I own the lens and use it for motor racing with a D4 body and I'm super happy with the results. The real advantage is that when the cars are half a mile down the track, you can get acceptable pictures of the action, but when 15 seconds later they are going round a corner just 50 yards away from you, zoom out to 200 and you get a wonderful frame filling shot also. And of course it's good for everything in between. With a fixed 400mm, there's only one or two positions on the track where you fill the frame, and many times you will miss shots when the action moves closer to you unless you're carrying a 70-200mm on a second body. What's more, I find the 200-400mm at the very limit of hand holding capability while the 400mm f2.8 (a full kilo heavier) is impossibly big and heavy. if you are using a D4/D4s outside, it can cope with the ISO bump of losing a stop, and for the weight/size trade off (as well as a couple of thousand bucks in your pocket also), walk a mile with this on your back to your shooting location and then you'll be very pleased you chose the 'smaller' option. Unless you are a top pro in your field (wildlife/sports) shooting for magazines where a stop might mean the difference between making the front cover or not, I struggle to see how you'd be disappointed with this lens. At the race track, I have never seriously wished I had the 400mm 2.8 on my camera instead, but I know that all those great shots taken when I zoomed out to 200mm when the action got close, had I been fixed at 400m I would have been cussing like sailor.
I own this lens. It's heavy, so use a monopod. Needed it to shoot helicopters in Iraq when deployed where you can't move around to reposition, and the subjects (helos) can be anywhere at any given time. Fast focus. Used a 1.4 teleconverter at times as well. The variable zoom adjustability is what your planning on when going for a 200-400mm lens like this. If your a dedicated shooter of static images then you probably look at fixed lenses at 400 and above. I also use this lens to shoot portraits, yes portraits. I'm more of a compression vs bokeh effect person. I'm looking to see the performance using a DX camera such as the D500. Can't find a review yet pairing this lens with a D500 or similar DX camera.
Hi, I'm about to get this lens for my D850. I wonder how it works with the 1.4 iii teleconverter, in case you used that one. Probably much better than cropping to DX I guess?
@@MMB.__ I always used my Nikon 200-400mm F4 with either the 1.5 or 1.7 adapter as needed, and kept it on most the the time, but took it off when subject matter dictated. You loose an F Stop from F.4 to F5.6, or F6.3 I forget. But the increase in zoom reach for framing was worth it and a good trade off. F4 had great bokeh especially at 400mm - you can create magical portraits. But at that range of focus the zoom compression is great. I shot from one helicopter down to another one below, and the Baghdad city was beautifully compressed as a background. The lens was built like a tank and didn't flinch with razor sharp and insanely responsive autofocus. You can put any compatible body (with an adapter as well for other makers). At the time It was unimaginable to spend that much for a lens. I never talked about it, because if your not the photographer they didnt understand. But, an equivalent zoom lens you can get such as the 18-200, 250mm nikons for under $1k may give you the reach but the F Stop will vary from 5.6 - 6.3 as you zoom. The $7k 200-400mm is a fixed stop at F4 (adjustable of course up to F22? I recall). So that is what you paying for, and completely enjoy in the end results. Just take a ton of photos and make the lens pay gor itself so 7000 photos cost $1 each, etc. Remember, use it for portraits too. Just stand way back. The only regret I have with the lens is having to sell it later when my photography tempo ramped down. I always advise people to buy gear you need to get you what your shooting for.I needed variable zoom for the subject matter. Durability weatherization inside and out.
Re: Jared's comment: "I just feel that it wasn't as sharp as I wanted it to be..." I have downloaded the photos, and did pixel peeping :) I think Jared forgot to fine tune the lens. In few photos you can clearly see that focus area is in front of the player. See 100% crops of first and last image from Jared's ZIP file: www.dropbox.com/s/6phhqxjzqv0v2l3/200-400.JPG?dl=0 www.dropbox.com/s/2hbwaqbc2ap3uud/200-400-2.JPG?dl=0 So this might be a photographer mistake or the more likely this is AF Fine Tune issue. I think this lens is very sharp even at f/4.
Jared Polin I wonder how much it is costing the company to make the lens. I don't see teardowns and BOM estimates for lenses, but in many other areas, e.g., enterprise equipment, you may see a $3000 switch with a teardown revealing an estimated BOM+ manufacturing cost of about $300-400 for example here is an archive of teardowns and build costs electronics360.globalspec.com/teardowns/archive the closer it gets to pro level items, the larger the profit margin for the company gets
Razor2048 The problem with tech is that you are not only paying for the hardware, but the software, labour costs, everything that makes (in this case) it more than a polycarbonate barrel of glass, computer chips, and motors.
Daniel Pryce many of the teardowns take into account those costs. the only major cost that is not taken into account because the companies do not release that info, is the research and development. If an item is being sold at a profit, then it will eventually cover the research and development For example, for the first few months, the PS4 did not turn a profit, but eventually it sold enough to cover the R&D, and now is very profitable for sony. It is hard to tell for lenses since these companies don't seem to deal with lenses for DSLR's (at most they cover cellphone cameras), but I feel that companies like Nikon are making astronomical profit margins on their lenses.
that ammount of vignetting iat 400mm......... I don't think it's worth this price. sigma makes a more interesting 120-300mm f2.8. add a 1.4 teleconverter and you will get about the same reach and speed for far less money.
Hey Jared - do you think the 300mm f2.8 with the 1.4x tele on it would be sharper than this lens? That way you can get stunning results at 300mm and can still reach 420mm at F4 if you really need it. Thanks for the review.
JARED Do you always lightroom for your pro work or photoshop ? because i use lightroom and its fitting my needs..so i was just curious to know what do you recommend.. are there any main features in photoshop that is really needed that dont exist in LR
Lightroom is good for editing a large amount of photos, Photoshop is a great program, but it doesn't make sense when you need to go through 1500 files.
Well considering Canons new 200-400mm F/4 w/ x 1.4 Teleconverter is $11,000.. All you have to do is add the new Nikon x 1.4 Teleconverter on which cost $500 and the price tag seems reasonable.
I would love to see this compared to say a Tamron 150-600 @ 400mm Meanwhile I'd also like to just say that I enjoyed quite a few of those baseball pics. No clue about the sport, but I enjoyed them visually.
DBRMatrix using it on a DX should kill off the vignetting. And give you more reach. A D500 with this lens should actually be a pretty good combo for wildlife and maybe sports
Hey Jared, you mention that Borrowlenses.com provided you with the lens for a few weeks then you make the title of the video a question of whether it's worth $6,800. You do spend a lot of time talking about the quality of the lens but I think the premise should have been whether it's worth it to rent the lens as that's what most of your viewers could afford.
For me it's probably not worth it. For what I shoot this lens is too heavy and way too expensive. The maximum that I have right now is 200mm and I am happy with that. I may buy a tele converter later on (probably just 1.4x though) and then I'm good. If I had that money I'd probably get a D800 as an upgrade from DX to FX and a decent wide angle lens.
It would have to be 2.8 for me to part with 7k+. I mean, if I were to use this lens, given my type of work, it would be inside, where I would need a maximum amount of light to come in.
Hey jared, How about you try to shoot for a Couple days with a leica!? I'm thinking about buying one and would like to see how a person, that never used one can handle it. Keep up the great work Leo
I am a beginner photographer and I was wondering what lens is best for macro and wide angle pictures? I have two lenses right now and I want to expand my equipment. I usually just take pictures of nature but I just got into taking pictures of people so your help would be appreciated!! Thanks!!
Is there really a $4000 manufacturing process difference at the factory between F4 and F2.8? I would love for a cheap "KIA-Like" company to come along and start making lenses much cheaper at 90% of the quality.
The big difference is the quality of the glass used and it's also much larger. Glass making isn't an exact science and if the it doesn't meet the standards of the company, it gets thrown away (also being larger means it is harder to meet that standard of quality across the entire frame). There's also the fact that not as many people will buy it --> not as many are made --> profit margin needs to be bigger per lens.
No, that's actually a little slow in my book. And shooting fast moving musicians at 200th of a second means they probably were not moving very fast. If you want to freeze a ball being hit or tossed or a bad swinging you need fast shutter speeds.
ThaTyger 1/200th is really only good if something is basically completely still imo. But if you're shooting 400+mm, you need a tripod/monopod then in my opinion. I shoot wildlife 90% of the time, and even if a bird is sitting almost totally still, wind and other factors can introduce vibration and ruin sharpness. 1/250th is my bare minimum when I go out. Really I need at least 1/500th or greater to start to freeze movement. But then again, birds are traveling way faster than people usually.
I own the lens and use it for motor racing with a D4 body and I'm super happy with the results. The real advantage is that when the cars are half a mile down the track, you can get acceptable pictures of the action, but when 15 seconds later they are going round a corner just 50 yards away from you, zoom out to 200 and you get a wonderful frame filling shot also. And of course it's good for everything in between. With a fixed 400mm, there's only one or two positions on the track where you fill the frame, and many times you will miss shots when the action moves closer to you unless you're carrying a 70-200mm on a second body.
What's more, I find the 200-400mm at the very limit of hand holding capability while the 400mm f2.8 (a full kilo heavier) is impossibly big and heavy. if you are using a D4/D4s outside, it can cope with the ISO bump of losing a stop, and for the weight/size trade off (as well as a couple of thousand bucks in your pocket also), walk a mile with this on your back to your shooting location and then you'll be very pleased you chose the 'smaller' option.
Unless you are a top pro in your field (wildlife/sports) shooting for magazines where a stop might mean the difference between making the front cover or not, I struggle to see how you'd be disappointed with this lens. At the race track, I have never seriously wished I had the 400mm 2.8 on my camera instead, but I know that all those great shots taken when I zoomed out to 200mm when the action got close, had I been fixed at 400m I would have been cussing like sailor.
Your right,Ive got this lens too.Its the best option.This stupid moron doesnt now what this lens its made for.
@@helthuismartin wow, sensitive much? The review wasn't even negative lol
Atleast it looks sharper then my canon 18-55 kit lens
I own this lens. It's heavy, so use a monopod. Needed it to shoot helicopters in Iraq when deployed where you can't move around to reposition, and the subjects (helos) can be anywhere at any given time. Fast focus. Used a 1.4 teleconverter at times as well. The variable zoom adjustability is what your planning on when going for a 200-400mm lens like this. If your a dedicated shooter of static images then you probably look at fixed lenses at 400 and above.
I also use this lens to shoot portraits, yes portraits. I'm more of a compression vs bokeh effect person. I'm looking to see the performance using a DX camera such as the D500. Can't find a review yet pairing this lens with a D500 or similar DX camera.
Hi, I'm about to get this lens for my D850. I wonder how it works with the 1.4 iii teleconverter, in case you used that one. Probably much better than cropping to DX I guess?
@@MMB.__ I always used my Nikon 200-400mm F4 with either the 1.5 or 1.7 adapter as needed, and kept it on most the the time, but took it off when subject matter dictated.
You loose an F Stop from F.4 to F5.6, or F6.3 I forget. But the increase in zoom reach for framing was worth it and a good trade off.
F4 had great bokeh especially at 400mm - you can create magical portraits.
But at that range of focus the zoom compression is great.
I shot from one helicopter down to another one below, and the Baghdad city was beautifully compressed as a background.
The lens was built like a tank and didn't flinch with razor sharp and insanely responsive autofocus.
You can put any compatible body (with an adapter as well for other makers).
At the time It was unimaginable to spend that much for a lens.
I never talked about it, because if your not the photographer they didnt understand.
But, an equivalent zoom lens you can get such as the 18-200, 250mm nikons for under $1k may give you the reach but the F Stop will vary from 5.6 - 6.3 as you zoom.
The $7k 200-400mm is a fixed stop at F4 (adjustable of course up to F22? I recall). So that is what you paying for, and completely enjoy in the end results.
Just take a ton of photos and make the lens pay gor itself so 7000 photos cost $1 each, etc.
Remember, use it for portraits too. Just stand way back.
The only regret I have with the lens is having to sell it later when my photography tempo ramped down.
I always advise people to buy gear you need to get you what your shooting for.I needed variable zoom for the subject matter. Durability weatherization inside and out.
Re: Jared's comment: "I just feel that it wasn't as sharp as I wanted it to be..."
I have downloaded the photos, and did pixel peeping :) I think Jared forgot to fine tune the lens. In few photos you can clearly see that focus area is in front of the player. See 100% crops of first and last image from Jared's ZIP file: www.dropbox.com/s/6phhqxjzqv0v2l3/200-400.JPG?dl=0 www.dropbox.com/s/2hbwaqbc2ap3uud/200-400-2.JPG?dl=0
So this might be a photographer mistake or the more likely this is AF Fine Tune issue. I think this lens is very sharp even at f/4.
Why cant nikon drop the price to $500 and then sell 67 times more of the lens?
It probably costs them more than $500 to make the lens...
Daniel Pryce it's very low, I know what it costs the stores and what they sell it for.
Jared Polin I wonder how much it is costing the company to make the lens.
I don't see teardowns and BOM estimates for lenses, but in many other areas, e.g., enterprise equipment, you may see a $3000 switch with a teardown revealing an estimated BOM+ manufacturing cost of about $300-400
for example here is an archive of teardowns and build costs
electronics360.globalspec.com/teardowns/archive
the closer it gets to pro level items, the larger the profit margin for the company gets
Razor2048 The problem with tech is that you are not only paying for the hardware, but the software, labour costs, everything that makes (in this case) it more than a polycarbonate barrel of glass, computer chips, and motors.
Daniel Pryce
many of the teardowns take into account those costs. the only major cost that is not taken into account because the companies do not release that info, is the research and development. If an item is being sold at a profit, then it will eventually cover the research and development
For example, for the first few months, the PS4 did not turn a profit, but eventually it sold enough to cover the R&D, and now is very profitable for sony.
It is hard to tell for lenses since these companies don't seem to deal with lenses for DSLR's (at most they cover cellphone cameras), but I feel that companies like Nikon are making astronomical profit margins on their lenses.
You are clearly not interested in this lens......
Here is my question. I'm about to buy 1 but is it sharp as my 70-200 2.8 vr2 or less a little ? Im talking about 200-400 vr2
Go for the old one, used $2000
that ammount of vignetting iat 400mm.........
I don't think it's worth this price. sigma makes a more interesting 120-300mm f2.8. add a 1.4 teleconverter and you will get about the same reach and speed for far less money.
Hey Jared - do you think the 300mm f2.8 with the 1.4x tele on it would be sharper than this lens? That way you can get stunning results at 300mm and can still reach 420mm at F4 if you really need it. Thanks for the review.
No it doesnt.
JARED Do you always lightroom for your pro work or photoshop ? because i use lightroom and its fitting my needs..so i was just curious to know what do you recommend.. are there any main features in photoshop that is really needed that dont exist in LR
Lightroom is good for editing a large amount of photos, Photoshop is a great program, but it doesn't make sense when you need to go through 1500 files.
Looks like good color aberration performance. That's real nice to see in longer lenses.
Well considering Canons new 200-400mm F/4 w/ x 1.4 Teleconverter is $11,000.. All you have to do is add the new Nikon x 1.4 Teleconverter on which cost $500 and the price tag seems reasonable.
Your right
The baseball shots are great! And the review, very good! Thanks, Jared!
so how does this compare to the new Nikon 200-500 F5.6 ?
nileshuk I doubt the extra 100 mm reach is worth the 1 stop less light.
This coating means sharper images and less lens flair when shooting towards bright light. - Jared you must have meant 'lens flare' :)
I would love to see this compared to say a Tamron 150-600 @ 400mm
Meanwhile I'd also like to just say that I enjoyed quite a few of those baseball pics. No clue about the sport, but I enjoyed them visually.
What's with the piano (grand piano)?
I like Maria... Not sure why :)
+oasisbeyond I love Maria and I DO know why. But who is Maria?
But what about the egregious vignetting?
Vignetting is pretty heavy on this lens. It should work well on a D7100/ D7200?
DBRMatrix using it on a DX should kill off the vignetting. And give you more reach. A D500 with this lens should actually be a pretty good combo for wildlife and maybe sports
Use lightroom lens corrections.And all the light fallof is gone.
What I don't like about it, is that it was $4999 just a couple years ago. No Idea where the the extra price came from.
Can you make a review of the Canon 200-400 x1.4 ?
Thanks !
I like the traffic lights behind you :D
what is the software you use for screen recording/webcam? Is it all in one?
I use camtasia studio 8 love that program a bit expensive though.
Walter Deecki I was actually asking Fro...
Screen flow is what he uses
Ok cool. Thanks
sorry just trying to help... good god...
Hey Jared, you mention that Borrowlenses.com provided you with the lens for a few weeks then you make the title of the video a question of whether it's worth $6,800. You do spend a lot of time talking about the quality of the lens but I think the premise should have been whether it's worth it to rent the lens as that's what most of your viewers could afford.
those baseball shots look AMAZING but for that money, I will pass!
Vignetting is not a big deal any more. If you shoot raw on low ISO DXO Optics will take off vignetting and linear distortions for free.
For me it's probably not worth it. For what I shoot this lens is too heavy and way too expensive. The maximum that I have right now is 200mm and I am happy with that. I may buy a tele converter later on (probably just 1.4x though) and then I'm good.
If I had that money I'd probably get a D800 as an upgrade from DX to FX and a decent wide angle lens.
It would have to be 2.8 for me to part with 7k+. I mean, if I were to use this lens, given my type of work, it would be inside, where I would need a maximum amount of light to come in.
EddieLivesOnLincoln perhaps they've got a 2.8 somewhere in R&D.
Hi Jared can you review canons version ?
Itz not for indoors pearl bud for outdoors.Test it outdoors on wildlife.Nikon sold 10000 of them in only 5 years.Its the perfect Safari lens.
Hey jared,
How about you try to shoot for a Couple days with a leica!?
I'm thinking about buying one and would like to see how a person, that never used one can handle it.
Keep up the great work
Leo
I am a beginner photographer and I was wondering what lens is best for macro and wide angle pictures? I have two lenses right now and I want to expand my equipment. I usually just take pictures of nature but I just got into taking pictures of people so your help would be appreciated!! Thanks!!
What body? Canon, Nikon, Sony...?
for Macro, get the Tamron 90mm f/2.8, you can consider Tokina for the wide end
Heather Lashae canon 11-24 or nikon 14-24 are the kings of ultra wide.
Is there really a $4000 manufacturing process difference at the factory between F4 and F2.8? I would love for a cheap "KIA-Like" company to come along and start making lenses much cheaper at 90% of the quality.
The big difference is the quality of the glass used and it's also much larger. Glass making isn't an exact science and if the it doesn't meet the standards of the company, it gets thrown away (also being larger means it is harder to meet that standard of quality across the entire frame).
There's also the fact that not as many people will buy it --> not as many are made --> profit margin needs to be bigger per lens.
Uh, Sigma, Tokina, Samyang, etc etc etc...
Ideal for planespotting.
Isn't 1/640th of a second a bit overkill... I've shot fast moving musicians at 1/200 with close to no blur :s
No, that's actually a little slow in my book. And shooting fast moving musicians at 200th of a second means they probably were not moving very fast. If you want to freeze a ball being hit or tossed or a bad swinging you need fast shutter speeds.
Granted that 1/200 won't freeze a flying ball but still the trade-off in noise in my opinion would be worth it.
ThaTyger
1/200th is really only good if something is basically completely still imo. But if you're shooting 400+mm, you need a tripod/monopod then in my opinion. I shoot wildlife 90% of the time, and even if a bird is sitting almost totally still, wind and other factors can introduce vibration and ruin sharpness. 1/250th is my bare minimum when I go out. Really I need at least 1/500th or greater to start to freeze movement. But then again, birds are traveling way faster than people usually.
ThaTyger If you need to worry about noise when you're doing professional indoor sport, then you don't have the right camera.
ThaTyger Try to give noise a little love, and tinker with your postprocessing to get it the way you want.
YESS IT IS
Without a doubt 400 f/2.8!
How did people shoot sports before cameras like the D4s existed? 6400 ISO was impossible in those day.
With film and patience
Danny B. Now we habe the D5 where you can push the ISO to 51200 and be golden. With iso 102400 and just a touch of NR it's good too.
Geoff Longford for video? No you dont, if you shoot canon or sony
Geoff Longford I know MF is manual focus. I said MF in video is not necessary with canon or Sony.
yeah. fan boy.
See no difference betwen my Nokia 3310 shots :P