Nikon 200-400

[grivai]

Hey all,

So this is my first post here, I'm looking for peoples opinions of the Nikon 200-400 VR....it sure is beast of a lens with a price tage to match - do people feel it is justified? Does it take great pictures despite lacking the 2.8?? Annnnnd would you say that a new model is in the works for the near future? The primes have been updated recently...and its 5 years since the VR version came out. Would it be worth waiting???

Thoughts, opinions etc. most welcome! Thanks in advance,

Ivan

[sirhc55]

Welcome Ivan. Yes it is a beast of a lens and most certainly worth the price tag. Does it take great pics, the answer is an emphatic NO. What it does is give the photographer a chance to take great pics because in the scheme of things it’s not the equipment that matters, but the photographer

[gstark]

Hi Ivan, and welcome.

What Chris said is exactly correct. I could not have put it any better.

[grivai]

Ah of course of course...I should have been more specific. Naturally, a lens doesnt do much of anything without a photographer, good or otherwise. Perhaps I shouldn't make such gross simplifications. Mechanically speaking, does it allow great pictures to be taken when compared with its conspecifics, especially in relation to its hefty pricetag? . I take wildlife photos mainly, all types, so am not a 'birder' in need of 600mm of zoom.

I also just realised that there is a Nikon specific forum...apologies for posting in this one.

Ivan

[Raskill]

Welcome aboard Grivai!

I think the 200-400 has a fairly good reputation. Sure, you dont have the 2.8 option, but that may not be an issue, depending on what you photograph and how shallow you want your DOF to be.

If you check fredmiranda.com you should be able to find a good number of reviews of the lens to give you an idea of what other shooters think of it.

[Matt. K]

The lens is outstanding as befits its price. It needs to be mated to a Wimberly Sidekick and decent tripod in order to get the best out of it.

[marc]

Hi Ivan

I have the 200-400 and am very impressed with it's versatility, from its close min focus distance of 6.2 ft making for a
great (substitute) Macro here (Sidekick/Gitzo):



To it's use as a fine Airshow lens here ( handheld):



I even sold my fabulous 300 f/2.8 VR to get it, and can't wait to test it out in Botswana in Sept/Oct '09
Yes it's a beast and expensive, but hey, for it's versatility & quality it's very hard to beat!
You won't regret it.

Cheers
Marc

http://africaddict.smugmug.com/

[Glen]

Marc, that macro is very impressive from a 200-400

[grivai]

Marc, thank you for your input - its images like that that make me want to get on the phone to the bank manager!! I guess tax time is coming! Interesting that you mention leaving the 300 2.8 - as that seems to be the other lens people weigh up their options with in this regard. I guess the versatility is a real bonus.

Many thanks!

[Spooky]

Yeah, can recommend this lens. I find I can hand hold and get good results in some circumstances, spent a time on Fraser Island the other day stalking birds and got some shots I couldn't have got using a tripod. It is heavy work however, you have to time your shots as you can't hold a composition too long. If you are staking a place out for a shot then use a tripod with a sidekick. If you are a reasonable size however it is just in limits to use handheld at times as well.

Good luck.

[Matt. K]

Marc
Damn that dragonfly image is a fine image! Masterful!

[marc]

Marc
Damn that dragonfly image is a fine image! Masterful!

Thanks Matt.
High praise coming from you.

Cheers
Marc