200-400/4 ED - Worth It?

[Wally]

Indeed I struggled with the file size limit 
Here are two 100% crops - center and left corner

[Jack Dahlgren]

Are the halos from sharpening?

[jhinkey]

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

[jhinkey]

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

[jhinkey]

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

[jhinkey]

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).

[jhinkey]

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.

[jhinkey]

Center 100% crops at 200mm and 400mm at f/8 for comparison:

[Wally]

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.

[Bjørn Rørslett]

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.