Nikon 200-400 VRII

[FUDGEY]

OK folks I am swaying towards this now, for once in my life I have took my time over something and weighed up the pros and cons. If I get it I will also be purchasing Nikons 1.7 convertor in case I need the extra reach. Before I take the plunge I thought I would just ask on here to see if any one had any experience with them? I am pretty impressed from what I have heard/read so far, Thanks in advance for any further help I can get.

[nigel_b]

I think it's a difficult one. I've been brainwashed somehow and somewhere along the line into believing that this is the wildlife lens, however recently I've been questioning that.

But to my point, hire one!

The alternative would seem to be the 500mm prime, at least to me.

At some point I hope to upgrade and will definately hire both for a week.

I already have a superb 18-200, 300 prime and 1.4x TC (which doesnt fit on the 18-200 much to my disappointment) so the 500 prime would seem to make more sense to me except I dislike changing lenses for obvious reasons.

I do just love the IQ of the 300 prime though, with or without TC.

If you're going on safari however, definately definately get the 200-400 with VR. You're probably not going to be able to move or wait for your shots and may be shooting without optimum support.

Hope this helps but let us know what you decide!

[FUDGEY]

Thanks very much Nigel, your advice is very much appreciated and I sincerely mean that. What a dilema and it starting to stress me out a bit I now have other options as some one else put me off this one. I am going to rest my brain for a bit and then have a re-think.

[nigel_b]

I guess my only other advice would be, if you can, stick with Nikon rather than aftermarket lenses.

[pressld2]

The only thing stopping me getting one is the price.

Richard G has one and you can see his thoughts and sample images at Expensive kit doesn't buy you good photo's, but...

He very kindly let me try it out at the Gigrin farm meet last April and I did manage a few good shots with it even though I struggled with the gimbal head.

I love the IQ of a prime lens and also the flexibility of a zoom. As far as I know this is the lens that comes closest to giving you both.

Dave P.

[Richard G.]

Well, I can't compare the 200-400mm to a prime, since I've never owned the latter. Always preferred the flexibility of a zoom and Nikon do make some exceptionally good zooms.

I spent a long time trying to decide if it was worth splashing so much cash on a lens of this quality; once I had, I wished I’d done it sooner. I don’t know what lens you use right now mate, but you already get great shots with it, I always enjoy looking what you’ve been up to. With this lens your keepers will go up by a factor of 10 and you’ll get shots sharp enough to cut yourself.

It's not really a carry about lens though, just too damn heavy to wander too far in the hope of stumbling upon something interesting, but then that's probably true of a 500mm prime too. It does limit you to sure things and hide photography though, but then if I had a hide like yours I wouldn't be too concerned

Not sure which model you have your eye on, mine is the v1, there is now a newer model with VRII, nano-coating etc, I'd expect the newer lens to be marginally better.

IQ is just fabulous though, really I can't even find anything to be picky about. I've occasionally used mine with a 1.4 TC and even stopped down a little, it's clearly softer, but still good. I think you could expect similar results with a 1.7 TC and it really becomes an f/8 lens with that TC, so light is an issue. I suspect the D80 ISO performance will frustrate, better if you end up with the D300 though (and that's what I have now).

VR is excellent and I regularly handhold rather than tripod, though it can be tiring after a while. I’ll try and dig out some more samples when I get time, but here’s one I took a couple of weeks ago, handheld @ 400mm, 1/160th, f6.3 and ISO 800.

[Richard G.]

I meant to also mention that the only criticism I’ve read about this lens is when shooting far away subjects. You can read more about it in Thom Hogan’s review here. I haven’t done any scientific testing to try and replicate this, but do tend to feel that there is a slight drop in sharpness under similar conditions, but there are other factors that do influence this, heat haze for example.

This image is a crop, I’d guess the bird was maybe 70-80m away, handheld again @ 400mm, 1/800th, f/5.6 and ISO 200. Still not bad, but I’ve come to expect better, so was a little disappointed by this one.

[The_Moaner]

Not got a Nikon, but if I had a shot like that I would not be dissapointed. In fact I'd be quite happy.