Any opinions about different versions of Nikon 400mm 2.8

tinamarie52

I'd like to find a used copy of the Nikon 400mm f2.8. Is there more than one version of this lens out there? An older one and the newer VR II? Does anyone have exprience buying an older copy? Can anyone tell me what the practical difference might be between versions?

I have a D300 and want the lens for field sports and birds. Sports---I get paid; birds--- a hobby.

My current lenses are a Nikon 70-200 2.8 with a TC1.4. I lose light and sharpness with the TC and it doesn't have the reach that I need.

I also have a Sigma 120-300mm 2.8, but it seems to be sharpest around 5.6-9.0, which is ok for daytime football, but stinks for poorly lit field at night. I have used the 120-300 on my D7000 with the ISO cranked up to H1.0 and can barely get by since the D700 hunts a bit under those conditions.

So, a 400 2.8 seems like the best next move, if I can find a used sharp copy.

Any thoughts about the lens... older vs. newer?

Thanks,
Chris

JimKarczewski

If Nikon is like Canon, the difference would be something like an extra stop of VR capability + increased resolution + weight reduction. At least that's what the new $11k version of the Canon 400/2.8 gets you over the existing Canon $7000 - 400/2.8.

Hope that helps a bit. Check sites like PhotoDo.com or DXOLab.com to see if they have comparisons on the lenses...

tinamarie52

Thanks.

Since I can't afford a new Nikon 400 2.8, what's the best way to decide on a used copy? This is a naive question, for sure, but aren't there different vintages with different features? How do I sort them out?

Chris

perroneford

tinamarie52 wrote: »

Thanks.

Since I can't afford a new Nikon 400 2.8, what's the best way to decide on a used copy? This is a naive question, for sure, but aren't there different vintages with different features? How do I sort them out?

Chris

Get one of the AF-S versions. If you're shooting sports, the VR won't matter so don't pay extra for it. I'd buy from KEH or Adorama or someplace else with a warranty and a good reputation.

Good luck.

johng

you want to be sure if you're buying an older lens you can still get it repaired by Nikon. I suggest checking with Nikon and seeing which versions they will still repair.

xchangx

I bought mine (AF-S II) used for a decent amount. It's the last model before the VR which you don't need for sports.

Icebear

Slight change of subject
If you have never shot field sports with a 400mm f/2.8, I'd HIGHLY recommend you rent one before you buy. On a crop body IMO it's dang near useless for anything on the field that moves. If you want sportraits of goalkeepers, fine. Otherwise it's virtually impossible to track motion, or even find your subject before the action's over. That is a beast of a lens, and the field-of-view is much better suited for birding than field sports. You're getting ready to spend a lot of money on a lens that I don't think will bring you satisfaction. OTOH if you are really trying to justify buying it for the birds, goferit.

jhefti

Icebear wrote: »

If you have never shot field sports with a 400mm f/2.8, I'd HIGHLY recommend you rent one before you buy. On a crop body IMO it's dang near useless for anything on the field that moves. If you want sportraits of goalkeepers, fine. Otherwise it's virtually impossible to track motion, or even find your subject before the action's over. That is a beast of a lens, and the field-of-view is much better suited for birding than field sports. You're getting ready to spend a lot of money on a lens that I don't think will bring you satisfaction. OTOH if you are really trying to justify buying it for the birds, goferit.

It depends to some extent on the sports you shoot, but a 400/2.8 takes a lot of practice to use and even then is a beast. It's fine with a full frame or even 1.3 crop (like my Canon 1D4 bodies) but I can't imagine using it on a 1.6 CF body for anything other than the occasional outfield action in baseball.

That said, I do get a lot of use out of mine (but I shoot with FF or sometimes 1.3 CF bodies), and certainly the images have great IQ (assuming I nail my shot) that can't be had on a lesser lens. So I guess it depends on how much you want to spend and what you hope to get.

As far as what versions of Nikon lenses to get, I can't much help with that as I am a Canon shooter. However, my sense for both manufacturers is that lens improvement is incremental, unlike bodies.

perroneford

It's funny the different opinions you get, and people's varied tastes. I've shot the 400 on crop bodies, and I've shot the 600 on full frame. I know one SI photograper personally who shoots the 600 on full frame for BASKETBALL! Even I think he's nuts for that, but he gets photos in SI every week and I don't. He was in London and I wasn't. So, what can I say.

I think the 300 with a 1.4x is a better choice for MOST uses and that's what I ultimately went with, but now that I am on full frame, I wish I had the 400 with that 1.4. And at times, I wish I had that 600.

tinamarie52

Thanks for all of the varied opinions.
I shoot Sigma 120-300 (usually around 280) with a 1.4TC, which puts me almost at 400 (392mm). I shoot a lot of field sports and the Sig is a beast, as well. I like shooting with it except it isn't sharp enough for me and it is a tad slow.

Before I lay out the cash for a 400, the lens will go back to Sigma again for more adjusting. If they can dial it in better than i, then maybe I'll just keep it.

I would like the 400 for field sport first. Birding would be a plus, but I don't have as much time in the trees.

I absolutely plan to rent a 400 before I buy one.

Among the variety of opinions, I hear a consistent "don't bother with VR and just go for the older AF-S."

Thanks for the feedback.

Chris