Topic: Nikon 200-400zoom tele--too much ---alternatives (Read 10253 times)

Raymond Bleesz · « **on:** February 26, 2012, 08:03:53 pm »

For safari type images, the Nikon 200-400 zoom would be perfect, however, at $7000, give or take, it's just too much, way too much, -----however, there would be alternatives which would be, in your opinion?

?

Another Nikor lens of different zooms?

Perhaps a Sigma or Tokina alternative?

a lens from the above with an 1.4 extender
would you stay with Nikon or be tempted to go with a secondary lens, ie Sigma or

?

Curious to know what Nikon users would or have chosen for this type of "monster len"

I would be looking for the best glass for the best price point---all with in reason

Not that I am going to Affrica soon---Raymond

Ellis Vener · « **Reply #1 on:** February 26, 2012, 08:34:29 pm »

Rent one when you need it.

Colorado David · « **Reply #2 on:** February 26, 2012, 08:54:49 pm »

I have one, love it and use it a lot. I have a colleague who swears it was this lens that kept him from switching to Canon.

Raymond Bleesz · « **Reply #3 on:** February 27, 2012, 09:13:51 am »

Ellis--It was nice to see your comments again---at one time I saw your input on forums on a more consistant basis and always thought of them to be sound. Raymond

Ellis Vener · « **Reply #4 on:** February 27, 2012, 12:20:49 pm »

Thank you Raymond.

petermarrek · « **Reply #5 on:** February 27, 2012, 12:29:46 pm »

The 200-400 Nikon is a beast worth having, it works well even with the 1.7 converter, handholding it is a challenge but doable. The next best thing in my opinion would be the 70-200 II with the 1.7 converter. I have both and have gotten great results from them, Peter

Raymond Bleesz · « **Reply #6 on:** February 27, 2012, 07:22:50 pm »

Peter,

Thank you for your post--I was not aware of such a thing as a 1.7 extender---I did mention a 1.4. Can you give a description of the 1.7--the manuf or other info, etc etc etc.
Raymond

Colorado David · « **Reply #7 on:** February 27, 2012, 08:37:48 pm »

I use both the 1.4 and the 2x teleconverter with the 200-400 f/4 lens. I get excellent results with the autofocus with the 1.4. The 2x eats too much light for the autofocus to work dependably, so I touch up the focus manually. I was excited to read that the 2x should focus under most lighting conditions with the D4. One of the advantages of the 200-400 over larger prime super telephotos is that you can use either a regular ball head or the Wimberley Side Kick. I know I'm not answering the original question, but I am sold on this lens. I'd have a hard time deciding to buy a lesser lens to cover this range.

Scott O. · « **Reply #8 on:** February 27, 2012, 10:22:58 pm »

When I was planning an Africa trip, I was either going to rent the 200-400 or use my 70-200 with a 1.7 converter on a D300 (APS-C) sensor. Unfortunately, the trip never happened, but those were my options.

Robert DeCandido PhD · « **Reply #9 on:** February 27, 2012, 10:48:25 pm »

This is a great review of this lens:

http://bythom.com/Nikkor-200-400mm-lensreview.htm

Looks like version 1 is as good as version 2 (the current model).

Used prices are $4k to $5k for version 1 (and rarely version 2 at $4500) on Ebay and FM forums.

rdc/nyc

vampire · « **Reply #10 on:** March 03, 2012, 10:19:18 am »

I did an Africa safari trip 2 years ago and took the 200-400. It's one of the best, most versatile lenses ever made. I would not recommend any other lens for what you want to do. There are two versions, both are excellent. So I would try to find a used version 1 and buy that. That way you save yourself some money and don't have to settle for something less. I had a super clamp to mounted directly to the cross bar of the jeep with a wimberley head and the lens and it was great.

Have fun!

jduncan · « **Reply #11 on:** March 03, 2012, 11:11:16 am »

Hi,

An alternative if you are willing to compromise is the sigma 120-300 f2.8 OS and a Sigma teleconverter.
I don't know why Canon and Nikon are charging that much for glass.

It could be that with so many people that buy a DSLR and believe for that, they become wedding photographers, good glass in the way out.

Also as high iso becomes the norm is harder to justify, for many people, the cost and weight of fast aperture glass.

It could be just been blind to the fact that even Tamron is selling glass with VR, including fast glass that Canon and Nikon never offer with VR, like the new 24-70 from Tamron or the sigma 50-150 f2.8 OS.

Know, Nikon glass have this look and quality to it. Plust the integration camera/lens.

Some nikon glass for me is second in "looks" only to some of the best Leica glass (like the 200mm f2.0 VR).

If you are comfortable working with two bodies, and you want to remain in nikon there is always the 300mm f2.8 VR + TC 20 III and 70-200 f2.8.

Best regards,

James

Jeremy Roussak · « **Reply #12 on:** March 04, 2012, 04:49:16 am »

Quote from: Colorado David on February 26, 2012, 08:54:49 pm

I have one, love it and use it a lot. I have a colleague who swears it was this lens that kept him from switching to Canon.

I seem to recall that a year or so ago, Canon announced a 200-400 zoom with a built-in TC. What happened to it?

Jeremy

qwz · « **Reply #13 on:** March 04, 2012, 02:30:51 pm »

Sigma EX 120-300mm F2.8 +TCs

kitalight · « **Reply #14 on:** March 04, 2012, 08:41:45 pm »

Saw your post today and had just shot some "wildlife" with my 300mm F4.5 MF Nikkor this AM and thought.....

A 2nd body, one with a 200mm and the other with a 300mm would cost a LOT less than the 200-400 zoom....AND on a trip you'll WANT a 2nd body....for backup at least...
I'm not suggesting you go MF (each lens cost about $100....), but even a couple of AF primes + body would be cheaper than the 200-400 zoom....

Here are some fun shots I got today with the 300/4.5 MF Nikkor-H...(on a Canon 30D)

And a couple of 100% crops with 200mm F4 MF Nikkor-AIS just to let you see and imagine what the 200 could do short of that full crop...

and a tight crop, if not 100%....with the lowly 200/F4 Nikkor-Q

Colorado David · « **Reply #15 on:** March 04, 2012, 11:33:15 pm »

Are those turkeys habituated to human presence? Have they been fed? If they're used to humans and tolerate the sound of the shutter reasonably well, where do you live?

kitalight · « **Reply #16 on:** March 05, 2012, 12:04:58 am »

The birds run wild in Riverbend nature park in south Florida...though not fed by humans they stroll and strutt freely and if one is patient they and the other animals will allow themselves to be approached
(...especially the peacocks and peahens that hang around the parking lot...)

...most will let me hang around...well, except for the deer that rubberneck at me as I bike by before high-tailing into the brush....often a result of photogs chasing them rather than circling and letting them be...

Riverbend has 10 miles of hardpan for 2 hours of easy biking....and looking out for animals...and I look for them even as most people just bike and run without looking left or right of the paths....or maybe I'm just lucky...

These sandhill cranes (shot with the 200mm F4 AIS Nikkor) let me take shots for a half-hour before they walked out of the water, right by me so close that I had to step aside to get out of their way and back up to get a shot...

This shot, as well as the above are nearly full frame shots with the 200, so that's how close they let me get...

Here's that osprey by its nest....again near full frame with the 300...and the day was gray, and yet shot/pp at the same settings as the turkeys!

ErikKaffehr · « **Reply #17 on:** March 05, 2012, 12:50:06 am »

+1
Erik

Quote from: Raymond Bleesz on February 27, 2012, 09:13:51 am

Ellis--It was nice to see your comments again---at one time I saw your input on forums on a more consistant basis and always thought of them to be sound. Raymond

kitalight · « **Reply #18 on:** March 05, 2012, 10:18:20 pm »

Quote from: Colorado David on March 04, 2012, 11:33:15 pm

Are those turkeys habituated to human presence? Have they been fed? If they're used to humans and tolerate the sound of the shutter reasonably well, where do you live?

I found this shot....one that I took as I walked a wide birth from behind them to about 60 feet/20 meters in front of them....

Not as "clean" as the others but it shows they were strutting before I got there.....

LesPalenik · « **Reply #19 on:** March 05, 2012, 10:52:08 pm »

Practical, light, and relatively inexpensive solution is to buy Nikon 1 V1 and FT-1 adapter.
A 200mm lens will translate to 540mm effective focal length (in 35mm format). 300mm lens will translate to 810mm.

The image quality is quite respectable and the AF with the adapter is better than the AF with a TC on some APS-sized cameras.

Author Topic: Nikon 200-400zoom tele--too much ---alternatives (Read 10253 times)