SHOWDOWN: Nikkor 400mm f/2.8E FL ED vs. 600mm f/4E FL ED

[Ilkka Nissilä]

my data on resale comes directly from a camera store which does high volume -  of course the application changes the equation if it is the right lens for the task.

Does this data include resale of FL versions? Resale data on the previous 400/2.8 versions may not accurately predict how the 400/2.8 FL will be received in the second hand market, as the FL is much more manageable in terms of weight. The 500 and 600 of course also experienced weight reductions as well but since the 400 has the greater weight / focal length it is a bit more sensitive on the issue. 

[bobfriedman]

Does this data include resale of FL versions? Resale data on the previous 400/2.8 versions may not accurately predict how the 400/2.8 FL will be received in the second hand market, as the FL is much more manageable in terms of weight. The 500 and 600 of course also experienced weight reductions as well but since the 400 has the greater weight / focal length it is a bit more sensitive on the issue.

The 400/2.8 and the 600/4  are pretty close in weight for both versions FL etc. The exact quote to me when I was thinking of buying a 400/2.8FL and they had them in stock was “used 400/2.8’s sit here for a long time but we move 500/4 and 600/4 very quickly”. Of course back then all the used equipment were of the “G” type

[chambeshi]

The 800 FL is a bit sharper than the 400/2.8 FL in Mansurov’s tests:

https://photographylife.com/reviews/nikon-400mm-f2-8e-vr

I suspect this differs from lenscore’s results because Mansurov uses flash in his imatest work. The flash does a good bit to reduce the effect of shutter and other types of vibration from the picture. Of course it could be due to sample variation as well but my guess is the flash.

important difference that is too often overlooked

[chambeshi]

I shoot a lot of lizards, though, too ... snakes ... as well as butterflies and insects that are beyond the reach of a macro lens.



I already have the 300 f/2.8 VR II and it is indeed a superb performer. However, I always have a 2x TC III on the end of it.
(I would like to get the same reach, without the image-quality hit of the TC.)
While quite satisfied with its performance,  it is very heavy, and (more importantly), it is front-heavy, and not well-balanced.

I have read reports from people who state, although the 400mm/600 mm are physically heavier ... they are balanced better ... and consequently don't feel as heavy as the more primitive G design (even the 300G).

If money were no object, I would purchase the 200mm f/2 'Chubby', the 400mm f/28 FL ED, and the 800mm  FL ED ... since I try to operate my "The Rule of Doubles" (or "Rørslett's Rule" )

I'm also in the same situation - the 300 f2.8G VRII is one of Nikon's best lenses, and mine is nearly coupled with the TC2 III :-)
The Fatman has the edge in its IQ over the 300 though. Lab tests concur on this I recall -and with IQ using TCs. The 200 f2G VRII works very well with TC2 as a heavy 400 f4. These fast 200 and 300 Nikkors almost weigh the same. Being shorter and more balanced than my 300 f2.8 I find the 200 that much easier to handle including with TCs. Whichever of the 400 f2.8 or 500 f4 I commit to, it is the 300 I may have to sell on but the 200 f2G is one of my treasured primes.

[chambeshi]

Oh just noticed this new 400 f2.8 :-) Albeit Sony

https://www.dpreview.com/news/4861125245/sony-s-huge-400mm-f2-8-gm-oss-lens-spotted-at-the-2018-winter-olympics?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=2018-february-14&ref_=pe_1822230_272426610_dpr_nl_299_20

[Ilkka Nissilä]

The 200 f2G VRII works very well with TC2 as a heavy 400 f4. These fast 200 and 300 Nikkors almost weigh the same. Being shorter and more balanced than my 300 f2.8 I find the 200 that much easier to handle including with TCs.

While I also use the 200/2 II, I no longer use it with TCs since I have the 300 PF. In my brief testing the 300/2.8 VR II does give a sharper image with 1.4X than the 200/2 I/II does with TC-20E III, but others have noted there is variability from lens + TC sample to another, so my results may not match everyone else's. I consider the 300/2.8 to be a more TC-compatible than the 200/2 in terms of results based on the lenses and TCs I tested. The 200/2II image needs to be stopped down to f/8 with either TC-14E III or TC-20E III to get a perfect image in terms of individual pixel level detail (on D810, so 36MP). Of course without TC the lens is great already wide open.

A shorter lens is a bit easier to handle  and without TC you have less camera shake to contend with and the larger aperture, but the subject needs to be closer or is framed wider then.

[JKoerner007]

Oh just noticed this new 400 f2.8 :-) Albeit Sony

https://www.dpreview.com/news/4861125245/sony-s-huge-400mm-f2-8-gm-oss-lens-spotted-at-the-2018-winter-olympics?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=2018-february-14&ref_=pe_1822230_272426610_dpr_nl_299_20

Sony makes the ugliest super-teles of anyone.

Over-sized, under-performing, "Copy-Canon" white ... I would never buy one
(Why would anyone want a white lens for wildlife? )
May make you stand out at a sporting event, but 'standing out' for wildlife photography is not what anyone wants to do ...

Nikon has the most elegant-looking super-tele lenses of anyone, IMO, made even better that they're also the best-performing

[JKoerner007]

I'm also in the same situation - the 300 f2.8G VRII is one of Nikon's best lenses, and mine is nearly coupled with the TC2 III :-)
The Fatman has the edge in its IQ over the 300 though. Lab tests concur on this I recall -and with IQ using TCs. The 200 f2G VRII works very well with TC2 as a heavy 400 f4. These fast 200 and 300 Nikkors almost weigh the same. Being shorter and more balanced than my 300 f2.8 I find the 200 that much easier to handle including with TCs. Whichever of the 400 f2.8 or 500 f4 I commit to, it is the 300 I may have to sell on but the 200 f2G is one of my treasured primes.

Yes, the "Chubby" is a special lens ... the rendering at f/2 can be jaw-dropping

I am waiting for the FL ED upgrade ... something I am hoping for next year

[JKoerner007]

While I also use the 200/2 II, I no longer use it with TCs since I have the 300 PF.

This is going to be my move as well, especially for local/casual hikes.

In my brief testing the 300/2.8 VR II does give a sharper image with 1.4X than the 200/2 I/II does with TC-20E III, but others have noted there is variability from lens + TC sample to another, so my results may not match everyone else's.

Kind of unfair, though.

Every lens is better-performing with a 1.4 TC than it is with a 2x TC.

I consider the 300/2.8 to be a more TC-compatible than the 200/2 in terms of results based on the lenses and TCs I tested. The 200/2II image needs to be stopped down to f/8 with either TC-14E III or TC-20E III to get a perfect image in terms of individual pixel level detail (on D810, so 36MP). Of course without TC the lens is great already wide open.

I like the results of my 300mm II @ f/5.6, but f/8 is its best aperture with the 2x TC as well (concurred by Photography Life).

I am wanting the 600mm because I will get the same equivalent 900mm reach on a D500 as the 300 + TC III ... without the IQ hit of the TC.

I am considering the 400 because it's reputedly even sharper. F/4 is its sharpest aperture, whereas f/5.6 - f/8 are the sharpest on the 600.

Super-sharp wildlife images, with the separation of f/4, will always look better than sharp images @f/5.6-f/8.

A shorter lens is a bit easier to handle  and without TC you have less camera shake to contend with and the larger aperture, but the subject needs to be closer or is framed wider then.

Yeah, and the entire magic of the 200 f/2 "Chubby" is removed by a 2x TC putting it @ f/5.6

[Asle F]

Sony makes the ugliest super-teles of anyone.

Over-sized, under-performing, "Copy-Canon" white ... I would never buy one
(Why would anyone want a white lens for wildlife? )
May make you stand out at a sporting event, but 'standing out' for wildlife photography is not what anyone wants to do ...

Maybe because white is blending best in with the enviroment…


Rupehøne by Asle Feten, on Flickr

[JKoerner007]

Maybe because white is blending best in with the enviroment…

Touché

[chambeshi]

see this capture
Nikon D5 | AF-S NIKKOR 600mm f/4E FL ED VR | ISO 2000 | 1/2000s | F4   Photo by Matthias Hangst/Getty Images

http://blog.iamnikon.com/en_GB/pyeongchang-2018/winter-sports-freedom-to-be-creative-behind-the-camera-with-matthias-hangst/

[Seapy]

Please excuse my interjecting but the 800mm in image 5, the cartridge case is very slightly not sharp...   

[Erik Lund]

Please excuse my interjecting but the 800mm in image 5, the cartridge case is very slightly not sharp...   

Impressive images!
I'm pretty sure it's not supposed to be sharp the cartridge.

[Seapy]

That's OK then.  I go back to sleep!   

Actually I'm re-celling an EN-EL4.