Nikon 200-400mm f/4G VR

Discussion in 'Nikon' started by JimmyG, Oct 28, 2005.

  1. JimmyG

    JimmyG Guest

    I'm considering buying this lens, however am very hesitant as it is a zoom.
    I would like to hear from somebody who has compared this lens at 400mm to
    say, a 400 2.8 or other fixed focal length.

    Thanks much.
     
    JimmyG, Oct 28, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. JimmyG

    Mark² Guest

    The zoom ratio on that lens is very small (only 1:2), so there's every
    reason to believe that it wouldn't be all that compromised...-Especially
    when it's "wide" is way up at 200mm.

    I wish Canon would release a lens of this range...perhaps instead of (or in
    addition to) the more compromised 1:4 zoom ratio of their 100-400 IS.
     
    Mark², Oct 28, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. JimmyG

    Skip M Guest

    Yeah, sure, Mark, so we can have a lens collection that looks like:
    16-35 f2.8L
    24-70 f2.8L
    24-105 f4L IS
    70-200 f2.8L IS
    200-400 f4L IS
    And then include the:
    100-400 f4.5-5.6L IS
    Because you just never know when you need that overlap...
    My AmEx cringes at the thought...even if I do already own 4 of them! ;-)
    BTW, I found the USB cord...
     
    Skip M, Oct 28, 2005
    #3
  4. JimmyG

    Mark² Guest

    Great! (about the cord).
    -I'll have you know that I crawled through my attic...dug through boxes, and
    made every effort to find it for you...but without any luck. Do I still get
    credit for trying?
    I must have sent it with the rest of the rubble that was left of my poor
    D30.

    Seriously, though, if Canon came out with a 200-400 f4 IS, I'd snap it up in
    a jiffy (my credit card be danged).
    I sold my 100-400 IS and sometimes miss it...but a faster, sharper, less
    compromised 200-400 would be great, and makes perfect sense in their line-up
    as you show above. Some overlap is good--especially at the mid-range (which
    I'm discovering with my 24-70...-always leaves me wishing for a few more mm
    on the long end...-Used to my old 28-135).
    Sheesh.

    Oh, wait!
    We can't talk like this lest Dallas' imagined bubble of supposed anti-Nikon
    religion be burst.
    -Heaven forbid we should BOTH be noting the good idea Nikon had of offering
    a 200-400.
    Actually...No matter...since he'll likely pretend you and I never had this
    exchange.
    :)
     
    Mark², Oct 28, 2005
    #4
  5. JimmyG

    Matt Clara Guest

    Really? Even at $5000? http://tinyurl.com/8mjj2
     
    Matt Clara, Oct 28, 2005
    #5
  6. JimmyG

    Mark² Guest

    Oh dear!
    :)
    Didn't realise it was that high...yipe.
    Still...it might keep me from drooling over the 400mm 2.8 IS L with it's
    even higher price tag.
    If a 200-400 alternative was as sharp as the 70-200 2.8 IS L, I'd put up
    with the f4 aperture in trade for the amazing usefulness of the zoom range
    over the fixed 400. For me, it would be the near-perfect wildlife lens.

    OTOH...I won't be shelling out 5K for anything at this particular moment...
    :(
    Thanks for the price-check, though, Matt.
    :)
     
    Mark², Oct 28, 2005
    #6
  7. glad to see this as i now see the pattern... you just spew stuff off as you
    feel like it without regard to the original question. perhaps you missed
    the op words "I would like to hear from somebody who has compared this
    lens..."
     
    Christopher Muto, Oct 28, 2005
    #7
  8. Christopher Muto, Oct 28, 2005
    #8
  9. JimmyG

    Mark² Guest

    What the heck is your problem, Chris?
    If you want to live in a tunnel-vision world, go right ahead...
    As for me, -It's a big world, with lots of ideas worth thinking about. Out
    of these little diversions come conversation. Topics come up here all the
    time that branch off into other directions, heaven forbid.
    Did you notice that Skip responded to my post as a non-moron?
    Learn from Skip.
    Tunnel-vision is great if all you want to see a pin-hole world.
     
    Mark², Oct 28, 2005
    #9
  10. JimmyG

    JimmyG Guest

    Thank you!
     
    JimmyG, Oct 28, 2005
    #10
  11. JimmyG

    JimmyG Guest

    Thanks again VERY much. This was extremely helpful.
     
    JimmyG, Oct 28, 2005
    #11
  12. JimmyG

    DD (Rox) Guest

    Oh look! A juicy bit of fish!

    Wait! What's this? A piece of steel in the hook? And...and...oh
    dear...some nylon line too. It leads up to something bobbing around the
    top. A cork???
     
    DD (Rox), Oct 28, 2005
    #12
  13. JimmyG

    Mark² Guest

    Dallas,
    I think it's time I put you in the klink file.
    When you change your name for the umpteenth time, I'm sure I'll give you
    another look, but for now...you'll have to get through life without me. I
    hope you can bear it... Happy shooting, and I'll see you on your next
    alias.
    Take care,
    -Mark
     
    Mark², Oct 28, 2005
    #13
  14. JimmyG

    DD (Rox) Guest

    Thanks for posting that link. I am also looking at getting this lens. I
    might be shooting the A1GP here in Durban come January and this would
    definitely be the right lens for it.
     
    DD (Rox), Oct 28, 2005
    #14
  15. JimmyG

    DD (Rox) Guest

    What a prat. You bait me and then you killfile me for not responding in
    the manner you designed your inflammatory little anecdote to elicit.

    Well, I'll be sure to let you know well in advance the next time I
    change my handle. That way you can continue to exclude me from your "big
    wide world with lots of ideas worth thinking about".
     
    DD (Rox), Oct 28, 2005
    #15
  16. JimmyG

    Skip M Guest

    Sure, you get credit for the attempt!
    That's where the new 24-105 f4L IS comes in handy, if Canon ever gets the
    bugs out of it and gets it to market...
    Actually, I was thinking that the new Nikon 18-200VR lens was a great thing
    for Nikon, too, and something Canon should have for the guys who are
    disappointed in the DSLR zoom ranges compared to compacts. Not my cup of
    tea, so to speak, but there should be a great market for that lens and the
    D50, and there could be one for Canon, too, with the 350D. Image quality
    should be superior in a low level DSLR and a 26-300mm equivalent lens
    compared to a compact with a 35-400 or so equivalent.
    But you're right, Dallas would never believe you and I have anything
    positive to say about Nikon, he'll just thing the headers are spoofed! <G>
     
    Skip M, Oct 28, 2005
    #16
  17. JimmyG

    Skip M Guest

    Yikes!! I was thinking it was in the range of $2000, not $5000. For that, I
    could get a 200mm f2.8L, 300mm f4L IS, and 400mm f5.6L. That averages out
    to f4, doesn't it? <G>
     
    Skip M, Oct 28, 2005
    #17
  18. JimmyG

    Skip M Guest

    What, we're not allowed to discuss what was said? Is the post so sacrosanct
    that only those who have actually compared two very esoteric and expensive
    lenses are allowed to comment? Is your post pertinent to the subject?
    Don't you think it would be up to the original poster to take Mark to task,
    if he has an objection?
     
    Skip M, Oct 28, 2005
    #18
  19. JimmyG

    Matt Clara Guest

    The problem is the lens is so expensive I've yet to meet anyone on the net
    or elsewhere who owns one, and that's why none of us can respond directly to
    your questions. I believe it's a stellar performer, and at that price (5k
    US), if it's not, I'd certainly return it.
     
    Matt Clara, Oct 28, 2005
    #19
  20. JimmyG

    JimmyG Guest

    I just ordered one. I'll drop a line about it's performance.
     
    JimmyG, Oct 30, 2005
    #20
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.