276°
Posted 20 hours ago

Nikon 200-400Mm F4G Af-S Vr If-Ed Zoom-Nikkor

£9.9£99Clearance
ZTS2023's avatar
Shared by
ZTS2023
Joined in 2023
82
63

About this deal

Incidentally, glare was not a problem, and I think I can agree with some, the nano-coating may be unnecessary. Glad to see here that it does accept the 1.4x quite well at that distance. The details loss is not too bad. Resulsts are very good at f7.1 andf8. Nano Crystal Coat (N): Magic anti-reflection coating that has a variable index of refraction that's far more effective than multicoating. And, as I've already mentioned, only the TC-14E really keeps things within the realm of top Nikon autofocus performance anyway. That means you'll be shooting, at best, with a 560mm f/8 lens (one stop for the converter loss, one stop to recover some performance). That may sound okay to you, but the same converter on the 400mm f/2.8 doesn't require stopping down to obtain top performance, so you're two stops slower with the 200-400+TC-14E than you would be with the 400+TC-14E (actually, a bit more, since the 400mm f/2.8 starts at about t/3.2). And less sharp. As much as I like the convenience of the zoom, I now realize that I'm giving up something optically, too.

If you need the best Nikon long telephoto zoom, the 180-400mm f/4E is the one to go for. For most of us however the 200-500mm f/5.6E is more than good enough and puts high quality long lens photography within reach. Light falloff: There's noticeable corner vignetting wide open, which is mostly gone by f/8. Generally, I haven't found the vignetting to be a problem. The type of subjects you'd usually shoot with this lens actually benefit a bit from the darker corners at f/4. Let me put things in perspective. At about the distance at which I think the 200-400mm optical performance starts to decline (200-300 feet) with the TC-20E III on, I was reading small lettering off the ID plate of a transformer, and the edges were crisp. That was not true with the TC-17E on the lens. Not even close to true.

Condition guide

Both the 200-400 Mk 1 and 200-500 are prone to flare with the sun near the edge of the frame. The front miniscus of the 200-400 can be screwed off the Mk 1 in high flare situations. The lens comes with a pouch to put it in and a good "duffle bag" for transit. Normal, Active — let's you set the VR mode. Normal is what you usually use, but you should switch to Active if you are shooting from a platform that contributes additional irregular motion (auto, boat, plane, etc.). The original 200-400mm VR was extremely popular, and this new VR II version is the same thing, with The optics, size, weight and more are the same. with a slightly improved VR system. Personally, I sold my 200-400mm f/4 and use the 200-500mm f/5.6 when I need a good telephoto zoom, as I’m often dealing with distant subjects. But that loss of a stop is something that you might not be able to tolerate, even given how good the higher ISO results are with recent cameras. If I were mostly shooting sports where I had good sideline access, I probably would have kept the 200-400mm; the 200-500mm isn’t a good substitute for that type of usage, in my opinion. At 300mm the lens scores 2,851 lines on the same test, showing about the same image quality at f/5.6, and improving to 3,175 lines at f/8. Edge performance is strong—better than 2,500 lines. Image quality is still strong at 400mm. At f/4 it scores 2,947 lines, and is just as good at f/5.6 and f/8. There is a little bit of edge softness and very minor color fringing at the edges of the frame at 400mm f/4 (1,558 lines), but stopping the lens down a little bit yields better results at f/8 (1,646 lines).

The newer version of the lens exhibits pretty much the same sharpness tendencies as the original AF-S version. At close distances both are superb, while at great distances they are not. There are very small differences between my two samples in sharpness, but the differences are small enough they may be within sample variation. Both lenses feature Nikon’s Vibration Reduction (VR), offering up to 4.5 stops of image stabilization and three VR modes – Off, Normal and Sport, with the latter only correcting vertical movements for use when panning. Slightly improved VR system, claiming four stops improvement instead of merely three of the original 200-400mm VR. The remainder of the control toggles rest between the tripod collar and zoom ring. A focus mode switch allows you to select M/A (autofocus with manual override using the focus ring), A/M (the same, but with a delayed reaction to avoid accidental manual override), and full manual (M). There's an autofocus limiter switch that allows the focus system to hunt over the full range of the lens, or only from 6 meters to infinity for capturing distant subjects. There's also a toggle switch for the lens vibration reduction system, and a switch to change VR between Normal mode, which you'll use most of the time, and Active, which should be enabled when you're shooting from a moving vehicle.The supplied bag is very useful although I did have my reservations about it at first, but you can read more about that further down. Side note: I’ve used a lot 200-400mm’s now. In my personal case, the newer one was slightly better than my older version. However, I’d say that these were probably near the extremes of sample error. I’ve seen older versions that are slightly better than the newer ones, and vice versa. With all of the latest technologies built in, including a silent wave motor (SWM) and vibration reduction (VR) as well as a ‘Memory set’ function and a construction that uses 24 individual glass elements in 17 groups including no less than four ED (extra dispersion) elements, there is good reason for the weight. The construction, as you might expect from a lens in this class, is first rate with very little to pull up. Similar to its predecessor, the Nikon 180-400mm f/4E is extensively weather-sealed all around. In addition to 8 different ring-type seals in the barrel, all the lens buttons, switches, and compartments are also sealed with rubber to prevent dust and moisture from getting into the lens. This lens is designed to be used in harsh conditions. If you want to protect your copy against potential scratches, I would recommend getting a LensCoat Lens Cover for it. I have always kept a LensCoat on my 200-400mm, and it certainly did a very good job of not only protecting the lens but also in keeping my hands warm when shooting in colder temperatures. Autofocus Speed and Accuracy Zooming is precise and slow. There's a huge zoom ring and a lot of glass to move for only a 2:1 zoom range.

At distance with teleconverter (and certainly wide open as here), the lens sometimes fails to get the kind of acuity we desire. It's like the optomitrist flipped the wrong correction in front of our eye, as nothing quite resolves into focus. Some of you will be tempted to use converters on the 200-400mm to give it more reach. Here's the thing: that means you're likely shooting at longer distances from the subject. So you trigger the "far focus fade" as I've come to call it. That plus the acuity loss from the converter itself can put the combination beyond what I call usable. However, if your main subjects for shooting are small birds then you may find yourself slightly limited unless your prepared to put in more ground work for getting closer to your subjects undetected. Whilst I find the optics with a TC usable, some may not like the results. So if your only going to buy one lens and it’s a choice between this with lots of TC use or a 500 or 600/4 I’d go with the prime lens. And of course it IS heavy and I think that is one of the main things you need to take in to account when your thinking about buying one of these, especially if your not used to bigger glass and are stepping up from 70-200 sized lenses. I've also owned the 200-500mm f/5.6 and it's a very good lens. I didn't own both lenses at the same time so I can't offer a direct comparison but from my image library I'd say for subjects within about fifty to maybe a hundred feet the 200-400mm f/4 lens has an edge and of course is a full stop faster. But for more distant subjects I'd say the 200-500mm f/5.6 is a better lens and of course has an extra 100mm on the long end which can be very handy. But note that the protective glass is there because it's much less costly to replace than the actual front element of the lens. Don't remove the protective glass unless you're certain you're not in conditions where things might harm the front element. Fortunately, the hood is so deep (almost 6") that with it on the glass is reasonably well protected, but don't make the decision to remove the protective element lightly.)Distortion: close to zilch. I can't get an accurate measurement for linear distortion off my test charts, as it's well less than a half percent (barrel). At the front of the lens, there's the usual curved protective glass element, which is removable (but see note just above about the filter). See Nikon Lens Compatibility for details on your camera. Read down the "AF-S, AF-I" and "G" and "VR" columns for this lens. You'll get the least of all the features displayed in all columns, since "G" (gelding) is a handicap which removes features.

Asda Great Deal

Free UK shipping. 15 day free returns.
Community Updates
*So you can easily identify outgoing links on our site, we've marked them with an "*" symbol. Links on our site are monetised, but this never affects which deals get posted. Find more info in our FAQs and About Us page.
New Comment