Nikon 200 400mm f4 Full Review and Test Part 3 of 3

[@DavidTothill]

I've just sat through all three videos and despite the specialist and technical nature of their content I found myself absorbing, comprehending and enjoying the lot. Your well modulated voice and pronunciation was easy on the ear and the absence of jingles, flashy visuals or matey jokes was a joy. Instant subscribe !

[@jklenses8611]

Very many thanks for taking the time to send in this positive feedback - much appreciated. More Nikon lens videos are under construction and due for release shortly...

[@dominicdgt]

Hi, just watch the full set review for the 200-400mm and have placed an offer on line for a second hand version 1 having seen the detail here, I love the pace and structure of these videos and would urge you to do more, I know how time consuming they are to produce but for me these are 99% better than most of the reviews I watch here on YT, thank you. Dominic.

[@vichu7243]

Thank You for these Three Informative videos,as I have recently purchased this Lens ...thanks again.

[@tedk2814]

great video and information, the best I've come upon , thanks

[@cowboyyoga]

Super review! Thank you for this video! )))

[@jimwlouavl]

Excellent review and well worth the time you (and your viewers) invested. Thank you.

[@blueboy9161]

I sought out these videos as I have the opportunity to buy exactly this lens second hand (unexpectedly). I will now not hesitate. Great videos, clear, informative all round excellent. Great job and thanks.

[@jbleaman]

Your three videos were both engrossing and informative - I watched them more than once to absorb as much as I could.. So, thank you. I recently obtained my 200-400mm and based upon your observations, obtained a very good VR1 at "the right price". I am still, however, a bit confused as I have read conflicting information about whether or not to have VR turned on when using with a tripod (or monopod). Please share your thoughts on this subject. Thank you.

[@Skytalker777]

Excellent presentations, I mean all 3 episodes. Thank you.

[@quickwateroutdoors7301]

Outstanding review. Thank you!

[@ninoliberatore1491]

THANKYOU THESE REVIEWS WERE EXCELLENT -- I BOUGHT ONE !!!

[@petrvokurek2286]

Let me tell you this is one best and most thorough reviews I´ve ever encountered. Not that it would clearly indicate I can get rid of my 300mm f4 af-s + 200-500mm f5,6...but I certainly know much more about the lens. Btw, did you say the 300mm af-s f4 was slightly "inferior" to the zoom? Because I find it truely excellent and avoid using the 200-500 f5,6 as much as I can to use the 300mm f4 :) My thinking was to replace both of the lenses with the 200-400mm f4 VR...maybe someone can comment on this...I use the lenses for wildlífe on a Nikon D500...Huge thanks!

[@daviddowling9830]

Just purchased the VR 1 version,based on your review, $2000.00 out the door,thank you.

[@MadCraig555]

I just watched all three of your video reviews on the Nikon 200-400. It was the most professional review of any lens i've seen on you tube. A very well done and thanks.
One question I do have is, where do you start looking for second hand lenses?
Some of the second hand prices on ebay are almost the same as new and few and far between.

[@jklenses8611]

Many thanks for taking the time to provide the positive comments.
In terms of finding secondhand lenses, I almost always use Grays of Westminster (www.graysofwestminster.co.uk) They generally have a pretty big stock of secondhand Nikon lenses at very fair prices. I’ve bought quite a few Mint or Excellent condition lenses from them over the years and have never been able to tell the lens from a new one. Their mail order service is excellent and their knowledge of Nikon cameras and lenses is pretty much unparalleled. I would happily buy anything off their website list with complete confidence.
A lot of lenses on eBay are actually priced quite highly so you do have to spend a bit of time rummaging to find any bargains. You also don’t have the complete confidence when you buy which you would get from somewhere like Grays, so you also need to be careful. There also seem to be quite a few lenses listed at apparently low prices from Hong Kong sellers which don’t work out quite so well when you add in the 20% VAT/duty which you will pay when they enter the UK. I’ve only ever bought a couple of lenses from eBay - coincidentally the 200-400 being one of them.
Current model SLR lenses are generally products which depreciate quite slowly which is why secondhand lenses in mint condition can often command prices quite close to the new one. The reduction in price from buying used only comes when a new model of a lens is released, e.g. buying an AF-D lens when the AF-S version is released etc. If you’re happy to always buy the ‘version before last’ of a lens then you can save quite a bit of money, if you can live without the latest features. For example, an AF-D 85mm f1.4 can be had for a great deal less than the latest (overpriced) AF-S version. As long as you can cope with the slightly slower focusing speed, then you’re getting very similar optical quality for a lot less money. Grays of Westminster can be really useful here as they have good stocks of many of the no longer current Nikon lenses.
Hope this is helpful!
JK

[@Bradhunter33]

Great review. after sifting through a handful of reviews for this lens, I found yours and watched all 3. I now feel very well informed about this lens. I may rent it or test out a couple tele's for my 70-200..

[@tomhughes5123]

thanks for the very in depth series covering this lens , iv swayed away from the 200-500. and have come across the 200-400f4 vr( first version) thanks very much £1700 is decent for this lens with original packaging

[@jklenses8611]

Bargain! :-)

[@tomhughes5123]

after watching your videos , it certainly seems so .. i buy all my gear from park cameras so yes ..and thanks again

[@faermtb]

@@tomhughes5123 what made you sway away from the 200-500mm? Seeing I can get the 200-400mm f4 for roughly the same price second hand has got me thinking now - any the internal zoom is tempting

[@southbridgeforestHOA]

Nikon will no longer service the 200-400 version 1, but there are 3rd party shops that will. Kind of a dumb policy since parts are still available for it. seems like the AF motor failing is the most common issue!

[@TheForge10]

Yep optically there is bugger all difference between the newer 200-400 and the older 200-400 (2003 to 2010). Im considering a used 200-400mm F4 ED VR1 for $3800 used.

[@helthuismartin]

I bought the VR 1 type model for 2600 Euros

[@Soundarts]

good review, thanks :-) lots of good info on several lenses. very useful

[@enzosays1626]

Hello, congratulation for these three videos, very well paced and very instructive, with a touch of humor in it with these dangerous sheep :) we feel in your comment experience from the field. great job, thank you.

[@jklenses8611]

Thanks for watching..! :-)

[@chrisogrady28]

I wish Nikon made a low (as possible) modern 400mm f/4.
I'm looking for a more affordable alternative to a 500 f/4 for wildlife.
Looks like the 300mm f/4 is the closest I'm going to get.

[@chrisogrady28]

* low as possible element count

[@mirastudio4204]

I would love to see how this lens size compares with other lenses.

[@jklenses8611]

There's a side by side shot of it with other lenses at this focal length in my review of the 200-500 f5.6...

[@racdba]

Your review was awesome... very informative and extremely objective. I liked your suggestions on how to objectively evaluate what you need out of a lens, ZOOM vs PRIME for long telephotos (along with VR/VRII, Nano Crystal etc..). Will it be possible for you to comment on camera bodies specifically around crop and shooting rate?I own D7100 and 55-300mm VR... did some sports photography for cricket, I can do it handheld and is of course entry level gear.. I am not a pro. If possible please comment on Sigma 120-300mm f2.8.

[@jklenses8611]

Many thanks for your positive comments. I’m not sure that I can be a great deal of help to you on some of your questions but I’ll have a go with a couple of them… J
I probably won’t be producing many review of camera bodies on this channel. This is for two reasons.
Firstly, the quality of the lens is so much more important than the camera body in determining the quality of the final output. The current crop of DX bodies are now so good that they are unlikely to have any limiting effect on the final image. For example, put a cheap low-quality zoom lens on a D800 and it will simply show you all the distortions and flaws with the lens. Your Nikon D7100 is a great example of this - it is more than capable of producing awesome A3 shots of cricket etc when equipped with the right lens. With a great lens attached my D70s from nearly 10 years ago could do this too!
Secondly, I don’t have many bodies to review! I own a D3s and recently picked up a second-hand D7000. I have used a D800 for a week or two and used to own a D200 and D70s.
Most importantly, your D7100 is more than capable of meeting your needs as you are not a pro producing pics for advertising hoardings! 6fps sounds fine for most motor sports so should be fine for cricket.
On the question of the best lens for shooting cricket (presumably in the UK’s poor weather), I would raise two points.
Firstly, you might still want to think about whether you want a zoom or a prime lens. Photographing batter and bowler is pretty classic prime lens territory as they are generally in highly predictable positions when doing their thing (releasing the ball or hitting the ball). A prime lens would give you the maximum aperture and optical quality for your money and could work by pre-focusing on the important point on the pitch and then ‘spraying and praying’ as they pass through it.
However, if you’re after shots of amazing catches way out near the boundary then this will require a (very) long zoom and a very good gimbal mount so that you can be on the action straight away.
I think I’m right in saying that many sporting magazines who cover baseball in the US often send a couple of guys with prime lenses to shoot he pitcher and hitter all afternoon while a couple of other guys take the outfield with long zooms….which way do you want to go?
Secondly, my very strong recommendation for shooting cricket with a DX body would be the 70-200 f2.8 VR I lens second-and. I’m pretty confident you will absolutely love it right from the word go and it will get the job done at any cricket match as it’s effectively a 105-300 f2.8 on a D7100. The optical quality of the lens is as close to prime lens quality as any zoom which Nikon make and it will deliver great shots handheld or pre-focused and on a tripod/monopod.
If you find it a wee bit short then the Nikon 1.4x teleconverter has next to no effect on the optical performance and gets you to an effective 150-420 f4.
A new VR II version will be very slightly better but the most cost effective solution would be a MINT or EXC used one from somewhere reputable like Grays of Westminster (www.graysofwestminster.co.uk). I’ve bought quite a few used lenses from them over the years and honestly have never been able to tell them from new. Their service is outstanding, they do a great mail order service and will take your 55-300 (which you will never use again once you pick up a 70-200 f2.8) in part-exchange. You don’t mention a budget but that would be my most cost-effective recommendation. I checked their website and they have several 70-200s at around £1250. I think these are about the best value Nikon glass available anywhere…
(I took F1 and Superbike pics for ages with this lens and a D200 body and they were great - examples to appear in a 70-200 review video in the future). Your D7100 will love the 70-200!
By the way, I’d like to point out that I receive no commission from Grays of Westminster! J
I don’t have much experience of recent Sigma lenses apart from owning a 150-500 f5-6.3 some years ago. This was easily the worst lens I have ever owned by a long way and was a disaster for motorsport and pretty much everything else I tried it on.
The 120-300/2.8 looks to be better but it seems to cost nearly £3000 which I don’t really understand. If you’re really determined to spend £3000 then my thoughts would be:
Second-hand Nikon 300/2.8 - present on the touchline of most sporting events.
Second-hand Nikon 200/2 - set it at f2, pre- focus it on the crease and set the D7100 on Continuous High as the bowler/batter passes through your plane of focus. Resulting pics will be about the best it’s possible to get in terms of isolating the subject.
Conversely, if money is tight, I noticed that Grays have a couple of the older non-AF-S 300/f4 lenses. If you pre-focus them on the crease so that AF speed isn’t an issue, then they give great optical quality and isolation for about £500.
Apologies if the above is a bit patchy but hopefully there’s something useful in there.
Best wishes - JK

[@racdba]

JKLenses Thank you for a comprehensive reply. I was not thinking about 70-200mm.. but now I will seriously consider it.

[@jorisnirelli8634]

Bonjour, merci !
De quelle année date t il ?

[@TheGreatLoco]

Selon Ken Rockwell, le Nikon 200-400mm 4.0G VR a été produit de 2003 à 2010. Après de 2010, Nikon a remplacé cette lentille avec la version II, qu’a été amélioré marginalement.