokMy 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.
Posted 5 months ago # -
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
Posted 5 months ago # -
@eric - I think You stated it right to the point, no matter how long lens You have it's always the distance that matters
Posted 5 months ago # -
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/
Posted 5 months ago # -
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.htmHe 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.Posted 5 months ago # -
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.htmPosted 5 months ago # -
Wow msmoto - those are nice sharp shots of Josh Hayes! Even with 800mm you must have been close. Did you have a press pass?
Posted 5 months ago # -
@ 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.
Posted 5 months ago # -
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.
:)
Posted 5 months ago # -
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
Posted 5 months ago # -
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.
Posted 5 months ago # -
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.
Posted 5 months ago #
Reply »
You must log in to post.
