NikonGear'23
Gear Talk => Lens Talk => Topic started by: elsa hoffmann on June 24, 2015, 14:57:25
-
Used: Nikon AF-S 200-400mm f/4 G ED VR II N Lens - Rating: 9/10 (S10704)
This lens has come up for sale (second hand) for the equivalent of $6000.
New the lens is $10 000 here in SA
Your thoughts?
-
Probably OK from the level indicated by the new lens.
I used this lens on the 2009 Safari and got great results with it.
However, I was told on good authority that Cape Town neither have lions nor elephants? Your usual models don't see to be shy enough to require this kind of optic ...
My point, apparently, is that this lens brings you into the domain of specialised tools. If you really need such a lens and have the money burning in your pocket, by all means get it.
(I do have the manual-focus 200-400/4 ED Nikkor, bought for landscape photography. It is too slow for animals in my opinion, but terrific for landscapes)
-
Bjørn - I am torn.
It is a very good price - and might have already sold - so if I dont get this one I can look out for another - but have seen them for $1200 more elsewhere.
I have used this lens before, (the older version) and it took me a while to get used to it.
While we don't have lions (not in the street anyway) It will be useful - but certainly not a every day lens.
I really have not much in the longer range - I only have a 300f4 (non VR)
SO my thinking is in terms of longer - and longer is also relative. Then there is a Nikon AF-S 400mm f/2.8 G ED VR N (new) which no sane person can afford at $12000
Perhaps just pass it for now..
-
I am sure you have birds there 😀
-
of course we do - the two legged kind :) in my garden !
-
Seems like a bargain Elsa, providing it is as described.
I owned the VR1 version for nearly six years, it is a fabulous lens.
Optically it is excellent, the relatively modest zoom ratio ensures it's not compromised in the same way that many
zoom lenses are.
If I could own just one telephoto lens this would be it, I can't emphasise enough the amount of extra(bonus) shots I was able to capture
because of the zoom function, some people will say don't be lazy zoom with your feet, in the real world most of us know
it's not always possible to move closer to or further away from our intended target.
A lot of people on the internet knock this lens saying it's ok up close but not for longer distances, I always wonder how many of those people have actually owned or even used this lens,
it is a fabulous performer.
On a DX body it gives equivalent view of 300-600mm@f4 pretty darn useful out in the field.
I honestly think it's one of the very best lenses nikon have ever produced.
Here's an old one
(http://www.pbase.com/wildoat/image/133545067/original.jpg)
-
It is very simple, my dear, buy it if you are going to use it :)
I feel sorry for my 300/2.8 AF-I that I bought from Erik during our safari because I rarely use it...
-
It is a great African safari lens. I rented one for Sabi Sabi a few years ago and was delighted with the results.
It all depends on whether you will use it.
-
The second hand value of these kind of lenses is very stable so theres very little risk in buying them, just make sure they're covered by the insurance.
I bought the MK1 for the NG Safari in 2009, took some amazing shots with a D700 & D300 combo and sold it afterwards with a nice profit 8)
Here's a few pics from that safari:
(https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3430/3816644155_142a164f0a_o.jpg)
(https://farm3.staticflickr.com/2533/3851156477_728c1fe1ed_o.jpg)
Also very usable for the Dutch wildlife btw :)
(https://farm3.staticflickr.com/2444/4019866274_ab6e7d60a6_o.jpg)
-
Sadly (or gladly ) I missed the lens..... the next one available is a $1000 more... which is more in line with what they go for.
I also hear the new 80-400 is very good - and good value for money. I have never been interested in this lens - but it is a lot cheaper and lighter. Any thoughts? Keep in mind I will use it on occasion and its certainly not a regular lens for me. I do need a longer lens. I do not shoot birds and wildlife as much as others do, but when I want to - I have only the 70-200 VRII and 2 x TC
Thanks guys for posting the great pics - I am enjoying them!
-
The AF-S 80-400 mm made me loose interest in the 200-400mm ! It is sharp enough wide open at the long end, also when used with 24 mpix DX camera like the D7200. Clearly better than the 70-200mm f/2.8 with TC-2.0 , which can be described as useable, stopped down at the long end. My use of the 70-200mm f/2.8 has dropped markedly since. It only comes on a trip when shooting at f/2.8 is expected.
-
Interesting and thank you - the 80-400 is at least half of the 200-400 in SA, which makes it very attractive.
-
My only gripe with the 80-400 is that it is a variable aperture zoom that doesn't zoom internally, thats currently one bridge too far for me after owning lenses like the Sigma 120-300/2.8, 70-200/2.8VR, 200-400/4VR, 200/2VR, etc.
So even though the 80-400mm is a very usable range I'm hoping for a 400/4VR PF to split the middle between the 80-400mm and the 400/2.8VR FL dreamlens, in optic quality, size for travel, aperture speed, price, etc.
But I'm not limited to Nikon, I can also use a Minolta 400/4.5 or a Canon 400/4IS DO on my Sony Trinitron (Jakovs nickname for my a7S).
-
JA - I hear you - and obviously agree. I had a Sigma 150-600 for a week and didnt like the aperture also - but have to admit half my problems with that lens was IBTC (Idiot behind the camera) and not understand the limitations, nor did I have proper LLT.
But I am back to square one looking for a longer range. So I am interested in practical opinions as well as that which you gave - what to do....
-
Having used both, I agree that the 200-400 handles better than the AFS 80-400 VR in particular hand held. This in part is caused by the elongation of the lens barrel when you zoom with the 80-400, which throws off its balance. Mounted on a decent tripod, however, the difference might be less pronounced bertween the two of them although I suspect the 80-400 is every so less fast in acquiring perfect focus.
The VR feature on both lenses can be a benefit and a liability. When I tested a sample of the AFS 80-400, I observed several incidents in which its VR did funny things to the captured image. The AFS 200-400 was used on a Safari ad the heat might have masked any VR oddities in this case.
Elsa, it's a pity you cannot get an NPS loaner in your area. Or get a local rental. These expensive, used-once-in-a-while lenses often are better rented or leased than owned, unless money burns a hole in your pocket and you have shelves to spare in your cupboards.
-
Like I said, if you can spare the money for a while there's no real risk in buying an exotic (read expensive) lens like the 200-400VR as these lenses hold their value very well.
I got a lot of comments from non photographing friends that I've spend that kind of money on a lens but their mind is programmed that electronic equipment looses all its value after a few years. With lenses this is not the case however and the real cost is the money you loose at the end of the line which is usually less than 10% when buying second hand lenses, in my case I even made a 10% profit so it can go either way.
-
Bjørn, If I am going to buy - it will have to be this year for tax reasons.
Although money is a consideration, so is weight, usability, practicality and focal length etc.
Good point about a loaner.
I am getting a 500 (older one) this week hopefully - to use for a month. Its just a loan unit from a friend and not in the class I am looking at buying though.
IF - and its a big IF i get on with the 500, I wont buy anything as I will be able to loan the 500 for any trip.
JA - also a very good point.
Whats that old saying : "one day when I die, please dont let my wife sell my camera gear for what she thinks I paid for it "
-
It's better to outlive your wives. ... my experience ;D
-
Elsa I get past the long lens hurdle with a 300 mm plus converters, and in a quick test my 300 had better image quality than a 200-400 at 300mm, and pretty even at 400/420 with the 1.4 TC on the 300mm.
Also a bit more compact than the 200-400.
-
Elsa I get past the long lens hurdle with a 300 mm plus converters, and in a quick test my 300 had better image quality than a 200-400 at 300mm, and pretty even at 400/420 with the 1.4 TC on the 300mm.
But more prone to miss an image due to the need to attach/detach the converter...
While I was using a 300/2.8 I could see first hand how a travel mate with the 200-400 on a 2007 safari had a much easier time adjusting than me.
cheers
afx
-
the 200-400mm f/4 is a really nice flexible lens! So unless you like huge blur circles it will do all you ask it to do.
I get a long with 300 AFS 2.8 and all the converters
-
you guys are not helping me at all :-\
You are suppose to convince me I don't need anything ;D
Perhaps everyone with a long lens meet up next year - and we try them all.
-
Elsa,
I am on a trip in Iceland with a bit of funny setup D800 as primary camera and a D7100 as backup, a AFS 300mm f/2.8 TC14 TC20 and a AFS 80-400mm G and of course ultra wide angle option etc . So far the 300mm came out once! for the fratercula with TC14 and tripod, gimbal head, whicle my wife shot the D7100 with 80-400 freehand to not miss things going on. The 80-400mm is ready to be grabbed all the time either on the D800 or the DX. Today it was on the DX again when this bird got excited about our presence. Handheld at 400mm (DX -> 600mm) about cropped to half of the image and attached as 50% scaled.
I do not think that I could have achieved more with my FX option 300mm + TC20 about 4.2 Kg total versus about 2.2kg for this DX option.
-
agreed - for sure the practicality of it all is as important as the IQ.
There wont be any IQ if I don't get a shot.
I am also learning about the value of a second body.
-
Elsa, I think borrowing the 500mm is a grand idea. I've lusted after the 200-400vr when I started shooting birds in 2008. I ordered a 'Grey" then but the dealer let me down. I looked and handled one at Grays in London twice. First time I bought the 300 2.8vr and the second time it came down to the 500vr and the 400 2.8vr, bought the 500vr.
You love to travel and do not use a long lens often. I think the 200-400vr is not for you. One, a lot of money for a seldom used lens and secondly the new afs 80-400vr is very good and easy to transport (by comparison) . I have not thought about the new Sigma or Tamron 150-600s. A very good friend thinks the Sigma 150-600 Sport is a very good lens but needs a monopod or tripod.
I did use a friend's 200-400vr for a few days in 2008. Not comfortable for me handheld, too long and harder to support. For me the 80-400vr is easy to shoot handheld and is a better FL range for shooting from a Safari vehicle. Both are quite short for birds :(
Go back through this blog: http://www.naturalart.ca/voice/blog.html . Brad Hill is not the only guy I check out but do pay attention to his long lens reviews. The afs 80-400vr had a pretty big impact on the 200-400vr market. Several big time wildlife shooters sold their 200-400s.
All the best,
Tom
-
I agree the 300mm 2.8 is not for birds... ::)
-
Since you have the 70-200, how about adding a 300/4 PF and TC-14E III, and then borrowing your friend's 500/4 when needed?
I think an f/4 tele that is sharp wide open is a lot more useful than an f/5.6 or f/6.3 zoom that needs stopping down to look good. The frequency of shooting conditions where movement blur can be avoided is a lot higher with f/4 than f/8, in my experience. Autofocus tracking with the 300/4 PF is just exemplary.
-
You love to travel and do not use a long lens often.
Probably that in a nutshell.
I have a 2 x TC III already - so with that will just make do for now and of course the 300 f4. maybe find a 1.4TC for the crop body I have on standby.
I had the Sigma 150-600Sport for a couple of days and returned it. But would put it down to user error rather than a bad lens.
-
Elsa, I have the 200-400 VR (first model), which I bought when I had lots of money and ambition. Times change, and I have found that the lens is great for candid portraits in convention-type venues when mounted on a gimbal, and also for wildlife shots of relatively static animals. It is an amazing lens.
I got it thinking I would get more use from it, and told myself that, absent dropping it or losing it, I could always get 75% of my original cost back. That's all true, but it is a big honking piece of glass, and traveling by any means except a private auto, it's a bit of a burden. I have yet to take it on an airline vacation. I do look forward to getting more use from it when I retire in a few years, but for now, it's my special toy, used much less frequently that I had expected.
I'll sell it for $5200USD? Maybe? I'll be in J'burg in 8 weeks.
Kevin
-
Whoa, wait...$6000 for 9/10? Mines 9.9/10, with original box.
-
Kevin - the one for $6000 was VR II - long sold off
There is a Nikon 200-400 VR I available for $3600 - in very good condition.