NikonGear'23
Gear Talk => Lens Talk => Topic started by: Frode on February 09, 2016, 23:32:29
-
I am about to buy a good copy of the first AFS 400 2.8D, but would appreciate advice from those of you that have experience with this lens (does it "manage" well against the VR version - not F)? Will be used with the D4s, mostly BIF/wildlife.
-
If it is the model with the very tall swept-back tripod foot - take care - that arrangement makes the lens extremely wobbly on decent tripod. Get the short foot.
Optically it is claimed to be excellent. My brand new sample straight off the mothership was a dud though.
Try the lens first before you plunk down the money.
-
Frode,
I only have the earlier 400mm/2.8 lenses (AiS 400mm/2.8, AFI 400mm/2.8 and AFS 400mm/2.8D), unfortunately still missing the VR and FL versions. The quality of the 2.8D was sufficiently high, that the desire to upgrade to VR and FL hasn't materialized yet. Depending on the price being asked for the lens, I'd recommend it. Bokeh is nice, sharpness at f2.8 for the D4s shouldn't be an issue, contrast wide open is good. Haven't used it with TC's tough (In case you might consider this for BIF)
rgds,
Andy
D2X, AFS 400mm/2.8D, f2.8, handheld
(http://www.pbase.com/andrease/image/131291251/original.jpg)
-
If it is the model with the very tall swept-back tripod foot - take care - that arrangement makes the lens extremely wobbly on decent tripod. Get the short foot.
Optically it is claimed to be excellent. My brand new sample straight off the mothership was a dud though.
Try the lens first before you plunk down the money.
Thanks, Bjørn!
I'm not sure what tripod- foot it has, but after read some lens- reviews of yours, I know I've got to get a better one 😊👍.
Oh yes, I'll try it out first!
What's "bugging" me is that after all it's an old lens (even though in very good condition). What about repair/parts and so on...
-
Frode,
I only have the earlier 400mm/2.8 lenses (AiS 400mm/2.8, AFI 400mm/2.8 and AFS 400mm/2.8D), unfortunately still missing the VR and FL versions. The quality of the 2.8D was sufficiently high, that the desire to upgrade to VR and FL hasn't materialized yet. Depending on the price being asked for the lens, I'd recommend it. Bokeh is nice, sharpness at f2.8 for the D4s shouldn't be an issue, contrast wide open is good. Haven't used it with TC's tough (In case you might consider this for BIF)
rgds,
Andy
Thanks, Andy!
Great photo!
I'm planning on using it mostly wide open (of course might stop it down sometimes to 4/5.6), might use a 1.4 converter, but not often.
Price: about 3300 USD.
D2X, AFS 400mm/2.8D, f2.8, handheld
(http://www.pbase.com/andrease/image/131291251/original.jpg)
-
What's "bugging" me is that after all it's an old lens (even though in very good condition). What about repair/parts and so on...
Well, when the AF motor dies, you'll have a big and heavy manual-focus lens .... So make sure the lens operates smoothly in manual mode.
-
I am about to buy a good copy of the first AFS 400 2.8D, but would appreciate advice from those of you that have experience with this lens (does it "manage" well against the VR version - not F)? Will be used with the D4s, mostly BIF/wildlife.
Being a big investment I have three major draw backs regarding that model.
No VR, it's the major, and you pretend to use it on BIF so, either you'll have a perfect support, meaning a hefty tripod and head, or expect some disapointment here. And then comes the second, that model has a tall foot, that you have to send out and buy a dedicated one, my recommendation goes to closer the barrel the better. In third comes the motor lifespan... you'll never know, and when it goes out, as Bjorn said, what a heavy and big MF lens you got, not mentioning the loss in resale value.
Please note that these points have nothing to do with its inherent IQ, that is good, but I wouldn't recommend buying it. Better to spare some more and look for the VR model, which will start to appear as people upgrades to the FL one.
-
I don't disagree with your analysis Pedro - however, with VR thrown into the equation, there is yet another component that might fail ....
Why on Earth Nikon thought this tripod arrangement added real support is way beyond me. It is as shaky as the impression promises.
-
There are many versions of the 400mm 2.8
Rolands pages list them neatly
http://www.photosynthesis.co.nz/nikon/specs.html#400
Frode you state AFS and non-VR,,,
I agree that the AF-I is out of spare parts but my guess would be that Nikon can service all of the AFS lens versions.
Nice shot of the horse, almost romantic ;)
-
I don't disagree with your analysis Pedro - however, with VR thrown into the equation, there is yet another component that might fail ....
Why on Earth Nikon thought this tripod arrangement added real support is way beyond me. It is as shaky as the impression promises.
Can't be more right Bjorn...
That's why I'm using the Markins long lens support, and waiting for the new FL version
http://www.photoproshop.com/Lens-Gear/Lens-Tripod-Collars/Markins-Lens-Collar-Nikkor-400mm-VR--600mm-VR--I---II-.html?XTCsid=3unfrmbft0fame8g9anuq0j956
-
Being a big investment I have three major draw backs regarding that model.
No VR, it's the major, and you pretend to use it on BIF so, either you'll have a perfect support, meaning a hefty tripod and head, or expect some disapointment here. And then comes the second, that model has a tall foot, that you have to send out and buy a dedicated one, my recommendation goes to closer the barrel the better. In third comes the motor lifespan... you'll never know, and when it goes out, as Bjorn said, what a heavy and big MF lens you got, not mentioning the loss in resale value.
Please note that these points have nothing to do with its inherent IQ, that is good, but I wouldn't recommend buying it. Better to spare some more and look for the VR model, which will start to appear as people upgrades to the FL one.
Thank you for your respons, Pedro!
Yes, I'm aware that I need a solid support and I intend to use the lens mostly on a tripod, but also on a monopod.
Of course, if I could afford one with VR I would prefer such a lens.
I know the risk of ending up with an expensive and heavy manual tele.... Not easy to decide, it really looks like new!
-
I don't disagree with your analysis Pedro - however, with VR thrown into the equation, there is yet another component that might fail ....
Why on Earth Nikon thought this tripod arrangement added real support is way beyond me. It is as shaky as the impression promises.
Agree, Bjørn.
If I choose this one, I'm going to buy a wimberley foot or similar.
-
There are many versions of the 400mm 2.8
Rolands pages list them neatly
http://www.photosynthesis.co.nz/nikon/specs.html#400
Frode you state AFS and non-VR,,,
I agree that the AF-I is out of spare parts but my guess would be that Nikon can service all of the AFS lens versions.
Nice shot of the horse, almost romantic ;)
Thank you for your respons, Erik!
I called Fotocare in Oslo, and according to them Nikon don't produce any parts for this lens anymore. The AFS- engine in this lens is not the same as the one in the G- lenses. "High risk"- lens.....
Oh yes, its the first AFS- version (non VR).
-
For BIF specifically, neither the tripod foot nor the lack of VR are in any way significant.
You need to use shutter speeds faster than VR can function, and this also renders wobbly tripod feet a non-issue.
For other forms of wildlife, especially early or late when light is low it's a different story.
-
Thanks for checking, that makes only 400mm 2.8 lenses later than year 2007 AFS serviceable,,, ouch
-
Thanks for checking, that makes only 400mm 2.8 lenses later than year 2007 AFS serviceable,,, ouch
What would be a fair price for such a lens?
-
Check KEH they have and EX grade at 4799 US$
You don't get them cheap... It so much depends; Has it been sitting in a Pelicase or shot Pro sports day in day out for 15 years,,,
-
My dealer has one in excellent condition for 4085 USD.
-
My dealer has one in excellent condition for 4085 USD.
Thanks, Sten 😀!
-
Sten that's a great price! Go have a look at both Frode then let's know how they compare in 'looks' and feel ;)
-
Sten that's a great price! Go have a look at both Frode then let's know how they compare in 'looks' and feel ;)
Will do, Erik 😊.
Oh man I'd like a 400 2.8 😀!
-
While the traditional field of application for the fast 400 mm lenses are sports and wildlife, don't forget such lenses can be put to good use for details and landscape scenery.
The concentration provided by a narrow angle of view both is a challenge and an advantage for the photographer. A large aperture (f/2.8) helps focusing under low light conditions and adds to the versatility of such lenses. It also allows for "focus stacking" (multiple exposures in-camera).
-
Sten that's a great price! Go have a look at both Frode then let's know how they compare in 'looks' and feel ;)
I got my hands on the sample Sten suggested; almost as new 😀. Focusing ring smooth, glass are in exellent condition, mount almost no marks.
It does seem like it is pretty soft wide open and gets clearly sharper at f/4. I'll try some AF- tuning.
-
Frode,
check the lens rather with focus via live view.
Your AF tuning exercise can be done later, but for now you want to know how the lens performs wide open.
rgds, Andy
-
Frode,
check the lens rather with focus via live view.
Your AF tuning exercise can be done later, but for now you want to know how the lens performs wide open.
rgds, Andy
Good thinking, Andy, thanks🙂!
-
For BIF specifically, neither the tripod foot nor the lack of VR are in any way significant.
You need to use shutter speeds faster than VR can function, and this also renders wobbly tripod feet a non-issue.
For other forms of wildlife, especially early or late when light is low it's a different story.
Agree with the VR
but a strong disagree regarding the tripod foot, this might be only unsignificant if you use the lens handhold
if you use the lens with this worst ever tripod foot Nikon has everdesigned for a big glass- supertele with some support it does matter even with fast shutter speeds
-
I called Fotocare in Oslo, and according to them Nikon don't produce any parts for this lens anymore. The AFS- engine in this lens is not the same as the one in the G- lenses. "High risk"- lens.....
Oh yes, its the first AFS- version (non VR).
Bad news - its a pity that the support time for expensive lenses like that is that limited, they should be able to be companions for a lifetime. I understand the issue with the AF-I lenses as this was a dead-end development
But the AF-S series ist truly good and you dont miss much with them. The first versions have better tripod support than follow up models
-
Bad news - its a pity that the support time for expensive lenses like that is that limited, they should be able to be companions for a lifetime. I understand the issue with the AF-I lenses as this was a dead-end development
But the AF-S series ist truly good and you dont miss much with them. The first versions have better tripod support than follow up models
The guaranteed support life is 10 years. Usually spare parts are made in separate runs within the ordinary production cycle. However, if a certain part shows unusual failure rate, the spare part inventory stocks can be depleted. Actually you won't know until it is too late .... Retooling is expensive and one has to realise these long super lenses are but a limited fraction of the overall lens production volume.
-
The guaranteed support life is 10 years. Usually spare parts are made in separate runs within the ordinary production cycle. However, if a certain part shows unusual failure rate, the spare part inventory stocks can be depleted. Actually you won't know until it is too late .... Retooling is expensive and one has to realise these long super lenses are but a limited fraction of the overall lens production volume.
I know and understand this constraints, nevertheless I regret that it is like it is. Super lenses are more for prestige than for contributing a significant amount to the earnings though. It would be good for prestige to have an even more long term support philosophy like Leica appears to have. (the five dream minutes- over now)
-
I don't disagree at all and sometimes the Mothership can provide real surprises. The point is that they don't throw away the spare parts after the 10 year period, they sell out. Thus, I once was able to get - from Nikon Japan - the eyepiece ocular lens for a finder to the 2.1 cm Nikkor-O f/4, a lens discontinued in the '60s ... Arrived in a nicely wrapping with specifications hand-written to it (this obviously had been in store much earlier than the bar coding system).
-
Well that sounds like a very nice finding :D
-
I don't disagree at all and sometimes the Mothership can provide real surprises. The point is that they don't throw away the spare parts after the 10 year period, they sell out. Thus, I once was able to get - from Nikon Japan - the eyepiece ocular lens for a finder to the 2.1 cm Nikkor-O f/4, a lens discontinued in the '60s ... Arrived in a nicely wrapping with specifications hand-written to it (this obviously had been in store much earlier than the bar coding system).
Good points, Bjørn, that helped me decide to buy the sample. Of course it also helped that the lens is in outstanding condition :). Also bought a Wimberly tripod foot for the lens.
The softness went away with a fine tuning value of +8. I might send it to Fotocare in Oslo for an adjustment together with my cameras (or can you "live with" a lens needing this level of fine tuning?).
Thank you all for your response!
-
Now, all that remains is putting the lens to good use :D Don't forget to show us what your new possession can deliver in terms of images and image quality.
Sometimes I wish I had tremendous need for such a lens myself, but to be honest I haven't. So sold my own 400/2.8 years ago while there was money to be had for it. The 400/3.5 or f/5.6 versions will do. I don't shoot wildlife and that helps cut down on the lust for long glass (perhaps, or I'm telling a fairy tale).
-
Now, all that remains is putting the lens to good use :D Don't forget to show us what your new possession can deliver in terms of images and image quality.
Sometimes I wish I had tremendous need for such a lens myself, but to be honest I haven't. So sold my own 400/2.8 years ago while there was money to be had for it. The 400/3.5 or f/5.6 versions will do. I don't shoot wildlife and that helps cut down on the lust for long glass (perhaps, or I'm telling a fairy tale).
Will do, Bjørn :).
For my kind of photographing I always ended up cropping due to too short reach, so hopefully my need for cropping will go down.....
Once again, thank you :)
-
Congrats Frode!
Enjoy your latest addition - of course we would welcome some nice images,
All the best,
Andy
-
Congrats Frode!
Enjoy your latest addition - of course we would welcome some nice images,
All the best,
Andy
Thank you!
I´ll try to post some pictures in a while :).
Thank you for your help, Andy!
-
Another thing, what about weather sealing:
Trying to locate some information about the degree of weather sealing this lens has (compared to the newer ones regarding water/dust) - anyone?
-
Enjoy it! ;)
-
If it has an aperture ring the water can come in that way, but I would not worry ;)
I have shot my 300mm 2.8 AFS Mark I in rain on a mountain side without any problems, I was soaked however,,, ::)
-
If it has an aperture ring the water can come in that way, but I would worry ;)
I have shot my 300mm 2.8 AFS Mark I in rain on a mountain side without any problems, I was soaked however,,, ::)
Yes, you´re probably right, Erik; normal use and carefulness will do the trick. As always ;D.
Thank you for your help!