200-400/4 ED - Worth It?

[jhinkey]

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

[Bjørn Rørslett]

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.

[Bent Hjarbo]

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.

[Erik Lund]

200-400mm f/4 ED is in Ais mount and a hefty 3650 gr - Very sought after by collectors an MF safari monster lens

_EGL7002 by Erik Gunst Lund, on Flickr
 

[jhinkey]

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

[Bjørn Rørslett]

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.

[MILLIREHM]

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.

[Bjørn Rørslett]

A very few examples with the 200-400ED AIS.

[jhinkey]

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

[Bjørn Rørslett]

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.

[jhinkey]

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

[Bjørn Rørslett]

Like this? Pretty good apparently.

[jhinkey]

 

[jhinkey]

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

[Bjørn Rørslett]

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.