I am curious of the 160 or so members on this forum, how many atually own or definitley plan to own a Nikon 200-400mm VR F4 lens? I suppose it am still trying to justify the amazingly expensive price of this lens. When I think of all that I could buy with $5000 it becomes harder to push the buy now button. I could own a 60 or mayby a 70" Sony WEGA high definition TV. A D2x. New carpet throughout my house or remodel the kitchen with granite counters and a new refrigerator. You get the idea. My impression of the members of this list is that there are less professionals than enthusiasts or advanced hobby shooters, which is what I am. These are the people I am really talking to here. Don't get me wrong, I think it makes perfect sense to own one (even though very few outside of the members of this forum could understand this statement) and almost certainly will within a short time buy one. I think it would somehow make me feel better about this purchase if others could relate their experience buying this incredible and incredibly expensive lense. Or maybe you could talk me down. Also of those who have one now. If you knew then what you know now, would you still buy this lens or would you do something else. Perhaps go for a longer lens or buy more lenses or upgrade to a D2x instead of picking up the 200-400. I appreciate your input and experience.
No, I don't own or plan to own the 200-400 VR. I have shot with it extensively and also written a review of it, that has to suffice. The reason is the same as with the 70-200 VR, neither lens really suits my shooting needs. Beleieve it or not, my main purchase decision for any item isn't lens lsut, but lens useability. I usually pack 200/2 Vr, 300/2.8 AFS, 500/4, and more occasionally, one of my 400 lenses (f/2.8, f/3.5, or f/5.6). Optically, the 200/2 VR behaves nicely with my TC-14E & TC-17E , so I might reduce the lens diversity by bringing them along but for the poor tripod mount on the 200 lens.
NO and NO. Have the 80-400 VR VR VR VR and love it. If I were to, or could spend 5 grand it would be for a D2XXXXXXXXXXX LUST lololol Cheers Gale
I have to express a similar point of view as Gale. I certainly lust after the 200-400VR, but I love my (much maligned :-( ) 80-400VR and it suits me well for its portability and versatility. If I were going to drop $5K I would sooner get the D2x. But in all honesty, as a hobbyist I can't justify either. I can also take that $5K and use it to take an African safari which will get me far more interesting photos--not to mention a life-experience-- than a D2x + 200-400VR in my backyard ;-) My next "major" equipment purchase will probably be the D200 when it arrives, assuming it has the few improvements i'd like to see over my D100. And if they added AFS to the 80-400VR, I'd re-buy it in a heartbeat, no matter the price...as long as it wasn't larger/heavier than it is now (make it G to keep the weight down!) Bottom line, its all a question of one's priorities. I have the money but for some bizarre reason I don't feel compelled to buy any new camera gear until the D200 comes out. Maybe I'm not well....... :shock:
My Take I own one and I love it...but I also need longer! The versatilty of this lens and the images it captures are incredible. I can honestly see the need for a longer lens as well in combination with this. A 500 would be nice and practical. A 600 would open a whole new world which would allow me to: A) capture smaller creatures B) allow me to shoot targets from further away which would increase both the number of shots captured as well as the perspective. All to often I find interesting shots (flight) that I simply can't capture as they are too far away. I do realize that when using a lens such as a 600 that I'll loose closer opportunites as the target will become too big and overfill the frame or it may possibly be inside of the minimum focussing distance. C) I'll be locked to a tripod with either the 500 or the 600. The abilty to zoom and also the VR makes the 200-400 a godsend...either in the situation of a tripod or hand held shot. The one problem I've encountered with the 200-400 and TC17EII on the D2X is that this combination is horrible. The D2X seems to bring out the worst in this converter, while the TC14EII affords perfectly sharp images. Just my observations after having shot a couple thousand images with this lens over the past 3 months of owning it.
No I have no plans buying the 200-400VR, It doesnt seem to fit my shooting style. Either I take the big gun for birds (Sigma 800 5.6) or the wideangles (12-24, 17-55), I rarely seem to shoot what is in between. I'm selling 70-200VR I dont use it much I use the 80-400VR much more. I have to admit the concept of combo of a really good 300mm 2.8 with a TC14E or TC17E is intriguing. Has anyone tried those combos?
The AFS 300/2.8 yields very good quality with the TC-14E, and this is the one prime lens/TC combo I really use. As to the TC-17E, . I'm a bit more sceptical, but the jury is still out.
Andreas, I have the 300 2.8 and the 1.4, 1.7, and 2.0 TC's. It is a great lens, and combines very well with all three of these TC's. I sometimes wish for more length but if I could own only one birdie lens, this would be it. Regards, Frank
I got mine last June. On the D2X in HSC it acts like a 400-800mm f4 and sharp even at f4. Yes I'm keeping it. Birger
I am in the same boat as Birger. I knew I was getting a D2x so I bought the 200-400VR in late November. Sweet lens and even sweeter on the D2x in HSC mode! I own a 500mm AF-S as well and use that(and converters) mainly for birds. The 200-400 will be great for Jamaica Bay (shore birds), Kenya (in September) and the like. It is just awesome for regular wildlife where the 500 is fixed and a little too long. By the way, no I am not rich! I am a Pharmacist and we are in short supply lately so I was able to pick up a bunch of OT to get my new toys. 8) Now I need more time off to use them. :roll:
I lust after a 200-400mm VR, but also after a 300mm f/2.8 and a 600mm f/4. However, when all is said and done, I think the next BIG purchase will have to be the D2X. It is hard, as a hardcore hobbyist to "settle" for the low end of the scale (D100, 80-400mm), but realistically that's what the finances dictate. Therefore, the next step is to start looking at things in a realistic business-like manner. This means I have to see if I can do up a business plan and that will include spending some money to make some. In the interim, I'll sit around and drool over the results others get from great lenses and bodies. Actually, some would suggest that sitting around drooling is what I do most of the time anyway. Neil
i lust for 200-400, 300 2.8, 400 2.8...longer and longer but i cannot afford any of these... yes, i would be glass over d2x if i had the money...lenses last a life time but new bodies come and go... my equipment list is ok for now... please share your images if you do buy the 200-400
There's no way I could justify the cost of one of these things even in the mid-future, I'm moderately curious about the 500mm mirror lenses I've seen around however. Does anyone have any experience with those ?
For those who do have the 200-400mm VR,the Nikon supplied case is sweet, but with the D2X mounted it is just about impossible. So I invested in the Lowepro " Lens Trekker 600 AW" will also handle the 600mm f4 with body attached. The 800mm lens with out the body attached. Very comfortable as a back pack with well padded shoulder straps and adjustable padded waist belt. If it rains or snows, you have the built in rain cover. Now if you are young and strong and want to carry more gear, I guess you will need a full sized backpack. Birger
Agree Birger! I have that case for my 500 and the D2x fits well on the 500. I think it is an awesome case for sure, been all over for 2yrs with it and it still looks like new! :shock: :shock:
I sold the 200-400 today and a hunting a 500f4. Does anyone really know what the major differences between a ASFI ve an ASFII are besodes price / weight and a minor difference in minimum focus???
I have the 300mm f2.8 and if I want longer glass I just put on the TC1.4. and still have a reasonably fast lens.
