NikonGear'23

Gear Talk => Lens Talk => Topic started by: jhinkey on February 16, 2017, 17:43:08

Title: 200-400/4 ED - Worth It?
Post by: jhinkey on February 16, 2017, 17:43:08
I currently have the 300/4.5 ED AI and 400/5.6 ED AI that I use for my long-distance landscape work - they are great, except that sometimes they are a little slow and being able to quickly change to a different focal length can be a problem.

So to get more speed and potentially be able to have some zoom capability I'm looking at the 200-400/4 ED and the 400/3.5 ED-IF.

This would be for long-distance landscape work with my D800 or A7RII - I'm usually working around sun-rise/sunset so wide open performance is important to me.

How is the 200-400/4 ED AI for such work wide open at 200, 300, and 400mm on these high MP bodies?  Would the 400/3.5 be a better option if I want better wide open performance.  I can live with CA, but really want a pretty sharp image across the frame for stitching and cropping purposes.

I can get a 200-400/4 in great shape for $2800 while a nice condition 400/3.5 ED-IF is going for ~$1,000.

Thanks for any thoughts on this!

- John
Title: Re: 200-400/4 ED - Worth It?
Post by: Bjørn Rørslett on February 16, 2017, 17:53:38
I would spring for the 200-400 ED. It is a fantastic performer if in working order. Plus the build quality and workmanship is at -  if not on - the pinnacle amongst Nikkors.

Do note it really needs a rock steady tripod. The lens is quite heavy and physically large thus exerting a lot of leverage to amplify any weakness of the supporting platform.

The 400/3.5 is claimed very good, but many samples I have tried have been troubled with decentered optics. Apparently something in the manner these lenses are built makes them susceptible to getting out of alignment internally.
Title: Re: 200-400/4 ED - Worth It?
Post by: Bent Hjarbo on February 16, 2017, 17:58:53
I have not used this lens, but read reports that it may not be top notch for distant subject, but excel in "short" distance i.e. sports and the like.
Title: Re: 200-400/4 ED - Worth It?
Post by: Erik Lund on February 16, 2017, 17:59:43
200-400mm f/4 ED is in Ais mount and a hefty 3650 gr - Very sought after by collectors an MF safari monster lens ;)

(https://c1.staticflickr.com/6/5035/30103163196_9fc755f912_h.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/MS7zD7)_EGL7002 (https://flic.kr/p/MS7zD7) by Erik Gunst Lund (https://www.flickr.com/photos/erik_lund/), on Flickr
 
Title: Re: 200-400/4 ED - Worth It?
Post by: jhinkey on February 16, 2017, 18:08:32
I would spring for the 200-400 ED. It is a fantastic performer if in working order. Plus the build quality and workmanship is at -  if not on - the pinnacle amongst Nikkors.

Do note it really needs a rock steady tripod. The lens is quite heavy and physically large thus exerting a lot of leverage to amplify any weakness of the supporting platform.

The 400/3.5 is claimed very good, but many samples I have tried have been troubled with decentered optics. Apparently something in the manner these lenses are built makes them susceptible to getting out of alignment internally.

How do you think this does at effectively infinity distances (atmospherics aside)?

- John
Title: Re: 200-400/4 ED - Worth It?
Post by: Bjørn Rørslett on February 16, 2017, 18:47:34
I have not used this lens, but read reports that it may not be top notch for distant subject, but excel in "short" distance i.e. sports and the like.

This is claimed for the first AF version. However, we are discussing the 200-400/ED AIS. No AF, no IF. A very rarely seen lens as less than 500 units were produced.

I use it mainly for landscapes, by the way.
Title: Re: 200-400/4 ED - Worth It?
Post by: MILLIREHM on February 16, 2017, 22:20:31
This is claimed for the first AF version. However, we are discussing the 200-400/ED AIS. No AF, no IF. A very rarely seen lens as less than 500 units were produced.

I was right about to add a similar comment, AFAIK the second AF Version is affected as well.

The 400/3,5 is a nice compromise between focal length, speed, compactness and weight, dont know how good it will work for stitching and it will depend on the sample you get.

I would say go for the 200-400 and test it, as it is so rare. It would be easier to sell it off and buy a 400/3,5 later than do the other way round.
Title: Re: 200-400/4 ED - Worth It?
Post by: Bjørn Rørslett on February 16, 2017, 23:24:51
A very few examples with the 200-400ED AIS.
Title: Re: 200-400/4 ED - Worth It?
Post by: jhinkey on February 16, 2017, 23:29:47
Those look great at that resolution (and appear to have sharpness to burn at higher resolutions) - are those wide open or stopped down a bit?
Are the at the 400mm end of things?

- John
Title: Re: 200-400/4 ED - Worth It?
Post by: Bjørn Rørslett on February 16, 2017, 23:40:36
Shot around 300 to 400 mm and usually at f/11 for landscapes. Yes, the lens certainly is able to deliver crisp images with excellent colour rendition. In addition, there is very little axial colour ('longitudinal chromatic aberration' LoCa) and that helps preserve the vivid clarity.
Title: Re: 200-400/4 ED - Worth It?
Post by: jhinkey on February 16, 2017, 23:47:19
How is it pointed in the sun - like a sunset shot with the sun going down over the snow covered mountains kind of thing?

- John
Title: Re: 200-400/4 ED - Worth It?
Post by: Bjørn Rørslett on February 16, 2017, 23:53:18
Like this? Pretty good apparently.
Title: Re: 200-400/4 ED - Worth It?
Post by: jhinkey on February 17, 2017, 00:40:49
 :)
Title: Re: 200-400/4 ED - Worth It?
Post by: jhinkey on February 17, 2017, 18:05:18
I've received some additional input from some owners and one person says it's an awkward lens to use even on a tripod, though no other details beyond that.

How is it to work with on a stable tripod?

- John
Title: Re: 200-400/4 ED - Worth It?
Post by: Bjørn Rørslett on February 17, 2017, 18:19:38
I'd say perfect. Given a real support of course. No flimsy ballhead will do. The Burzynski will hold the lens adequately, but navigating the lens is a chore and beware of loosening up the head as the lens can flip over due to its bulk. I assume the problem the former user reports relate to using an inadequate suppoort.

This really is a lens ideal for a fluid head. I'm using it on a Sachtler Video 20 head and put that head on top of the ENG 2 CF HD carbon legs.
Title: Re: 200-400/4 ED - Worth It?
Post by: Bjørn Rørslett on February 17, 2017, 18:23:30
This is the proper way of deploying the 200-400 ED. The cantilevered tripod mounting foot is extremely rigid and massive (for a change) and there is no problem shooting at *any* speed even towards the  1 - 2 sec. settings. The L-shaped support actually makes operating the lens easier as there is free access for your hands even when gloved.

In the mounting platform,  2* 3/8"  screws are used, which are way more robust than the standard single 1/4" screw.

Title: Re: 200-400/4 ED - Worth It?
Post by: Wally on February 17, 2017, 19:35:19
Taking into account that I already have various AFS and MF glass in the focal range of 80 to 500mm what is the concensus / recommendation to buy first for both regular usage and collecting Nikkors:
the MF 80-200/2.8 ED or the 200-400/4 ED dicussed here?
Title: Re: 200-400/4 ED - Worth It?
Post by: Bjørn Rørslett on February 17, 2017, 19:38:25
I would recommend the 80-200/2.8 ED. It is easier to come to grips with, in a literal sense.

Both zooms were major achievements in their time and still hold their value against modern designs.
Title: Re: 200-400/4 ED - Worth It?
Post by: Wally on February 17, 2017, 20:41:41
Thank you Bjørn. Holding the value against modern designs is definitely a key parameter for my buying decisions.
Title: Re: 200-400/4 ED - Worth It?
Post by: elsa hoffmann on February 18, 2017, 11:34:35
Side tracking on the subject but Bjørn I have to say those images you posted are excellent.
Title: Re: 200-400/4 ED - Worth It?
Post by: Bjørn Rørslett on February 18, 2017, 12:35:44
Thanks, Elsa. The lens is indeed excellent ....
Title: Re: 200-400/4 ED - Worth It?
Post by: jhinkey on February 18, 2017, 16:17:56
And $2,800 USD is a decent price for one in 9/10 condition including original hood, caps, and Nikon pouch?  It has everything, but not the original box.  I see some of these for sale that come with the original box going for $4K USD!!!
Title: Re: 200-400/4 ED - Worth It?
Post by: BruceLeventhal on February 18, 2017, 17:52:09
This was my dream lens since the mid 1980's, but it fell into the category of unobtainium because of the outrageous price at the time. My infatuation with this lens never really ended, and is the reason that I have purchased two AFS200-400mm f/4 VR's in the past three years. The first lasted two years until I finally became too frustrated with how my lens handled atmospheric interference (lack of detail when shot at a distance). I thought I was done with the focal length until this winter came along. While I thoroughly enjoy shooting wildlife w/ my 300mm f/2.8 AFS-II w & w/out converters, I missed the flexibility of zooming out as birds flew towards me. Because the 200-400mm f/4 VR's have lost favor to the much lighter (and lesser-build) 200-500mm f5/6VR, these pro AF optics can be had for a song... well, not quite. Anyway, I bought a second one two month ago. This lens was produced late in the VR-1 production and seems to be much better at a distance than my first lens...

Anyway, my point.. the combination of focal length and relatively fast aperture makes the 200-400mm lens an amazing all around lens. If you like manual focus lenses, I can only assume that you will love the lens that you are assessing.

Good luck,
bruce
Title: Re: 200-400/4 ED - Worth It?
Post by: jhinkey on February 18, 2017, 18:19:08
Thanks Bruce -

I seem to specialize in long-distance landscapes and currently use my 300/4.5 ED AI, 400/5.6 ED AI, and 600/5.6 ED-IF AIS for such things.
BUT I tend to do this work at sun-rise and sun-set, thus fading light likes to need faster lenses to keep the shutter speed up and ISO down (for heavy shadow lifting or highlight recovery).  Thus my liking of the f/4 of this lens assuming it is excellent shot wide open.

Hopefully it's actually better than the 300/4.5 ED wide open and better at f/4 than the 400/5.6 is at f/5.6, otherwise it's not all that useful.

When I'm out on a tripod I tend to take 180mm (180/3.4 APO Telyt or 180/4 Voigt), 400mm, and 600mm with me (300mm and 500mm are too in-between . . .).

How is the 200-400/4 ED shot wide open on 36MP sensor Bjorn? - Your examples are stopped down a bit (for DOF I suspect).

Thanks!

John
Title: Re: 200-400/4 ED - Worth It?
Post by: Bill De Jager on February 18, 2017, 18:28:10
I would recommend the 80-200/2.8 ED. It is easier to come to grips with, in a literal sense.

Both zooms were major achievements in their time and still hold their value against modern designs.

I did notice significant purple fringing on the 80-200/2.8 AIS in magnified live view.  It cleared up quickly upon stopping down.
Title: Re: 200-400/4 ED - Worth It?
Post by: jhinkey on February 18, 2017, 21:18:37
Thanks, Elsa. The lens is indeed excellent ....

+1
Title: Re: 200-400/4 ED - Worth It?
Post by: Bjørn Rørslett on February 19, 2017, 01:00:08
And $2,800 USD is a decent price for one in 9/10 condition including original hood, caps, and Nikon pouch?  It has everything, but not the original box.  I see some of these for sale that come with the original box going for $4K USD!!!

Not cheap, but then this is a quality item.

I think my 200-400ED was at least 2.000$ from KEH a number of years ago. A purchase I never regretted, in fact, I had been on the outlook for a clean sample for several years at that time.
Title: Re: 200-400/4 ED - Worth It?
Post by: jhinkey on February 19, 2017, 19:37:17
Description of the lens:

"This lens is in good condition cosmetically, but the focus is stiff. This lens is being sold as-is."

Hence why I think this is only $2,800  . . . but I've bought these kinds of lenses in the past and had them serviced to be good as new.

I assume it just needs to have the focusing helicoid cleaned and re-greased.  Is there anything tricky about having an experienced repair place do this on this lens?  I usually send all my Nikkors to APS for service.

I'll try to get a better description of the optics and aperture ring condition.  Pictures look fine - minor external use scratches commensurate with being used, but not abused.  14 day return policy too.
Title: Re: 200-400/4 ED - Worth It?
Post by: Bjørn Rørslett on February 19, 2017, 20:52:17
My sample had rather stiff focusing too, no surprise as the lens had stood on a shelf unused for 20+ years. It loosened up after some field work out. A quick CLA at Nikon repair service did the rest.
Title: Re: 200-400/4 ED - Worth It?
Post by: jhinkey on February 19, 2017, 21:50:33
My sample had rather stiff focusing too, no surprise as the lens had stood on a shelf unused for 20+ years. It loosened up after some field work out. A quick CLA at Nikon repair service did the rest.

I assume, like many of my MF Nikkors, that it's pretty easy to disassemble for helicoid maintenance or internal element cleaning.
I have questions in to the seller about the rest of the condition and hopefully they'll get back to me.

This would be the most I've ever spent on ANY lens, let alone a MF Nikkor, so I'm a bit cautious about the transaction, even though it's a respectable seller.

Need to let go of my 500P, 200/4 ED AF, and a few other lenses to pay for this.

- J
Title: Re: 200-400/4 ED - Worth It?
Post by: jhinkey on February 24, 2017, 00:49:46
Well, I lost out on this particular stiff-focus ring version, but I found another at a reasonable price.  I tend to move slowly with these big ($ and size) lens purchases.

I just doesn't come with the yellow Nikon bag, which is OK with me.

Did this lens come with a 122mm Nikon screw in front cap in addition to the soft hood/cover?

John
Title: Re: 200-400/4 ED - Worth It?
Post by: Bjørn Rørslett on February 24, 2017, 01:20:15
No, but it carried an extension hood, a draw-string 'purse' for the front, and the nice yellow 'sailor' canvas bag.

I believe Nikon moved away from supplying those 122 mm solid metal front caps in favour of the fabric 'purse'. Last lens I received with the 122 mm cap was the 360-1200 Nikkor (AI). These big screw-in caps are impractical as even a slight damage to the front threads will made them get stuck.
Title: Re: 200-400/4 ED - Worth It?
Post by: Erik Lund on February 24, 2017, 08:59:09
Too bad you missed out on it, it was a very good price for such a rare lens and in very nice condition, a quick clean and lube and it would have been almost Mint,,,

I suggest you make up your mind first how much money you will spend on a particular item in that price range and in what condition you want it in, so you are prepared to strike when the item appears that meet your requirements, or it will be very difficult for you to a good deal,,,

I got lucky just the other day, the wait for the 200mm AFS 2 has been several years,,, The £ has lost a lot of value against the € so shopping in UK is 30% off and knowing a shop there that rate the 200m much lower than the 300mm AFS 2.8 and similar lenses, did that I got it Mint at 2,400 US$ all included,,,

Title: Re: 200-400/4 ED - Worth It?
Post by: Bjørn Rørslett on February 24, 2017, 09:17:57
Congratulations, Erik. The AFS 200/2 either version is a wonderful optic.
Title: Re: 200-400/4 ED - Worth It?
Post by: Erik Lund on February 24, 2017, 09:39:51
Thank you Bjørn! It is the first version but the overall rendering is just so beautiful - The perfect lens.
Title: Re: 200-400/4 ED - Worth It?
Post by: Bjørn Rørslett on February 24, 2017, 09:53:45
Even the first version was stellar.
Title: Re: 200-400/4 ED - Worth It?
Post by: Akira on February 24, 2017, 11:01:01
Apparently the only differences between the first and the second versions of 200/2 are the nano crystal coating and the generation of VR...
Title: Re: 200-400/4 ED - Worth It?
Post by: Erik Lund on February 24, 2017, 11:12:38
There was also added A/M to the focus option - The first version was: M/A and M only,,,

I think there was a small difference in the lens collar as well but not sure it was for the 200mm AFS f/2 or another lens now,,,
Title: Re: 200-400/4 ED - Worth It?
Post by: Akira on February 24, 2017, 11:55:10
There was also added A/M to the focus option - The first version was: M/A and M only,,,

I think there was a small difference in the lens collar as well but not sure it was for the 200mm AFS f/2 or another lens now,,,

Well, if you are like Bjørn, you may want to glue the switch to "M" position permanently.  So, the difference would be non -existent!   ;D
Title: Re: 200-400/4 ED - Worth It?
Post by: Erik Lund on February 24, 2017, 12:03:28
He he - the AF speed and overall performance is just amazing so would be a great shame to do so ;)

I'll open another thread when I have some more images, not to pollute this 200-400mm f74 thread anymore ;)
Title: Re: 200-400/4 ED - Worth It?
Post by: Ilkka Nissilä on February 24, 2017, 12:54:40
Apparently the only differences between the first and the second versions of 200/2 are the nano crystal coating and the generation of VR...

The tripod collar/foot is markedly improved in version II. The 1st version is left vibrating after several seconds after touching the lens or camera, or after a shot has been taken. In the second version of the lens, the vibration dies quickly and is not left ringing.

The nano coating in this lens does make a difference, ver 1 is lower contrast at f/2 than ver 2. Both are very sharp but I appreciate the improvement since I almost always shoot this lens wide open.

I have not heard of the settings switches on the side of the lens breaking (I am not saying that they can't break, but I've never heard anyone having this problem), so there is no reason to glue it. It is the thin rotating ring switches, of which some tend to break. The autofocus of this lens is extremely fast and after fine tuning to camera, quite precise and accurate. At first I felt the 70-200/2.8 G II was giving me higher percentage of focus keepers than the 200/2 (1st version) but it was then that I realized that I needed to use fine tuning for the first time. In fact my D3 required -17 with this lens (while some other cameras required zero). My version II works best at fine tune close to zero with all my cameras.
Title: Re: 200-400/4 ED - Worth It?
Post by: Erik Lund on February 24, 2017, 14:06:55
Thank you for confirming the tripod collar difference, it's seems lost on the internet,,, Can you remember the details? I recall we talked about it on the old NikonGear many years ago,,, I'll se if I can locate the drawings,,,

I'll report back with my finding on that as well, I have ordered two different versions of alternative Arca/RRS compatible lens foot for it.
I have also upgraded to HK-30 lens hood - The Supplied HK-31 is designed to accommodate the lens foot when reversed for transport, just plainly wrong/hilarious,,,

For sure I would have liked the Mark II version but not at double/ the cost, I can dial up contrast in PP if and when I like enough for my taste.

Some online reviews mention the first one as the sharpest, I have a hard time understanding how this could be, I have shot many lenses before and after the Nano coating versions,,, never seen that difference that the first would be sharper,,, Anyway this lens is up there in sharpness where only a handful of the best Nikkor lenses are performing so I'm very happy with the original.
Title: Re: 200-400/4 ED - Worth It?
Post by: Ilkka Nissilä on February 24, 2017, 15:05:34
Thom Hogan I recall said his 1st version was a bit sharper than the 2nd but I think it is just random variation between samples.

I use the Nikon foot on the 2nd version (on the 1st I used RRS foot with an additional PVC piece designed to fit between the tail of the foot and on both sides of the switch control panel; this effectively eliminated vibrations but made the lens a bit more clumsy to use hand held). I add a QR plate when doing shots with a tripod, but most of my photography with this lens is hand held.  I think for hand held use having the smaller Nikon foot on the lens is more comfortable. For tripod shots with 2X, maybe the longer foot (and preferably the additional piece to make second contact) is a good idea to use for better balance and maybe reduced vibrations. But nowadays I don't use TCs often with the 200/2 since I have a longer lens.
Title: Re: 200-400/4 ED - Worth It?
Post by: Bjørn Rørslett on February 24, 2017, 15:20:36
I ran two stainless steel bolts through the foot of my 200/2 AFS to stabilise the lens mount on a tripod. Works pretty well if one is careful and don't push down on the lens itself (the infamous 'Long Lens Technique' that virtually guarantees unsharp images as soon as speeds drop).

We are about to derail this thread form its original topic, namely, the 200-400/4 ED AIS ...
Title: Re: 200-400/4 ED - Worth It?
Post by: jhinkey on February 24, 2017, 15:44:52
Back to the 200-400/4 ED AIS!

Yeah, I tend to take my time on these big purchases and sometimes lose out, but I'm now well prepared for the next opportunity.

The other one I've found appears to be in great shape, except it's missing the yellow Nikon bag (I don't care) and apparently the screw/cover that's on the tripod collar opposite the collar tightening knob.

See picture attached.

What does this missing knob/screw do and will I miss it?

- John
Title: Re: 200-400/4 ED - Worth It?
Post by: Bjørn Rørslett on February 24, 2017, 15:51:23
The missing part is a black cover for this opening. Probably a cover on a port to allow the tripod foot itself being removed if required. Put a piece of rubber or plastic into the hole to prevent ingress of dirt and all is well.

Did the seller quote a serial number? I'm curious whether the original estimate of < 500 units needs to be expanded.
Title: Re: 200-400/4 ED - Worth It?
Post by: jhinkey on February 24, 2017, 15:57:20
#182403 I think - the image of the interior optics from the front is not quite in focus where the serial number is.
See the image below.
Title: Re: 200-400/4 ED - Worth It?
Post by: jhinkey on February 24, 2017, 16:00:21
Another image . . .
Title: Re: 200-400/4 ED - Worth It?
Post by: Bjørn Rørslett on February 24, 2017, 16:01:26
Lens looks nice.

The sn. is within the earlier reported range.
Title: Re: 200-400/4 ED - Worth It?
Post by: jhinkey on February 24, 2017, 16:07:34
Yes, there is likely a set screw inside that hole that keeps the tripod collar from sliding off the mount.
I've seen others for sale that are missing the cover for this (see image below with and w/o the cover). 

If it's not functional I'm pretty sure I can live w/o the plastic cover

- J
Title: Re: 200-400/4 ED - Worth It?
Post by: Bjørn Rørslett on February 24, 2017, 16:11:33
Once I had undone the cover, the thread fit is quite loose apparently. Thus some Loctite will do wonders for its continued presence on my 200-400. <DONE>

You might find a suitable screw or similar and plug the hole immediately. Dirt inside a rotating collar is a no-no for smooth operation.
Title: Re: 200-400/4 ED - Worth It?
Post by: jhinkey on February 24, 2017, 17:04:49
Does this look normal Bjorn?  See additional images.

It seems like there should be something else down in that hole, but we can't see it in these pics.

Thanks -

John
Title: Re: 200-400/4 ED - Worth It?
Post by: Erik Lund on February 24, 2017, 17:05:12
Images of the mount? Definitely not mint,,,
Title: Re: 200-400/4 ED - Worth It?
Post by: Bjørn Rørslett on February 24, 2017, 17:10:25
John: except for the threads on my sample being black, the appearance is the same. I just locked down the cover with Loctite and the lens operates fully normal afterwards.
Title: Re: 200-400/4 ED - Worth It?
Post by: jhinkey on February 24, 2017, 17:29:08
There must be something way down in there past what appears to be helicoid inserts.  The small black side set screw is to keep whatever that is from easily coming out and the cover to keep stuff from getting in.

Picture of the mount (a bit out of focus), but it looks pretty good.  They are calling it EX condition, which is down on their scale of NEW, MINT, EX+, EX, etc.
Title: Re: 200-400/4 ED - Worth It?
Post by: Bjørn Rørslett on February 24, 2017, 18:52:52
Could be as simple an answer as the opportunity to swap the locking button on the rotating collar from one side to the other. As mine is on the left side and I'm left-handed, it suits me perfectly as is.
Title: Re: 200-400/4 ED - Worth It?
Post by: jhinkey on February 24, 2017, 19:12:36
Could be as simple an answer as the opportunity to swap the locking button on the rotating collar from one side to the other. As mine is on the left side and I'm left-handed, it suits me perfectly as is.

You may be right.  The mount, though out of focus, looks to be in decent shape.

- J
Title: Re: 200-400/4 ED - Worth It?
Post by: Erik Lund on February 24, 2017, 20:34:19
Except for the marks left from the locking pin from rotating the camera a little roughly, it looks fine!


Collectors will not like with the wear on the body, so the lens will not hold its value in the same way,,,,
Title: Re: 200-400/4 ED - Worth It?
Post by: Bjørn Rørslett on February 24, 2017, 21:25:30
It is worth while to remember that with such heavy lenses, the camera should always be mounted onto the lens, not the lens onto the camera. This has to do with the leverage and momentum created by the mass of the lens that will wear the groove for the locking pin. The 200-400 belongs to the generation before the arrival of steel inserts in the groove, as the long lenses feature these days.
Title: Re: 200-400/4 ED - Worth It?
Post by: Erik Lund on February 24, 2017, 22:49:37
Could be as simple an answer as the opportunity to swap the locking button on the rotating collar from one side to the other. ,,,,
This must indeed be the correct answer, in the image of the mount the set screw, to avoid missing the lock screw, is clearly visible

The aperture ring is also in very good shape.
Title: Re: 200-400/4 ED - Worth It?
Post by: jhinkey on February 25, 2017, 00:54:25
The lens is in the UK so I have to get up early to call them with a CC number . . .
Title: Re: 200-400/4 ED - Worth It?
Post by: jhinkey on February 25, 2017, 01:03:01
Except for the marks left from the locking pin from rotating the camera a little roughly, it looks fine!


Collectors will not like with the wear on the body, so the lens will not hold its value in the same way,,,,

Well, I didn't plan on it being a collector's item, but rather a working lens.  If it just keeps its current value I'd be happy with that.
I see these going for $4,000 USD - I assume those are the mint, in box collectors items.

Is $2400 too much to pay for this copy then?
Title: Re: 200-400/4 ED - Worth It?
Post by: Erik Lund on February 25, 2017, 01:05:07
There was also added A/M to the focus option - The first version was: M/A and M only,,,

I think there was a small difference in the lens collar as well but not sure it was for the 200mm AFS f/2 or another lens now,,,
Here is the old thread;
http://www.fotozones.com/live/index.php?/forums/topic/28806-got-the-new-2002-afs-g-vr2-n-today/
For those with access I guess,,,


0,5mm difference in length and collar was changed,,,
Title: Re: 200-400/4 ED - Worth It?
Post by: Erik Lund on February 25, 2017, 01:12:40
Well, I didn't plan on it being a collector's item, but rather a working lens.  If it just keeps its current value I'd be happy with that.
I see these going for $4,000 USD - I assume those are the mint, in box collectors items.

Is $2400 too much to pay for this copy then?


The thing is not many would consider this lens as a working lens imho,,,


I payed that for the 200/2 AFS, and if you add a couple of TC-E's your at 280/2.8 and 400/4,,, but that is AF VR etc.


Only you can answer what you need,,, you will have to add tax/vat for import?
Title: Re: 200-400/4 ED - Worth It?
Post by: jhinkey on February 25, 2017, 02:33:50
Well, I don't need AF as this is for landscapes.  My 400/5.6 ED AI is my working lens for this, but is sometimes too slow and sometimes I only need 200mm, then I want 400mm.

So I was mainly going for the f/4 capability IF this lens is sharp wide open across the frame at 36MP.  If I have to stop it down to f/5.6 then I might as well stay with my 400/5.6 ED AI and 180/3.4 Telyt.  Though tremendously sharp, the Telyt does not like being pointed anywhere near the sun and it doesn't like making nice sun stars.

- John
Title: Re: 200-400/4 ED - Worth It?
Post by: jhinkey on February 25, 2017, 19:10:20
So Bjorn - since I want to use this at f/4 a lot, how is this lens shot wide open for landscape-type sharpness across the frame at the various focal lengths?  To get the excellent sharpness that you showed in some of your images I don't want to have to stop it down.

Thanks -

John
Title: Re: 200-400/4 ED - Worth It?
Post by: Bjørn Rørslett on February 25, 2017, 20:01:09
As long as you don't need any depth of field, like taking a picture of a mountain range on the horizon, shooting at f/4 probably would work well enough. However, that is not my normal style when using a long lens for landscapes.

However, no procedure without a break to it, thus I'll give the f/4 a spin. Over the weekend I might be able to test-run the 200-400 at wide open for more regular landscapes, though, if our weather deities  are condescending enough.

Still, I consider shooting at f/11 and mounting the lens on a really good tripod is the better approach.
Title: Re: 200-400/4 ED - Worth It?
Post by: jhinkey on February 26, 2017, 00:14:16
As long as you don't need any depth of field, like taking a picture of a mountain range on the horizon, shooting at f/4 probably would work well enough. However, that is not my normal style when using a long lens for landscapes.

However, no procedure without a break to it, thus I'll give the f/4 a spin. Over the weekend I might be able to test-run the 200-400 at wide open for more regular landscapes, though, if our weather deities  are condescending enough.

Still, I consider shooting at f/11 and mounting the lens on a really good tripod is the better approach.

Bjorn -

Thanks - I would indeed appreciate any wide open distant images - f/11 is not for me as most of my landscape shots are at dusk or dawn and there is usually a moving element in the image - ship, ferry, waves, clouds, etc. and that's why I want f/4 capability - to get the shutter speed up and/or ISO down when image movement is a factor.
Also, when shooting lights at night and wanting sunstars, one usually needs to stop down one from wide open and if wide open is f/5.6 that can be a problem sometimes when f/8 is too slow or too high an ISO for what's going on.

Most of my subjects are many miles away so 400mm DOF at f/4 is just fine most of the time.

EDIT:  One could say the 400/3.5 is for me, but I've not been impressed with that lens when I tried one copy out as Bjorn previously alluded to.

400/5.6 ED-AI at f/8, 4 sec, ISO 100
Title: Re: 200-400/4 ED - Worth It?
Post by: Akira on February 26, 2017, 02:12:10
John, sorry for the side-tracking in my previous posts.  And sorry again: your ideal lens appears to be that monstrous Sigma 200-500/2.8...

Beautiful nightscape, by the way.
Title: Re: 200-400/4 ED - Worth It?
Post by: jhinkey on February 26, 2017, 18:30:03
John, sorry for the side-tracking in my previous posts.  And sorry again: your ideal lens appears to be that monstrous Sigma 200-500/2.8...

Beautiful nightscape, by the way.

No problem on the side-tracking - it happens when people are passionate about stuff!

I think the 200-500/2.8 may be a little over-the top for my needs :)
Title: Re: 200-400/4 ED - Worth It?
Post by: Erik Lund on February 26, 2017, 18:53:59
Beautiful shot, Super!
Title: Re: 200-400/4 ED - Worth It?
Post by: jhinkey on February 26, 2017, 21:48:43
Beautiful shot, Super!

Thanks!
Title: Re: 200-400/4 ED - Worth It?
Post by: MFloyd on February 26, 2017, 23:25:19
jhinkey, one of my preferred ones. 👍🏻😊
Title: Re: 200-400/4 ED - Worth It?
Post by: jhinkey on February 27, 2017, 00:04:08
jhinkey, one of my preferred ones. 👍🏻😊

Does that mean the 200-400 ED AIS is one of your preferred lenses?  Or are you referring to my example picture?

Thanks -

John
Title: Re: 200-400/4 ED - Worth It?
Post by: jhinkey on February 27, 2017, 19:31:22
As long as you don't need any depth of field, like taking a picture of a mountain range on the horizon, shooting at f/4 probably would work well enough. However, that is not my normal style when using a long lens for landscapes.

However, no procedure without a break to it, thus I'll give the f/4 a spin. Over the weekend I might be able to test-run the 200-400 at wide open for more regular landscapes, though, if our weather deities  are condescending enough.

Still, I consider shooting at f/11 and mounting the lens on a really good tripod is the better approach.

Bjorn -

Did you get a chance to shoot some wide open long-distance shots with this lens over the weekend.
Anything you can do would be greatly appreciated.

- John
Title: Re: 200-400/4 ED - Worth It?
Post by: Bjørn Rørslett on February 27, 2017, 20:58:38
Had all set up when the fog rolled in ... Will try again.
Title: Re: 200-400/4 ED - Worth It?
Post by: Wally on February 27, 2017, 23:53:46

400/5.6 ED-AI at f/8, 4 sec, ISO 100

Beautiful shot, love it. I guess this is up north in Washington? Somehow reminds me of Japan though...
Title: Re: 200-400/4 ED - Worth It?
Post by: jhinkey on February 28, 2017, 00:48:27
Had all set up when the fog rolled in ... Will try again.

Thanks!
Title: Re: 200-400/4 ED - Worth It?
Post by: beryllium10 on February 28, 2017, 05:43:47
John, your last-light photo of Mt Rainier looming over Harbor Island here in Seattle is really splendid (it looks to have been taken a few summers ago when the Polar Pioneer oil rig was docked here?).  I can see why you're looking for a lens that performs well wide open.  Good luck in your search, and feel free to post more photos like this!  Inspirational.

Cheers,   John
Title: Re: 200-400/4 ED - Worth It?
Post by: jhinkey on February 28, 2017, 06:35:20
Beautiful shot, love it. I guess this is up north in Washington? Somehow reminds me of Japan though...

Thanks -

This is looking South across Elliot Bay right next to downtown Seattle.  I have a few special spots that have unique views that most local guys don't really bother to find.

- John
Title: Re: 200-400/4 ED - Worth It?
Post by: jhinkey on March 01, 2017, 00:35:43
John, your last-light photo of Mt Rainier looming over Harbor Island here in Seattle is really splendid (it looks to have been taken a few summers ago when the Polar Pioneer oil rig was docked here?).  I can see why you're looking for a lens that performs well wide open.  Good luck in your search, and feel free to post more photos like this!  Inspirational.

Cheers,   John

Yes, that's exactly it.  As you know there's always something moving on the water which is typically my subject.  Ferries, ships, submarines, tug boats, paddleboarders, wave patterns, etc.  So amazingly for my landscapes, a fast shutter speed, low ISO and across the frame sharpness (for stitching panos) are key.

- J

I'm procrastinating getting the lens until Bjorn hopefully can supply some wide-open shots with this beast of a lens.  I don't want to spend that kind of $$ to find out it's not very sharp at f/4.
Title: Re: 200-400/4 ED - Worth It?
Post by: Bjørn Rørslett on March 01, 2017, 01:15:28
Trust me, I will provide the required test shots. I'm impatiently waiting for a weather improvement. The current state of rain, sleet, and fog, are hardly the conditions under which remote-distance subjects can be captured in a meaningful, comparative manner.
Title: Re: 200-400/4 ED - Worth It?
Post by: jhinkey on March 01, 2017, 01:25:34
Trust me, I will provide the required test shots. I'm impatiently waiting for a weather improvement. The current state of rain, sleet, and fog, are hardly the conditions under which remote-distance subjects can be captured in a meaningful, comparative manner.

Oh yes, I understand - no pressure - whatever you can do would be great!

John
Title: Re: 200-400/4 ED - Worth It?
Post by: Wally on March 01, 2017, 23:00:39
Holy smokes - what a lucky strike ;D
This lens is MINT and appears unused!
John - I can offer you some shots wide open, although not before late next week
Title: Re: 200-400/4 ED - Worth It?
Post by: jhinkey on March 01, 2017, 23:48:54
Holy smokes - what a lucky strike ;D
This lens is MINT and appears unused!
John - I can offer you some shots wide open, although not before late next week

Where is this one shown in the image at?
Title: Re: 200-400/4 ED - Worth It?
Post by: Wally on March 02, 2017, 00:43:19
This picture may not do justice but shall provide a first idea of sharpness across the frame at f4. Look at the upper 2 power lines from left to right. Distance was around 60m. Shot on D800 at base ISO.
Title: Re: 200-400/4 ED - Worth It?
Post by: jhinkey on March 02, 2017, 01:45:31
This picture may not do justice but shall provide a first idea of sharpness across the frame at f4. Look at the upper 2 power lines from left to right. Distance was around 60m. Shot on D800 at base ISO.

Thanks, but unfortunately the image file is too low in resolution to see any kind of sharpness.  Can you put up a full resolution file?
Title: Re: 200-400/4 ED - Worth It?
Post by: Wally on March 02, 2017, 16:38:23
Hope this one works better
Title: Re: 200-400/4 ED - Worth It?
Post by: Erik Lund on March 02, 2017, 18:35:41
Please just make a 100% crop or two and post instead of a full size JPG :) Thank you.
Title: Re: 200-400/4 ED - Worth It?
Post by: Bjørn Rørslett on March 02, 2017, 19:25:33
To add what Erik said, a full-sized (non-scaled) jpg from a D8xx has to  be heavily compressed in order to fit our upper file size. In doing so, a vast amount of information is sacrificed, thus defeating the original purpose of showing fine detail.
Title: Re: 200-400/4 ED - Worth It?
Post by: Wally on March 03, 2017, 01:08:24
Indeed I struggled with the file size limit  >:(
Here are two 100% crops - center and left corner
Title: Re: 200-400/4 ED - Worth It?
Post by: Jack Dahlgren on March 03, 2017, 03:25:12
Are the halos from sharpening?
Title: Re: 200-400/4 ED - Worth It?
Post by: jhinkey on March 03, 2017, 18:41:29
Indeed I struggled with the file size limit  >:(
Here are two 100% crops - center and left corner

Thanks for the pics!

Could I get the RAW file so I can apply my own sharpening to see how well it cleans up in post?

- John

Title: Re: 200-400/4 ED - Worth It?
Post by: jhinkey on March 05, 2017, 19:41:49
So, what to people think if the sharpness at 400mm f/4? 
Tough to tell from the 100% crops due to the sharpening halos.

Bjorn - if you still have time and the weather cooperates I would be eternally grateful to have an image or two (NEF file?) from this lens shot wide open.
The copy  I have my eye on is still available and the GBP is ever so slowly sinking against the USD, so it's not hurt me to wait a bit.

I would love for this to be my first MF Nikkor zoom that I would be satisfied with (all others in the past were pretty dismal on a D800 . . .).

- J
Title: Re: 200-400/4 ED - Worth It?
Post by: jhinkey on March 09, 2017, 21:18:39
An update -

I now have two sets of sample images from two different 200-400/4 ED AIS users.
One from Wally of the telephone pole that showed to be not very sharp at 400mm f/4.

The second set by another user over on FM, taken of a line of distant trees against the skyline showed impressive sharpness wide open with little improvement stopping down, both at 200mm and 400mm settings.  Contrast was a little low, but I can deal with that in post.  Sharpness was not as good as my very best glass, but it was surprisingly good and equal to my (just now sold) 500/4 AI-P at f/5.6 and appears to be on par with my 400/5.6 ED-AI wide open. 

I'd say it's just slightly better than my 180/4 Voigt APO for sharpness at f/4, but the Voigt has incredible contrast right from f/4.

So Wally - your sample images appeared to be a bit soft - maybe because the subject distance was pretty close and this lens does better at/near infinity?

Images later today.

- John
Title: Re: 200-400/4 ED - Worth It?
Post by: jhinkey on March 10, 2017, 05:06:40
Images at 400mm and 200mm wide open
This set is the whole picture, then 100% crops from the center and the left upper corner.

These are from the NEF files of a D810 with my typical sharpening that I use for landscapes with my sharper lenses (meaning fairly light sharpening).
Title: Re: 200-400/4 ED - Worth It?
Post by: jhinkey on March 10, 2017, 05:13:02
And now similar images at 200mm f/4.

Is this the kind of sharpness you've seen Bjorn or others who have this lens?

It improves a bit upon stopping down, but it's not dramatic.  It seems way more than usable at f/4 with very even performance across the frame.

Title: Re: 200-400/4 ED - Worth It?
Post by: jhinkey on March 10, 2017, 19:48:32
Center 100% crops at 200mm and 400mm at f/8 for comparison:
Title: Re: 200-400/4 ED - Worth It?
Post by: Wally on April 02, 2017, 07:35:41
Finally time to better test my copy. Pretty happy with the sharpness across the frame - wide open at ISO220, distance over water was 320 meters.
First one from center, second one at right.
Title: Re: 200-400/4 ED - Worth It?
Post by: Bjørn Rørslett on April 02, 2017, 10:38:22
Just for the purpose of lens testing, shooting across open water is usually not the optimal approach.

As to the question Jim raised about lens testing and the qualities of the 200-400, no amount of actual testing can substitute for shooting with the specimen one owns. Tests by others merely lay the foundation of what to except.

The almost religious following and legendary status of the 200-400 would hardly be possible if the optical design had been badly flawed. The design was very advanced for its time and used more ED glass  than contemporary lenses. The workmanship can only be described as beautiful and I say this from having seen several of the lenses over time.

Will an ingenious optical design from mid '80s "beat" the computerised clinical constructions of our times? Probably no if sheer resolution is the only criteria, but if one looks further than that, the 200-400 has that impression of optical superiority only the best lenses from the past could convey. When the motor of today's lenses have burnt out and their electronics no longer can be serviced, the 200-400 will just go on working. As it always did.