E.J. Peiker wrote:What camera are you using and what are you using your photos for, Bruce? I have not found that the 200-400 in general is anywhere near capable of resolving anything above about 12 megapixels at distances of over 100 feet and I have tested many of these lenses. In other words there was no difference in actual detail when using a camera above 12 megapixels compared to one that has just 12mp. I did test one 2nd generation of the lens that was OK on a D800 but that one was truly an outlier. This is based on at least two dozen lenses all carefully focus tuned. On the other hand if you don't need high megapixel final outcomes and use them primarily for the web or small prints then the 200-400 is fine.
Thanks for the note EJ,
I have my 200-400mm lens on a D500. I have tuned it to this body and leave it there. FYI, I carry with me a 2nd D500 and D810. The other lenses in my bag are 20-35 f/2 ART, 50-100mm f/1.8 ART, Zeiss 18mm f/3.5 and 300mm f/4PF. When I'm looking to make the most of a compression landscape, I use the 300mm PF on my D810.... I added all of this other info to emphasize the fact that I have quite a few options.
To be clear... the 200-400mm on a D500 lens is my primary wildlife set up. I spend most of my effort getting close enough to my subjects so that I do not need to shoot at 400mm. My preference is to shoot in the range of 200mm and 360mm between f/4.5 and f/7.1. As I have stated... this lens is an imperfect solution, but it is the lens I have. I shoot a lot of winter wildlife in super-cold and wet weather, so a robust build is really important to me. Just for comparison's point... My wife has a 200-500VR and D500 that she uses (among other lenses). We have done all sorts of comparisons... real shooting, stuffed animals, and lens charts. In all cases and in varied distances, the 200-400VR is better than the 200-500 at 200mm, 300mm and even 400mm.
Final point... I am not an apologist for the 200-400VR, and have been critical about it in this thread, past NatureScape threads and on FredMiranda's forum. I DO get frustrated by its inconsistency, especially at 400mm. In fact, I have been looking for an alternative solution that I can afford for about 2 years now. I sold my first 200-400VR and replaced it with a 300mm f/2.8 AFSII (my 4th 300mm f/2.8 with purchases that began with manual focus versions way back in the early 1990's). Most recently the 300mm f/2.8AFSII outperformed my 200-400 until I put a converter on it (TC14II). At this point I had stop down to f/7.1 before I was happy with the quality. I found myself using the 300mm lens with a converter all of the time and getting frustrated when I needed a wider field of view.
So here's the rub... what are the "affordable" alternatives for someone willing to spend up to $4400 (includes sale of existing lens) for an all purpose telephoto that will allow you to shoot wildlife and compression landscapes? In my mind there are very few options in Nikon's world... 200-400VR, 300mm f/2.8VRI/VRII + converter, Sigma 120-300mm f/2.8S + 1.4x, and 500mm f/4G. All have issues, pros and cons...
Final point... while I would love to say that I'm ready to plunk down $12,500US on a 180-400, this would be a lie. I, like many others, are willing spend a decent amount to get a "one lens solution," but anything over $5000 is out of budget for me.
I would love to hear your thoughts and the thoughts of others as it relates to this point, as I know that you have been happy with the 150-600nSport and the 500mm Sport.... for me, I can't have both as I like to carry what I have wherever I go. I've been eyeing Sigma tele's because of my positive experiences with their ART lenses, but I have been nervous about the fine-tuning that might be required to get them to perform at their best.
cheers,
bruce