Nikon 400mm f2.8 (3 Viewers)

[Chalky W]

Does anyone know anything about this lens model, this is the full title from the lens plaque.

Nikon ED AF-S NIKKOR 400mm 1:2.8 D II

I'd appreciate any feedback if someone has owned or knows the capabilities of this lens. Is it any good for bird photography? Focus speed? Image sharpness? Does it work with a 1.4TC?

Thanks in advance.

 

[Wachtel]

Just check this out: Ken Rockwell review

 

[MichavdB]

Some people would kill for a lens like that. :eek!: Anyway, it's fast, sharp, still provides great images with a the TCE 14 (1.4x extender), and it's HEAVY. Which body are you planning on using it on? Be aware, you'll need a very sturdy tripod and a gimbal head.

Oh, and as far as the Rockwell review, please don't take his advice on the cheap monopod. This lens deserves a good monopod or tripod.

 

[Chalky W]

Just check this out: Ken Rockwell review

Thanks Wachtel, I've already read that one but was after a more practicle wildlife/bird specific review or experiance on this lens. I've searched the net and the exact plaque name doesn't give many results so I just wondered if any one here has had any experiance.

 

[Chalky W]

Some people would kill for a lens like that. :eek!: Anyway, it's fast, sharp, still provides great images with a the TCE 14 (1.4x extender), and it's HEAVY. Which body are you planning on using it on? Be aware, you'll need a very sturdy tripod and a gimbal head.

I have a D300 as a body but no problems with support as I already own a Gitzo 3530 and a Manfrotto 393. The reason I've posted is that I'm looking to move on from the Sigma 500mm f4.5 that I've already got and I'm thinking a Nikon 400mm might be more versatile than it's larger cousins.

 

[Duke Leto]

yep thats my lens so check out my gallery for the images it produces, the one attached was taken with a TC17e-II connected, mounted on a Whimberly MkII head and a Gitzo 3530LS tripod

Its a stonking lens and has fast AF that doesn't flinch when a 1.4TC is on, a tad slower with the 1.7, as mentioned its heavy but I can carry it all day. It has a very short minimum focal distance about 3.5mtrs if I recall so no need for extn tubes.

Ironically I sold my Sigma 500/4.5 to fund the Nikon 400/2.8. Normally I will use it with a 1.4TC that gives me 560mm f4. For birds in flight its great as a pure 400mm lens and is pin sharp wide open.

Only had mine since Nov last year so still in the honeymoon period......

Happy to answer any questions

 

[Chalky W]

yep thats my lens so check out my gallery for the images it produces, the one attached was taken with a TC17e-II connected, mounted on a Whimberly MkII head and a Gitzo 3530LS tripod

Its a stonking lens and has fast AF that doesn't flinch when a 1.4TC is on, a tad slower with the 1.7, as mentioned its heavy but I can carry it all day. It has a very short minimum focal distance about 3.5mtrs if I recall so no need for extn tubes.

Ironically I sold my Sigma 500/4.5 to fund the Nikon 400/2.8. Normally I will use it with a 1.4TC that gives me 560mm f4. For birds in flight its great as a pure 400mm lens and is pin sharp wide open.

Only had mine since Nov last year so still in the honeymoon period......

Happy to answer any questions

Thanks Steve,

I know your work well but I didn't know you used this lens. The lens I've mentioned isn't VR which is where all my net searches have led me so if it is the lens you use then I'm probably convinced by your pics as a very practicle review. Thanks.

Chalky

 

[Duke Leto]

Thanks Steve,

I know your work well but I didn't know you used this lens. The lens I've mentioned isn't VR which is where all my net searches have led me so if it is the lens you use then I'm probably convinced by your pics as a very practicle review. Thanks.

Chalky

My lens in non Vr, I bought it second hand and I do not regret it attached is one taken with a 1.4TC

 

[Helios]

My recommendation would be to try to hold out for the VR version.

With my old manual 500/4 I needed to use a Gitzo 5 series tripod in conjunction with firing off bursts of shots to get something razor sharp. In a hide I would use the camera bag to stabilise the lens, and I could get sharp(ish) shots but the hit rate did drop significantly. I got nothing with balancing the lens on it's foot.

With my new VR version, I can easily get sharp shots with balancing the lens on it's foot and hand-holding. It's great for busy hides like at Minsmere, where using a tripod is difficult or impossible. There were several photographers there this April, all doing the same as me, just balancing the lens on the tripod foot. I believe they were all using Nikon's new VR lenses. At one of my local patches, at Staines reservoires, I can just balance the lens on the railings, whereas with using a tripod, the railings would obscure most of the nearby birds.

I know if you can get the AFSII version for 2k less or more, then it's very tempting, but the saying is that the poor man pays twice. If I had bought mine in late 2008, instead of late 2009, I would have saves more than 1K.

 

[Chalky W]

I know if you can get the AFSII version for 2k less or more, then it's very tempting, but the saying is that the poor man pays twice. If I had bought mine in late 2008, instead of late 2009, I would have saves more than 1K.

Oh how true Helios, but then again the poor man sometimes wishes he had a time machine or could win the lottery. But then again sometimes it's worth a punt knowing it's a foot in the door.

Please point me in the direction of that sub 2K version??

 

[Helios]

Sorry - I wasn't very clear. I meant 2k less than the VR version, which would probably be between £3500 to£4500, depending on condition. I guess a mint AFSII would be around 5K.

You'll do very well to find one for less than 2K!

 

[Duke Leto]

My recommendation would be to try to hold out for the VR version.

With my old manual 500/4 I needed to use a Gitzo 5 series tripod in conjunction with firing off bursts of shots to get something razor sharp. In a hide I would use the camera bag to stabilise the lens, and I could get sharp(ish) shots but the hit rate did drop significantly. I got nothing with balancing the lens on it's foot.

With my new VR version, I can easily get sharp shots with balancing the lens on it's foot and hand-holding. It's great for busy hides like at Minsmere, where using a tripod is difficult or impossible. There were several photographers there this April, all doing the same as me, just balancing the lens on the tripod foot. I believe they were all using Nikon's new VR lenses. At one of my local patches, at Staines reservoires, I can just balance the lens on the railings, whereas with using a tripod, the railings would obscure most of the nearby birds.

I know if you can get the AFSII version for 2k less or more, then it's very tempting, but the saying is that the poor man pays twice. If I had bought mine in late 2008, instead of late 2009, I would have saves more than 1K.

Helios I kinda disagree, if the technique is correct then vr offers fewer benefits unless you are shooting very static birds in poor light or grabbing the odd shot. Since I bought my non vr lens my hit rate has rocketed, my images have improved greatly (viewable in the gallery). Also I regularly shoot with a friend who has a stabilised lens and its always switched off as they find it delays the shot too much.
Agree I did need to rethink my technique as at 1st I questioned the equipment but now I have begun to master the lens I don't consider my choice as a poor mans choice, I consider it as finding a bargain and saving over £3000 on the price of a new lens.

Chalky, I have a beanbag in my backpack that I use in hide, on railings, posts etc, costs around £40.00 worth every penny. Attached is a shot taken on a beanbag from a hide at minsmere is not the best light and a Red Kite from Gigrin Farm taken from a hide

Off topic but when I stopped using the shutter release to trigger AF and moved to the AF-ON button I have found that it suited my big lens technique, at first I missed a few shots by forgetting now its not a problem

Edit - Sorry I wasn't putting Vr down, just saying that if you can find a good buy no Vr and save a shed load it won't spoil your photography..... just checked the price of a vr 400/2.8 and I saved over £3500 compared with new when I bought mine in Oct / Nov 2009 and mine is immaculate condition, fully boxed and included all documents / handbooks, unused strap, both feet and spare drop in filter holder

 

[Helios]

Steve, looks like you got hold of a real bargain. It's difficult to argue for the VR when it's £6500 against £3000. I think around £5000 for a mint copy is more typical though.

I didn't do so well with the beanbag technique with my old lens (probably my fault). For me, the VR is much better. I really was surprised how well it worked. I guess it's horses for courses though.

The "poor man pays twice" is when you really want something, but decide it's a little too pricey, so decide on a comprimise. The comprimise satisfies for a while, but you end up still wanting that something, and end up buying it anyway a year or two down the line.

For example a couple of years ago, the 500/4VR was £4300. I wanted it but was put off by, what I considered at the time, the enormous price. I bought a used 500/4AI-P which is a manual lens for £1500. Last year I sold it for £800, and bought the 500/4VR for £5500 (price increase due to the devaluation of the pound agaist the yen). So playing the poor man, I effectively paid twice.

 

[Duke Leto]

I agree had I no concerns over how much I probably would have plumped for a 600/4vr, inversely when I sold my Sigma 500/4.5 I found that in fact it had gone up in value compared with the price I paid 2 years earlier. effectively costing me only £1500 to upgrade to the Nikon 400/2.8, that was a MAJOR factor, saying that now I've got it I'm glad I took it, and having the lens at the price I paid should hopefully mean a profit or beneficial trade in if I should ever consider getting rid, based on the results I get not very likely......

 

[Dave Williams]

I think there is a big difference in manual focus lenses and VR ones in terms of being user friendly. Personally, with my eye sight I wouldn't like to rely on manual focussing, and for BIF it must be extremely difficult but for many years that's all you could get and people managed. VR on the other hand is not nearly so essential, particularly if you are using a big heavy lens that needs to be tripod mounted so in the Nikon line up that means the 400 and 600mm for sure and probably the 500mm most of the time too. Consequently VR is probably not that necessary so if you can save a large amount by doing without I would. Having said that I have never owned a birding lens without VR so I'm a fine one to talk. I did however base my judgement on sales hype and the latest being the most needed rather than on experience.
As for the 400mm, if it's cheap enough ( or should I say less expensive enough!) to make it a viable buy I'd go for it but you will have many occasions when you wish you had waited for a bigger lens with more reach.I have the 500mm and often think I should have bought the 600mm however the real benefit of a 500mm is the ability to take it on an aircraft as hand luggage. You will struggle with the 400 and 600mm's so if you travel a lot think twice and check out the practicalities.
Depending on what price you are looking at paying, I might be tempted to look for a 300mmf2.8 VR. You loose the reach of the 400mm ( obviously) but you have the same AF speed, bokeh, TC suitability etc but it is very hand holdable so the perfect BIF and walkabout lens. Grays have a mint- condition one for sale at £3495. How much is the 400mm ?
Remember you will need to spend up to £1000 on a suitable tripod and head as well as buying the lens.... oh and a bag to carry it too !
Good luck in the decision, Dave.
By the way, there is a brilliant long lens kit for sale here on BF if you have £4200 to spend, but the Sigma 300-800 is the ultimate monster and you won't be carrying that very far at any time.

 

[JPAC]

Does anyone know anything about this lens model, this is the full title from the lens plaque.

Nikon ED AF-S NIKKOR 400mm 1:2.8 D II

I'd appreciate any feedback if someone has owned or knows the capabilities of this lens. Is it any good for bird photography? Focus speed? Image sharpness? Does it work with a 1.4TC?

Thanks in advance.

The mk II is 360g lighter in weight than the mk I. If you use the TC17 it becomes a 680mm f4.5

 

[Dave Williams]

The mk II is 360g lighter in weight than the mk I. If you use the TC17 it becomes a 680mm f4.5

I think the 1.7TC probably gives you f5.6 , and if it's like the 300f2.8 makes it fairly slow to AF, consequently I wait to be convinced the new 2.0TC is worth buying.

 

[JPAC]

A TC2.0 would be f5.6, the 1.7 loses one and a half stops. AF is fine.

 

[Chalky W]

Well, obviously I've missed a bit of discussion while I've been at work.....

You'll do very well to find one for less than 2K!

Lol.......Helios I was being a little bit sarcastic.....

Chalky, I have a beanbag in my backpack

Steve, all the bases are covered for lens support, as I said before a sturdy tripod, gimble head and a bean bag strapped to my rucksack are all part of my armoury.

How much is the 400mm ?
Remember you will need to spend up to £1000 on a suitable tripod and head as well as buying the lens.... oh and a bag to carry it too !.

Dave, the lens is advertised at £3250 but I'm hoping I could 'negotiate' a bit, and I'm thinking that's a bit of a bargin....I'm already sorted with tripod etc. I'm sure we'd all love the 600mm but that's only after a lottery win for me.

The mk II is 360g lighter in weight than the mk I. If you use the TC17 it becomes a 680mm f4.5..........A TC2.0 would be f5.6, the 1.7 loses one and a half stops. AF is fine.

Thanks Jpac, I guess you have or have had this lens.

I'm with Steve on the VR issue, as I don't have it on my Sigma 500mm and have learnt a few tricks which can deal with that one. VR is fairly new and there are plenty of great photos taken without it, so my view is, if they can do it then so can I.

Having said all that about the 400mm, there is an AF-S 500mm f/4 (again non-VR) for sale at just over 4.5K.

Decisions, decisions.........I'm thinking the 500mm might just be a winner if I can get a good price for my Sigma.

Thanks Guys for all your input.

 

[Duke Leto]

Chalky now you have a real problem a 400/2.8 with a 1.4TC gives you a 560/4 so you get a little more focal length than a standard 500/4, so then the 500/4 adds a 1.4 and they get a 700/5.6. you then add a 1.7 to the 400 and you end up with a 680/4.5 so again 20mm short but half a stop faster and so it goes on. Which ever way you carve it theres no real difference.
So back to my original statement, if I had the money them I would buy a 600/4vr, there's just to little between a 400 and 500 to worry about.

benefits of the 400 are, stunning AF, the shortest focussing distance of the big 3, so probably don't need extn tubes, will take all 3 TC with no issues (am seriously considering the new Mk3 TC20 to give me the possibility of 800/5.6)and in general use mode with a 1.4 gives me a great package of 560/4

Benefits of the 500 are always 100mm longer, lighter and will not need a TC for general use, adding a 1.7 puts it quite a distance over the 400 (unless you have a Mk3) TC20 850/6.3

Both are excellent lenses, so back the price, imagine that Nikon brought out a D400 with noise management on par with a d3s and it cost the same as the difference between a 400/2.8 and a 500/4, now which lens would you buy........

Believe me I had the same thoughts and concerns