Comments on: Nikon 200-400 VR + 1.4x TC review

By: Salem

Salem — Sat, 25 Dec 2010 13:14:04 +0000

i didn’t acquire them to own both

its a trade with somebody then i got both lenses with very nice price!!
thats why i took both to decide later which 1 is better to use and sell the other for cash saving

you said the prime is sharper than 200-400 , yeah but its old version

hmmm as i read the Nikkor 14-24 is sharper than Nikkor 14 prime lens ( that doesn’t mean ZOOM sharper than PRIME ,,
i know prime is sharper than zoom if compared to the same year of manufacturing

but my 500mm is AF-S I which made before 2000 and the 200-400 made in 2003

really confused

here are my both lenses on a forum to sell 1 of them can you check the 500mm please !! to see if u already use it or so
http://www.friendsoflight.com/forum/showthread.php?t=48056

Thanks so much

By: Salem

Salem — Sat, 25 Dec 2010 13:02:01 +0000

Thanks, Richard

By: LOU

LOU — Fri, 24 Dec 2010 23:40:45 +0000

Don’t know why you’re selling, but if it’s mainly to raise cash the 200-400 will likely be more marketable. Example: I was able to sell my 200-400 last year for more than I paid originally five years earlier. Non-VR telephotos have largely lost the interest of the second-hand market. The 300 AF-S w/out VR, for example, has plummeted in value. Nobody much desires a long prime, like a 500, without VR these days, especially when it is hand-holdable. You may not shoot this way, but many do, because they can with VR.

Questions you may want to ask yourself: Which lens do you use more? Why did you acquire each of them initially? The 200-400 is better (sharper) at close range than it is at longer distance. Telephoto primes perform better (in focusing & sharpness) w/TC’s and at distance than the 200-400.

By: Richard Peters

Richard Peters — Fri, 24 Dec 2010 21:40:19 +0000

Hi Salem. I’m a bit confused here to be honest as you’re asking me which lens is better…but…as you own both of the lenses you are trying to decide between you are probably in a better postition than me to say which is the best? The 200-400 is very very sharp for a zoom lens but the 500mm will handle the 1.4x much better. I’ve no experience of the old 500 AFS though. As I said, because you own both lenses the best thing to do is take some test shots and compare yourself and see which one you are happiest with.

By: Salem

Salem — Fri, 24 Dec 2010 21:21:19 +0000

Hi Richard ,

I am so confused of choosing between 200-400 VR I and 500mm AF-S I

i have both need to sell one ,,,

- which one is better with TC-14E ( sharping , quality ) ???
- Which one is sharper , better quality ?

is the VR a big issue , i am not shooting handheld in both lenses

as i read the 200-400 has more ED elements more than 500mm AF-S I

Please advise me ….

By: Gaurav Bhatnagar

Gaurav Bhatnagar — Mon, 11 Oct 2010 05:56:52 +0000

Hi Richard, Thanks for putting up your review of the lens. It made me go for this heavy purchase. To be really honest, after an initial disappointment wrt the weight and sharpness of the lens, I finally got to grips with the monster. Mostly softness was a combination of bad settings or bad shooting technique. After spending much time with it, I have to say I have improved and am loving the versatility this lens offers. I was also curious about the performance of the lens with the TC-14E. I got a chance this weekend and here are some pictures from it. But I really think if you are using a TC-14E, use it like a 550mm f/8 lens, the results will be very good. Some sample shots here and here. Regards and thanks Gaurav

By: JayKay

JayKay — Fri, 02 Apr 2010 20:27:07 +0000

I find that the struggle to stay focussed as can be seen by the green dot blinking is often cured by simply switching VR off when using the D300. No such problem with the D3 though.

By: LOU

LOU — Fri, 01 Jan 2010 17:31:16 +0000

Not prissy; just practical. I’ve used all the Nikkor TC’s – off & on – for years. I currently own none, but would consider only the 1.4 in the future. I’ve even shot in a sandstorm on more than one occasion. Anyway, your comments don’t add much substance to the discussion, so I’ll add this:

1. TC’s always impair autofocus speed/acquisition.
2. TC’s always work best with 2.8 & larger maximum aperture.
3. TC’s always a compromise, but cost effective.
4. More focal length is useless if you can’t focus the shot, or can’t achieve adequate resolution.
5. Where most “pros” (I consider myself of this group) use a TC:
A 1.4 on a 400 2.8; a 1.4/1.7 on a 70-200 2.8; any of the TC’s on a 300 2.8; A 1.4 on the 500/600 4.

So, if you have these lenses, a TC can make a useful companion. I’ve used a TC 1.7 on the 200-400, and didn’t care for the downside. The 1.4 may be adequate, but each shooter different.

Conclusion: Better to use a long lens on a DX body if it’s reach you need, and noise issues not elevated (i.e., you have enough light to shoot action at max. ISO 1250). The 200-400 on DX an excellent overall long-lens compromise to fiddling with TC’s.

By: Smertnik

Smertnik — Fri, 01 Jan 2010 13:45:18 +0000

Lou, TC’s are perfectly usable, just don’t try and attach one outside during a sandstorm.

Some people are so damned prissy about their gear its a wonder that they ever take any photos at all.

By: Troy

Troy — Mon, 21 Dec 2009 02:03:39 +0000

Richard,

Thank you for this review. I have this lens and 1.7x, absolutely hate the combo. Got to get 1.4x soon.