Nikon 200-400Mm F4G Af-S Vr If-Ed Zoom-Nikkor

Product Information

the manual focus super telephotos. This is very handy when you want to focus on a set point, like a nest, shoreline, infinity, or home plate, just by tapping a button. I also happened to look at the DPR samples from the new 180-400, at https://www.dpreview.com/samples/1487600567/sample-gallery-nikon-180-400mm-f4e-tc1-4-fl-ed-vr, of the subject matter I most often use my 200-400 for, and I would say the IQ of the new lens is pretty much what the IQ of the old one was. At a glance, I see no obvious glaring difference whatever the test reports say. Perhaps the new one is better "at distance", whatever that means, and a built-in TC is certainly a convenience. I also use my 400mm f/2.8 when I need absolute best results. But most of you are looking for the one-lens answer. The 200-500mm isn’t very small or light, it’s still a big lens, but it’s much more realistic for most of us and will have huge appeal for enthusiast Nikon shooters after a telephoto zoom. Build Quality

Your biggest problem is you have the 70-200 which is an outstanding lens, so where to go next is a bit of a puzzler. Maybe hang on and see what Nikon bring out next ?

Build Quality and Handling

Zooming is precise and slow. There's a huge zoom ring and a lot of glass to move for only a 2:1 zoom range. researching filter qualities and found big differences in the results of different sources. B/W will probably work just the same, just be sure that it’s their best quality and has the slim ring mount. Hoya, don’t really know, years ago they were ok, but not as good as they say they are now.

Some have read my condemnation of the long distance ability of the 200-400mm as meaning you shouldn’t consider it. No, that’s not right. It’s a weaker lens at distance, but still usable, especially compared to some consumer-level zooms you might try (e.g. 70-300mm). Used at subject distances less than 50m it’s an excellent lens in every respect. It’s really only a few sports (soccer) and some wildlife shooting (Tanzania, where you can’t go off road) where the distance weakness should make you think carefully about whether this is the right lens for you. Most of you will find it excellent for the uses you put it to. But note that the protective glass is there because it's much less costly to replace than the actual front element of the lens. Don't remove the protective glass unless you're certain you're not in conditions where things might harm the front element. Fortunately, the hood is so deep (almost 6") that with it on the glass is reasonably well protected, but don't make the decision to remove the protective element lightly.) The 200-400mm VR is a seven-pound (3.2kg) hulk of finesse and precision. You have to feel it to believe it.However, if you’re comparing a zoom f/4 against a prime f/4, there almost certainly will be a difference in t/stop that’s meaningful. Once again, we can see that Nikon claims the 180-400mm to be noticeably sharper on the telephoto end. On top of that, judging by how close sagittal lines are to meridional, we can expect the lens to yield exceptionally beautiful bokeh, something exotic super telephotos specialize in. When people herd it was that lens, they suddenly thought it was the lens, and not Art Wolfe, who made the pictures great, and people started looking for these again. Slightly improved VR system, claiming four stops improvement instead of merely three of the original 200-400mm VR.

Personally I'm not a fan of the Nikon 200-400 and I was disappointed when they released the mkII with no real world image quality improvements focusing instead on nano coating etc etc- at the end of the day it's sharp images at 400mm that count and it struggles to deliver that consistently- at least in the light here in Scotland- might be different in other light There’s no getting away from the fact the 180-400mm f/4E is a big, heavy piece of glass. The build quality is immense, you can use it in the rain and shoot 400mm f/4 or 550mm f/5.6. That makes it versatile too, but it’s a big beast. Overall, handling is slightly awkward for handholding due to the large size and weight of the lens, but on a tripod I find it perfectly fine (other than the issues I mentioned). Once you get to use the lens for a while, it doesn't seem quite so huge, but it is heavy. At 56 years old, I'm not up to using this handheld for more than a few minutes, so for me a monopod is a must-have companion.

Build Quality

When mounted on a tripod (as most people using this rather heavy lens will do) the location of the zoom ring is not a problem. But for those that like hand-holding their telephoto lenses as I do, the balance point of the lens becomes very important. The EF 200-400mm f/4’s balance point is around the focus ring and what that means is that it makes it difficult to handhold while maintaining the ability to fluidly change the lens’s zoom. With the left hand on the zoom ring (it needs to be there for functional reasons), turning the wide-diameter zoom ring with the left-hand means that no hand is left under the lens for support. Over time, I have learned that the best approach to handholding the Canon 200-400 is to place the lens between the left thumb and with the middle finger just behind the zoom ring which frees up the index finger to adjust the zoom. This approach works quite well with practice and by now I can do it rather effortlessly, but the fact remains that the lens’ zoom is much easier to use when the lens is supported by a tripod. Both the 200-400 Mk 1 and 200-500 are prone to flare with the sun near the edge of the frame. The front miniscus of the 200-400 can be screwed off the Mk 1 in high flare situations. The lens comes with a pouch to put it in and a good "duffle bag" for transit. Sure, you may stop down from time to time, but to get those fast shutter speeds for action and shallow depth-of-field to isolate the subject, you’re shooting wide open.