Nikon 200-400 G ED VRII

[Jan Anne]

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.

[elsa hoffmann]

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 "

[Bjørn Rørslett]

It's better to outlive your wives. ... my experience 

[Fanie]

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.

[afx]

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

[Erik Lund]

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

[elsa hoffmann]

you guys are not helping me at all 
You are suppose to convince me I don't need anything 

Perhaps everyone with a long lens meet up next year - and we try them all.

[Bernard Delley]

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.

[elsa hoffmann]

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.

[tommiejeep]

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

[Erik Lund]

I agree the 300mm 2.8 is not for birds... 

[Ilkka Nissilä]

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.

[elsa hoffmann]

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.

[KevinC]

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

[KevinC]

Whoa, wait...$6000 for 9/10?  Mines 9.9/10, with original box.