Nikon 200-400 f/4 VR II introduced

[MrLogic]

A "minor" update. VR II, Nano Crystal Coat & an additional focus mode. No surprises there.

Odd: the old 200-400 VR has a minimum focus distance of 6.2 feet (AF) at all focal lengths, for the new one it's 6.6 ft. (AF) and 6.4 ft. (MF)

Specs:

http://www.nikonusa.com/Find-Your-N...87/AF-S-NIKKOR-200–400mm-f%2F4G-ED-VR-II.html

The VR II will ship in late May.

The old one for comparison:

AF-S VR Zoom-NIKKOR 200-400mm f/4G IF-ED from Nikon

 

[Josh220]

I would love to have this in my collection some day. I just don't think I can justify it quite yet though.

First is the 70-200.

 

[Phranquey]

I have never understood the appeal of this lens....

I have the 70-200 2.8, so I have 200mm better covered, and for just about half the price, you can get a very nice 300mm 2.8. Put a TC1.4IIE on it, and you have a 420mm f/4.... and you still have a couple thousand dollars left over for something else.

 

[Hardrock]

It would be nice if Canon would make a lens in this range , although the price is still quite high. I think this lens is an outstanding wildlife lens check out some of EricD's post in the nature and wildlife forum! This lens would be extremely versatile and with a crop body or TC you have a lot of reach with minimal image quality lost.

 

[Overread]

I have never understood the appeal of this lens....

I have the 70-200 2.8, so I have 200mm better covered, and for just about half the price, you can get a very nice 300mm 2.8. Put a TC1.4IIE on it, and you have a 420mm f/4.... and you still have a couple thousand dollars left over for something else.

This is my thinking as well. Certianly a 200-400mm pro end lens does have uses and certainy could be a great lens in support of long primes for when one is doing hide work - or as a really good walkaround wildlife lens. However when the supersharp telephoto primes like the 300mm f2.8 and others are cheaper I do wonder who the market for this new lens is going to be.

 

[MrLogic]

I have never understood the appeal of this lens....

for just about half the price, you can get a very nice 300mm 2.8.

For real? Prices are "pretty" close here, actually. 5350 euro for the "old" 200-400 vs. 4550 euro for the "old" 300 f/2.8 (and damn near 5000 for the 300 VR II).

Obviously... the price of the 200-400 VR II is going to drop significantly in a matter of months. Right now it's listed at 7000 euro here. Yeah, right.

 

[Hardrock]

I have never understood the appeal of this lens....

I have the 70-200 2.8, so I have 200mm better covered, and for just about half the price, you can get a very nice 300mm 2.8. Put a TC1.4IIE on it, and you have a 420mm f/4.... and you still have a couple thousand dollars left over for something else.

This is my thinking as well. Certianly a 200-400mm pro end lens does have uses and certainy could be a great lens in support of long primes for when one is doing hide work - or as a really good walkaround wildlife lens. However when the supersharp telephoto primes like the 300mm f2.8 and others are cheaper I do wonder who the market for this new lens is going to be.

I have not used this lens but from seeing others who post pictures using this lens it really seems ultra sharp. So for me its really like an all in one package you basically get 3 primes in one(200 ,300, and 400 without changing the lens all at F4)! Of course its not F2.8 but why not sacrafice for F4 and have a lens that appears to be on par with primes? Seems like a great trade off to me especially if you are in a tight spot and dont want to move to disturb natrue. Just my thoughts , Ive seen some nice images from Canons 100 to 400 but nothing like the 200 to 400.

 

[Derrel]

David Bergman's blog,detailing how he shot this year's Sports Illustrated Super Bowl cover photo of Drew Brees holding up his little son after the Saints' victory in Super Bowl 44.

http://davidbergman.net/blog/P6/

Bergman shot about 3,000 frames from his assigned corner seat in one end zone, and for much of his shooting he used the Nikon 200-400 f/4 zoom lens on a D3s body--set mostly to ISO 4000 and f/4 with a shutter speed of 1/1250 second. With the new Nikons like the D3 and D3s providing superb ultra high-ISO, a 200mm to 400mm f/4 zoom with pro-level optics and pro-level AF motor design makes sense as a one-location lens for covering sports action, as well as wildlife. Of course, the lens can also be use on a 1.5x body for apparently narrower angles of view.

 

[Josh220]

I don't see how comparing a 200-400 to a 70-200 w/ a teleconverter even applies here. If you are talking about teleconverters you can throw one on the 200-400 as well and it's back to being just as far away from the 70-200 as it was to begin with.

I think the point of this lens is to have the next focal length after 70-200mm without having to use a teleconverter to degrade the IQ of the lens. Granted, only pro's and wealthy hobbyists can afford that route.

 

[Timbo1961]

I have never understood the appeal of this lens....

I have the 70-200 2.8, so I have 200mm better covered, and for just about half the price, you can get a very nice 300mm 2.8. Put a TC1.4IIE on it, and you have a 420mm f/4.... and you still have a couple thousand dollars left over for something else.

This is my thinking as well. Certianly a 200-400mm pro end lens does have uses and certainy could be a great lens in support of long primes for when one is doing hide work - or as a really good walkaround wildlife lens. However when the supersharp telephoto primes like the 300mm f2.8 and others are cheaper I do wonder who the market for this new lens is going to be.

I have not used this lens but from seeing others who post pictures using this lens it really seems ultra sharp. So for me its really like an all in one package you basically get 3 primes in one(200 ,300, and 400 without changing the lens all at F4)! Of course its not F2.8 but why not sacrafice for F4 and have a lens that appears to be on par with primes? Seems like a great trade off to me especially if you are in a tight spot and dont want to move to disturb natrue. Just my thoughts , Ive seen some nice images from Canons 100 to 400 but nothing like the 200 to 400.

I do a lot of motorsports and field sport photos. This lens is my first choice in many cases. As Darrel said with the High Iso performance of the new bodies, you can shoot at ISO3200 or 4000 and have virtually no noise. The zoom is the big thing. This is a razor sharp lens and with the ability to compose your shot there is nothing like it. Put it on a DX body for tighter cropping or on a FX body for your "standard" fields.
I love this lens. I use it more than a 300 2.8 which is very sharp but by the time the images are in print or on the web, you can't see the difference. You can see it on a 24" monitor, but after printing etc. you can't tell the difference.
I would recommend to any sports shooters who may be thinking of the 300 2.8, to think about the 200 - 400. Similar money but much more flexibility.
Strongly recommended.

 

[TJ K]

I have never understood the appeal of this lens....

I have the 70-200 2.8, so I have 200mm better covered, and for just about half the price, you can get a very nice 300mm 2.8. Put a TC1.4IIE on it, and you have a 420mm f/4.... and you still have a couple thousand dollars left over for something else.

Woah. Show me this half priced 300mm 2.8 you speak of. I might have to pick one up.

 

[Derrel]

Woah. Show me this half priced 300mm 2.8 you speak of. I might have to pick one up.

TJ,
Look for good deals on used 300 2.8's in smaller markets around the USA. Browse the web sites or e-mail the used equipment sales departments at brick and mortar photo stores across the USA; consignment sales on big glass will allow you some room to negotiate. It's possible to get a 300/2.8 in the $3,000 to $3,500 range, as long as you are not buying form one of the mega-web sites where the sales manager sticks a sky-high price tag on used lenses and waits for buyers to come to him, ready to pay full-bore retail prices.
Back when the Nikon D2x ($5,000) was hitting the street, I picked up a near-mint 300mm/2.8 AFS-II for $2,750, when that lens was selling for about $3,500 to $3,750 from KEH and B&H used; the thing is,when new equipment hits the streets, there are lots of sellers who consignment sell, in order to raise cash; dealers make 16 to 20 percent on the sale, no matter WHAT the final price ends up being, with no actual cash invested. With the thin, thin margins dealers get on new equipment, as well as the huge wholesale costs on $Big Gla$$ Lenses, dealers are anxious to sell consigned 300's and 400's at very favorable prices.

 

[Phranquey]

I don't see how comparing a 200-400 to a 70-200 w/ a teleconverter even applies here.

Funny.... :scratch: I didn't say anything about putting a TC on a 70-200. I said with a 70-200 f/2.8 I have the 200mm focal range covered better than a 200 f/4. I would put a TC on a 300mm 2.8....


And, reading some of the posts, I guess I could understand the appeal of the versatilty within those focal lengths....

But still, to me, the performance vs. cost just isn't there.

 

[MrLogic]

Posted by Grevture at DP Review:

The 200-400 is a major bread-maker among pro sports and PJ shooters. Probably more so then the classic 300/2.8 these days. It is one of those lenses that earn a lot of pro shooters a lot of money. Keeping it updated to the most current level of technology is probably a very, ver good idea.
As Jon comments, this is not a upgrade for all those "oh-there-is-a-new-lens-version-out-there-I-have-to-upgrade-to"-people. It is just a minor refresh to make sure any new customers or someone replacing broken gear gets the latest and the greatest.



Look at the image below from a hockey game. A couple of points to note:
a) What lens are the two photograpers using?



b) Note the (for Nikon) embarrassing pice of tape fixing the focus ring on the rightmost lens? Its because it is next to unavoidable to change focus by mistake when panning since the old version of 200-400 does not have that new A/M mode on the focus switch ... And, I can add that the second photographer used black tape on the underside of his lens - he was just being a tad more subtle ...

Belive me, that A/M mode is something pro users has been badgering Nikon about. Now get it for the 200/2 as well ...

Nikon 200-400 VRII announced [Page 2]: Nikon SLR Lens Talk Forum: Digital Photography Review

 

[OldSoldier]

Thanks, I'm trying to decide on a lens and body upgrade for wildlife photography and this discussion of the Nikon 200-400 (VR vs. VRII) was very helpful. I'm tending toward D300s for body; any thoughts? It appears there is no D400 in coming this year...