Nikon 200-400Mm F4G Af-S Vr If-Ed Zoom-Nikkor

Product Information

Your biggest problem is you have the 70-200 which is an outstanding lens, so where to go next is a bit of a puzzler. Maybe hang on and see what Nikon bring out next ? M/A, M — the universal AF-S switch that allows you to switch between autofocus with manual override, or just manual focus. The new version adds an A/M switch that helps guard against accidental focus change via the focus ring (i.e. delays the switch to manual focus). Hey guys, I finally pulled the trigger on a Nikon 200-400mm f4. I was debating with the 300mm f2.8 but I needed zoom flexibility so I opted inthe end for the 200-400 f4. The only thing that troubled me a little, is my sample came with a NC filter with white lettering and the word "JAPAN" instead of "MADE IN JAPAN" painted on the filter ring. The glass has a light yellow tint. Compared to another 52mm NC filter (bought brand new at B&H), that copy's tint is greenish. I am not sure if the light yellow tint filter is a fake. I only discovered this discrepancy in April 2018...ah! the perils of buying used. On my Botswana trip, I used the NC filter with the greenish tint, and it gave me beautiful results as mentioned in the first paragraph. Anyone who knows more about Nikon NC filter history, please kindly chime in....

This is an in-depth review of the Canon EF 200-400mm f/4L IS USM with a built-in 1.4x extender, a telephoto zoom lens targeted at enthusiast and professional action photographers. For many years, Canon users shooting serious wildlife and sports photography had come to accept that the only telephoto lenses on offer by Canon that achieved the top of the line performance were their prime lenses. At the time, the only Canon zoom lens in the telephoto range was the Canon EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS, a solid if an unspectacular lens with an outdated design. On the other hand, and much to Canon users’ envy, Nikon had given its customers something wholly different in 2003 when they released the Nikon 200-400mm f/4G VR, a professional-quality constant aperture super-telephoto zoom lens. The 200-500mm’s front element also protrudes as you zoom, and rotates when focusing, so it’s not fully weather-sealed like the 180-400mm f/4E. Since teleconverters rob light, contrast, and sharpness from lenses, it is expected that there is going to be a big drop in performance. I wrote about this in great detail in my article on teleconverters. By the time 2007 rolled around and the D3 and D300 came out with autofocus fine tuning, I thought that I might find the answer to my issues there. Well, maybe. I certainly was getting better results most of the time, but I still didn't have a complete handle on what was going on. Fast forward through the D700 and to the D3x and still more use of the lens and...well, I'm still going to equivocate a little bit when we get to performance, though I have a much better idea about what's going on. For critical use, you can correct the invisible levels of distortion even more by plugging these figures into Photoshop CS2's

Performance

At first I was using the original 200-400mm VR on a D2h and I loved it. It was everything that I expected and needed, and had I actually finished my review in that first year, it would have been an absolute rave. But then I got a D2x. In the course of several sessions using the 200-400mm with that camera I found the results wanting (more on that in a bit). At some point I enlisted my assistant in the study of this lens and the Nikon autofocus system, especially since he was complaining about some results of a shoot in Denali with his 600mm and seemed to be having a similar problem to what I was seeing on the 200-400mm. At the time, we were both using D2x bodies, so we suspected the camera. I've used this lens on both static and fast moving subjects, and I'm always surprised at how fast the lens can snap to focus on the latter (assuming the camera is up to it). Basically, I have no issues with the focus performance. Many love their 200-500's and get wonderful results,but I am sadly not in that club. I keep working with mine to figure out if it is me or the lens but my old Tamron 150-600 is at least its equal and some days seems to shoot even better. (and its the G1). The Canon set up shames it. Truth is my old Nikon 70-300 VR on my crop frame cameras does better than the 200-500 on my D750.

The Nikon 180-400mm f/4E FL ED VR is not inferior in any way compared to its predecessor – it is built to last for many years. The build quality is as good as it gets for Nikon exotic lenses, starting from the metal barrel, all the way to small details like buttons and switches. Nikon engineers always do a phenomenal job at fine-tuning every aspect of their super-telephoto lenses, and this really shows on the 180-400mm f/4E. The Nikon 180-400mm f/4E TC1.4 FL ED VR is a professional-grade super-telephoto zoom lens designed for sports and wildlife photographers. Its predecessor, the Nikon 200-400mm f/4G ED VR II, was a very popular lens for many years among many action photographers. When Canon released its 200-400mm f/4L IS USM with a built-in 1.4x teleconverter, many Nikon shooters wondered if such a lens could materialize for them in the future. Nikon finally announced the updated version in January of 2018, pushing the optical design even further by incorporating a built-in 1.4x teleconverter, as well as expanding the zoom range by 20mm on the short end. In this review, we will take a closer look at this amazingly versatile lens and compare it to its predecessor. The fourth result set was an interesting one. Without changing anything, I simply removed the 52mm drop in filter. To my surprise, I could immediately see the Live View image turn from sharp to complete blur, as seen from the crop below: NIKON D810 + 200.0-400.0 mm f/4.0 @ ISO 100, 1/60, f/4.0 The Nikon 200-400mm f/4 VR is the largest of Nikon's pro AF-S zooms in 2008, which includes the 14-24mm f/2.8, 17-35mm f/2.8, 24-70mm f/2.8 and 70-200mm f/2.8 VR.Any cheap Bogen, Manfrotto or Gitzo monopod ought to be fine. I use a dinky Gitzo with my 14-pound 400mm f/2.8 and it works fine. This 200-400mm weighs only half that. I will say this: proper AF Fine Tuning and removing the protective front clear glass element both improve things a bit for far focus use of the lens. It still doesn't quite match my 400mm f/2.8 at longer distances (it does at shorter ones), so neither of those things is a perfect solution.

What will you be shooting with the lens? If you are shooting at greater than 200 feet, the 'poor at long distances' issue identified by Thom Hogan might be an issue for you, although my guess is that issue MIGHT be more noticeable with the VR 1. N: Nano-crystal coating, meaning a coating which varies its index of refraction continuously to achieve even greater reflection reduction. It's probably only on one surface, and is used mostly for marketing purposes.Bokeh: There's just a teeny bit of complexity to the out-of-focus areas at smaller than the maximum aperture that keeps me from saying the bokeh is excellent. I'm not sure where that's coming from, as the lens uses a very well-rounded 9-blade aperture, and there are no real chromatic aberration issues that would cause that. Some of the bokeh complexity may be VR artifacts, as I can see a difference when using VR versus when not using VR. If you need the best Nikon long telephoto zoom, the 180-400mm f/4E is the one to go for. For most of us however the 200-500mm f/5.6E is more than good enough and puts high quality long lens photography within reach. Build wise either 200-400 wins - with a weight penalty around 7.5 pounds with hood compared to the 200-500 at just over 5 pounds. Either lens for birding IMO benefits from a tripod and gimbal. The most recent iteration of this lens was introduced in April 2010. The primary changes that came with the II version were Nano coating, the newer VR motor and features, and the addition of the A/M focus mode. With that out of the way, you can basically consider this a review of both AF-S VR versions (if there’s a difference, I’ll point it out in the review). Indeed, I've pretty much stopped using converters with this lens. Even when I do, I won't use a TC-14E on the old 200-400mm without stopping down a stop, as the lens isn't as tolerant of the old converters as the other Nikon exotic telephotos (on the newer model, I’ll sometimes leave the lens wide open; it seems to tolerate the TC-14E a bit better).

Let’s face it, it’s really all about how great the images are at the maximum aperture on lenses like this.

Build Quality

At 300mm the lens scores 2,851 lines on the same test, showing about the same image quality at f/5.6, and improving to 3,175 lines at f/8. Edge performance is strong—better than 2,500 lines. Image quality is still strong at 400mm. At f/4 it scores 2,947 lines, and is just as good at f/5.6 and f/8. There is a little bit of edge softness and very minor color fringing at the edges of the frame at 400mm f/4 (1,558 lines), but stopping the lens down a little bit yields better results at f/8 (1,646 lines). The focus ring is equally smooth and easy to operate, although I personally never liked its placement on this lens, or its predecessor when shooting hand-held. The thing is, with my left palm landing right in the center of the lens, it partially covers the zoom ring, which can sometimes mess up my focusing if I am not careful. I wish Nikon found a way to move the focus ring closer to the front of the lens, or provide an option to disable it completely (it would be great to get an “AF-only” switch) so that one cannot accidentally override the AF. I think my VR II is better at 400mm than my VR I was, but I think I definitely need to stop down to f5.6 to sharpen it up at the far end of the zoom. Autofocus performance on the 200-500mm f/5.6E is pretty good too, I didn’t have any major complaints and was pretty pleased with my ‘hit rate’.