Looking for a medium lens?

I have heard so talk about the nikon 200-400 f4 lens? The talk is that it is fast-focusing as well as very sharp though-out. Is there any truth to these comments. Hoping to hear from someone that has used this len or has one. E.J. any thoughts??

What would you be putting it on?

I have the D810 and the D500?

Personally, having owned two different copies (VR and VR2) and working with many clients that own them as well as having calibrated dozens of them, my opinion is that this lens is highly overrated and just not as sharp as virtually every other lens in this zoom range when focused beyond about 75 feet (23m).  And to top it off it's very expensive.  Even the relatively inexpensive third party 150-600 lenses, while more than a stop slower, are sharper at farther focusing distances as long as they have been properly calibrated.  While the 200-400 is just OK on a 12mp sensor, which is when these lenses were introduced, it falls flat on its face on the new high density sensors.  I can't personally recommend purchasing this lens.  You are better off getting the Nikon 200-500 or Sigma 150-600 Sport (plus dock to calibrate it) and save yourself a few thousand dollars.  The Nikon 80-400G is also sharper at longer shooting distances.

Thanks, this is helpful. When reading reviews on the 200-400 on the nikon site, they don't sound to bad. But when it comes to hands on usage, nothing compares.. I don't have a place even close, to rent them and try.. I have never calibrated any of my other nikon lens before, not sure if it is just luck, but find them fine.. Some of the posts I have up loaded here are not great quality but read a post that Greg has added on how to get better results on up load.. All images are sharp with great details on my computer. Anyways thanks again.. Happy holidays to all!!

What makes one lens good at infinity and another so/so? I have a few lenses that I never shoot at maximum distance because I know I won't like the results.

Khoe wrote:Thanks, this is helpful. When reading reviews on the 200-400 on the nikon site, they don't sound to bad...

I think the Nikon site might not be the best place for unbiased reporting

Here is an in depth article on the lens that delves into the infinity acuity of the 200-400 a bit.  I can only say that my personal experience with many copies of this lens pretty much matches what Thom wrote.

http://www.bythom.com/Nikkor-200-400mm-lensreview.htm

I will just say a professional wildlife photogrpher friend of mine uses a Nikon system and owns the 200-400. When he goes on workshops he borrows a 1dx and 200-400 Canon if he knows his subjects will be more than 15m from the camera...

Neilyb wrote:I will just say a professional wildlife photogrpher friend of mine uses a Nikon system and owns the 200-400. When he goes on workshops he borrows a 1dx and 200-400 Canon if he knows his subjects will be more than 15m from the camera...

I've heard people say it's not good for 100m and beyond. Then some say it's 75m; other say 100 ft, 75 ft, and now even 15 m.  Guess nobody knows the exact answer. How about just say it's not sharp if the subject is farther than 6 ft

I think Thom says he still uses the 200-400. I still use it. As long as my photographs look sharp, whatever the labs say don't matter much to me. Well, I have the lens anyway so I might as well use it

Had one, came to the same conclusions as others and replaced it with a Nikon 200-500 and have never looked back.

Well when you pay $8600.00 (Canadian) for a len, it should be worth that price.. That is the price for the 200-400. I know things are expensive and that is not the complaint, for that it should be good. If not then lower it or replace it with something that justifies the price.. Anyway not an engineer just a user..

Khoe wrote:Well when you pay $8600.00 (Canadian) for a len, it should be worth that price.. That is the price for the 200-400. I know things are expensive and that is not the complaint, for that it should be good. If not then lower it or replace it with something that justifies the price.. Anyway not an engineer just a user..

I've had 2 copies of the 200-400mm in the past, and I agree with the others that say it's not sharp above, say, 100 ft. I also had the 80-400mm G Nikon and that is very sharp at all distances/focal lengths. I sold all of them and now own the Sigma S 150-600mm (for the extended reach above 400mm) and I personally love it, at any focal length or distance. My girlfriend has the Nikon 200-500mm and that also is a stellar performer, and is slightly faster at F 5.6. I can handhold the Sigma, but my girlfriend can't hold the weight of the Sigma, so she got the 200-500mm instead, which she can handhold from the kayak or vehicle. 150-600mm Sigma has the best reach (600mm) at F 6.3,  but the Nikon 200-500mm is lighter by a couple of pounds and stops down to F 5.6,  but only goes to 500mm. I would chose a lens for you based on what you will most likely be using it for in regard to subject size, distances, and speed of the subject. Also if you will be shooting handheld at all you might favor the lighter lenses (80-400mm or the 200-500mm). Whatever you might decide on, make sure you AFFT. If you can handle the weight of the Sigma, or shoot almost exclusively from a tripod and you were to chose the Sigma, make sure you get the Sigma USB Dock to properly calibrate that particular lens. If the Sigma Dock thing seems too complicated, you can send your camera and lens to E.J. and he would custom calibrate your combo for you at a reasonable fee.
 

Khoe wrote:Well when you pay $8600.00 (Canadian) for a len, it should be worth that price.. That is the price for the 200-400. I know things are expensive and that is not the complaint, for that it should be good. If not then lower it or replace it with something that justifies the price.. Anyway not an engineer just a user..

Sounds like you already knew the answer. And yet you started the thread. I bet you're super happy now 

I'm sure there' ll be better lenses to come, better than whatever you can get today. And the vicious cycle starts again

Better yet, switch to Canon. Everybody says their lenses are better. Their cameras are also getting better (The Camera Store calls the D5 a step-back and one of the worse cameras for 2016). I'd suggest if you have not invested too much in Nikon yet, or that money is no object to you, buy Canon.

Well, where I deal it's $8,000(CAN) but the Canon is close to $14,000 (CAN) but has a built-in 1.4 converter. It's expensive because of the zoom range at F/4 and it focuses fast; therefore can be used effectively by sports photographers but I've seen some awfully good wildlife work by photographers using this lens. I bought the lens primarily because I shoot a lot of sports and find its range invaluable. It's smaller size and weight make it easier to lug around a hillside than a 400 f/2.8.  But I use it for wildlife too and  f/4 is very useful in lower light. Zooms in general, other than the 70-200, are a compromise but there's still a lot to like about the 200-400.

Woodswalker wrote:Well, where I deal it's $8,000(CAN) but the Canon is close to $14,000 (CAN) but has a built-in 1.4 converter. It's expensive because of the zoom range at F/4 and it focuses fast; therefore can be used effectively by sports photographers but I've seen some awfully good wildlife work by photographers using this lens. I bought the lens primmarily because I shoot a lot of sports and find its range invaluable. It's smaller size and weight make it easier to lug around a hillside than a 400 f/2.8.  But I use it for wildlife too and  f/4 is very useful in lower light. Zooms in general, other than the 70-200, are a compromise but there's still a lot to like about the 200-400.

The Canon is a dramatically better 200-400 lens and even with the converter inserted, it's still a bit better.  It is also a much newer design.

Yes, I have heard that about the Canon. Canon photographers were shooting net action at the opposite end of a soccer field with a flick of the 1.4X switch with good results. I seldom use a 1.4X and have had mixed results with my 200-400.

I've had the 200-400 f4 VR1 for a few years and find it very useful. I agree that it isn't very sharp at longer distances but it works for me. It is good at close range and will focus pretty closely which I like. Recently I bought the D500 kit with the 200-500 included. I haven't opened the box for the lens yet because I'm trying to decide if I want to try it or sell it and hang onto the 200-400. If I didn't have one in this range I would go with the 200-500 for sure.