AF- S 400 2.8 D (non VR, first edition)

[Frode]

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.

[Bjørn Rørslett]

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.

[Andy]

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

[Frode]

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]

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

[Bjørn Rørslett]

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.

[PedroS]

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.

[Bjørn Rørslett]

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.
 

[Erik Lund]

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

[PedroS]

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

[Frode]

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!

[Frode]

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.

[Frode]

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).

[Peter Connan]

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.

[Erik Lund]

Thanks for checking, that makes only 400mm 2.8 lenses later than year 2007 AFS serviceable,,, ouch