Posted by Oscar Dewhurst on November 21, 2012 at 3:19 PM
Hi all,
I currently use a Nikon D300s and 200-400mm f4 VR lens. As my main photography is of birds, despite the recent deer and foxes, I do struggle for reach, especially living in London where it is very hard to manipulate the distance between you and your subject due to public hides etc. The 200-400 doesn't take a 1.4TC particularly well on my camera; it's pretty good in good light, but sharpness and AF take a small hit. In bad light it has much more of an effect.
I was therefore thinking of a new lens, and had narrowed it down to two options. I could either keep the 200-400, and save up for a 600mm f4 VR, which would take a long long long long long time, or I could sell the 200-400, and get a 400 f2.8 VR and a 70-200 f2.8 VR.
For me, the advantages of the 600 are that I would keep the 200-400, and I could put a 1.4x TC on. The disadvantages are that it would take much longer to save up for, and, as I would be unlikely to carry around a 600mm and a 200-400mm, I would lose a lot of flexibility.
The advantages of the 400mm are I could get 400, 560, or 800mm using TCs, so it's more flexible, and I could get it much sooner as I would sell my 200-400. I would also get a 70-200, which would provide some flexibility. What I'm not sure about is how often I would use it at f2.8, and was wondering what the difference in AF speed and IQ is between a 600 and 1.4TC, and 400 and 2xTC.
Thanks in advance for your help!
Oscar
Posted by Nick Mckeown on November 21, 2012 at 3:41 PM
Hi Oscar,
I went through the same dilema and I decided that the 500mm f4 was the best way forward due to its size, weight and reach. IQ will always take a hit when using a TC although it is minimal with a 1.4 TC. The new TC20e III from Nikon is reputedly very good but there is always a pay off for using them and a 500mm + TC14e will always have better IQ than a 400mm + TC17e and will get you to 700mm not 680mm. I bought an old second hand 500mm f4 AFS I and I am very pleased with the results and would sorely miss the reach and quality of image it produces. If most of your photography is going to be in fixed hides then the 600mm might be the way forward or really save up and get the new 800mm f5.6 (Drool!).
Hi save up for the 600 & keep the 200-400 you could look for a AF-S II 600 as they are the lightest of the 600, I have never found the vr on the 600 to be much use as you will not be hand holding it.
The 400 f2.8 is just as heavy as the 600 and I found it needed to be @f8 to get good IQ with the 2x I have had all the big Nikkors alot at the same time in my time.
Last year I had the 200-400 500 af-s 1 - 2 & vr at the same time, the 200 f2 300 f2.8 afs 2 & vr1 600afs 2 & vr I did not bother with the 400 as I have had them before and fine them more to be a sport lens.
Phil.
Ps no I'm not rich I just get to borrow some of them from Nikon UK through my NPS.
Posted by Paul Whippey on November 21, 2012 at 5:06 PM
I'm not a Nikon shooter Oscar. But whatever you decide, I'd keep your 200-400, its doing you proud. I think you will regret selling it.
Having been in this difficult situation myself, I don't envy you. I'd try renting some lenses if that is possible. It made my decision much easier.
Posted by John Robinson on November 21, 2012 at 5:29 PM
Oscar
Get your 50-500 mended !!! It might not cost that much . I had mine done for £80
I still rate that lens- even though I have to keep taking the front element off to clean it !!!
Cheers
JR
Posted by Colin Pickett on November 21, 2012 at 6:59 PM
Hi Oscar
Keep the 200-400 and save for the 600mm the 500 is only 1/5 more than you have now. I often use my 600 with a 1.4 and 1.7 with really good results.
You'll soon get used to weight.
Colin
Posted by David Sewell on November 22, 2012 at 4:28 AM
I have a Nikon 600mm, and it is a great lens that I am very pleased with. It also works well with 1.4 and 1.7x converters. I agree with Phil T. that it is not worthwhile paying extra to get a VR version of the lens, you will always need a strong tripod or similar support with it. I have got the AFS SWM ED version, earlier than Phil's, and you do notice the weight. I am sure that, as a young man, you will cope with it easily. If I had the cash to spare, I would buy a 200-400 to complement the 600. I am sure you will find the two together a worthwhile combination.
David
Posted by Bob Johnson on November 22, 2012 at 8:11 AM
I am a Canon man Oscar but 100% you will regret selling the 200-400. If I were to switch to Nikon the 200-400 would be the first lens on my list as it has such a versatile range and the second lens on the list would be a 600
Bob
Posted by Phil Ellard on November 22, 2012 at 2:30 PM
keep the 200 - 400 by a 800 and a d4 the birds wouldn't stand a chance, good to have options and some good advice already here
Posted by Oscar Dewhurst on November 22, 2012 at 5:05 PM
Thanks for all the comments.
I think the fact that no-one has recommended that I get the 400mm 2.8 suggests that maybe I'm biased towards it as I would be able to get it much sooner!
Phil T, the AFS-II version is 5900g, and the VR is 5060g! Does anyone know, roughly, how much the AFS-II version is at second hand usually? I haven't been able to find any going on the internet.
John, I'm going to! It's pointless having it sit in a cupboard.
Oscar
Posted by Nick Mckeown on November 22, 2012 at 5:42 PM
Will depend on quality Oscar but somewhere around the £4K mark I would think. Not many come up on the second hand market. Have you tried contacting Mifsuds in Devon and see if they could locate one for you?
Nick.
Posted by Oscar Dewhurst on November 22, 2012 at 5:54 PM
Thanks Nick, I haven't yet no, but I'll do it tomorrow I think, although I won't have the money to buy one for a while! The fact that the AFS-II is nearly 1kg more than the VR is a shame though...
Oscar
Posted by Nick Mckeown on November 22, 2012 at 6:02 PM
If you had a specific need for one you could always rent one for a week say especially if you had a project in mind. It would also be the lighter VR version too. Would probably break your heart giving it back though!
Nick.
Posted by Neil Burton on November 22, 2012 at 6:42 PM
Hi Oscar the AF-S II is only around 4.5kg (9 pound) it is the lightest 600 of them all the AF-S & AF-S I are around 5.5kg the 600 VR is just over 5kg all the weights are with out the foot and hoods.
You can get a AF-S II from £4000 to £5500 I have one of the last AF-S II made( there was only 3 more after mine) as Nikon make them in batches once a year, as they do with all the 2 3 4 5 600.
Phil.
Ps the AF-S II is about 20mm shorter to giving better balance
Posted by Bob Johnson on November 23, 2012 at 8:51 AM
I find www.ffordes.com to be good for second hand although you will pay top dollar but the service is excellent
Its easy for an old sod like me to say as I have all the kit you could wish for, but do not rush into it. Take the advice of the Nikon shooters here on the forum and make certain it is what you want before parting with the cash. Plenty of time for expensive toys after you have your degree and are earning the big bucks
Bob
Posted by Oscar Dewhurst on November 23, 2012 at 12:13 PM
Phil, I'm just going on what I see on the Nikon site. Under "specifications" it says here: http://www.europe-nikon.com/en_GB/product/nikkor-lenses/auto-focus-lenses/fx/single-focal-length/600mm-f-4d-ed-if-af-s-ii-nikkor that the AFS-II model is 5900g, and here: http://www.europe-nikon.com/en_GB/product/nikkor-lenses/auto-focus-lenses/fx/single-focal-length/600mm-f-4g-ed-vr-af-s-nikkor that the VR model is 5060g
Oscar
Posted by John MacTavish on November 23, 2012 at 1:33 PM
Oscar, if you are thinking of buying a prime to use with a T/C for a lot of the time then I would suggest that you are looking to buy the wrong prime.
Basic rule with long lenses is you use them with T/C's only if you have to or else move up to the next focal length.
I'm on a Canon system and use a 400/2.8 every day as a sports lens on it's own, it does what it does faultlessly but recently I've been using it with a 1.4x t/c regularly because I've moved to full frame 1Dx bodies it does well but it's not faultless in terms of image quality or especially AF performance. I'm going to have to buy a 500/4 or 600/4 if I want image quality and speed of AF.
Hi Oscar yes I know that is for the first AF-S 600 they used to have the AF-I one up @ 6.2kg for a long time hear is a very good link it gives data on all Nikkors made.
Hi Oscar they are very nice but if I was you, I would get the AF-S II or the VR one, if they are very cheep it is all ways worth getting one, do not get the AF-I one you can not get any parts for them at all, the AF-S parts are getting hard to get but the AF-S II parts will be made up to 2017 then they do not have to make parts for them, though you should be OK to 2020 at least.
Discussion
21 repliesI currently use a Nikon D300s and 200-400mm f4 VR lens. As my main photography is of birds, despite the recent deer and foxes, I do struggle for reach, especially living in London where it is very hard to manipulate the distance between you and your subject due to public hides etc. The 200-400 doesn't take a 1.4TC particularly well on my camera; it's pretty good in good light, but sharpness and AF take a small hit. In bad light it has much more of an effect.
I was therefore thinking of a new lens, and had narrowed it down to two options. I could either keep the 200-400, and save up for a 600mm f4 VR, which would take a long long long long long time, or I could sell the 200-400, and get a 400 f2.8 VR and a 70-200 f2.8 VR.
For me, the advantages of the 600 are that I would keep the 200-400, and I could put a 1.4x TC on. The disadvantages are that it would take much longer to save up for, and, as I would be unlikely to carry around a 600mm and a 200-400mm, I would lose a lot of flexibility.
The advantages of the 400mm are I could get 400, 560, or 800mm using TCs, so it's more flexible, and I could get it much sooner as I would sell my 200-400. I would also get a 70-200, which would provide some flexibility. What I'm not sure about is how often I would use it at f2.8, and was wondering what the difference in AF speed and IQ is between a 600 and 1.4TC, and 400 and 2xTC.
Thanks in advance for your help!
Oscar
I went through the same dilema and I decided that the 500mm f4 was the best way forward due to its size, weight and reach. IQ will always take a hit when using a TC although it is minimal with a 1.4 TC. The new TC20e III from Nikon is reputedly very good but there is always a pay off for using them and a 500mm + TC14e will always have better IQ than a 400mm + TC17e and will get you to 700mm not 680mm. I bought an old second hand 500mm f4 AFS I and I am very pleased with the results and would sorely miss the reach and quality of image it produces. If most of your photography is going to be in fixed hides then the 600mm might be the way forward or really save up and get the new 800mm f5.6 (Drool!).
Nick.
The 400 f2.8 is just as heavy as the 600 and I found it needed to be @f8 to get good IQ with the 2x I have had all the big Nikkors alot at the same time in my time.
Last year I had the 200-400 500 af-s 1 - 2 & vr at the same time, the 200 f2 300 f2.8 afs 2 & vr1 600afs 2 & vr I did not bother with the 400 as I have had them before and fine them more to be a sport lens.
Phil.
Ps no I'm not rich I just get to borrow some of them from Nikon UK through my NPS.
Having been in this difficult situation myself, I don't envy you. I'd try renting some lenses if that is possible. It made my decision much easier.
Get your 50-500 mended !!! It might not cost that much . I had mine done for £80
I still rate that lens- even though I have to keep taking the front element off to clean it !!!
Cheers
JR
Keep the 200-400 and save for the 600mm the 500 is only 1/5 more than you have now. I often use my 600 with a 1.4 and 1.7 with really good results.
You'll soon get used to weight.
Colin
David
Bob
I think the fact that no-one has recommended that I get the 400mm 2.8 suggests that maybe I'm biased towards it as I would be able to get it much sooner!
Phil T, the AFS-II version is 5900g, and the VR is 5060g! Does anyone know, roughly, how much the AFS-II version is at second hand usually? I haven't been able to find any going on the internet.
John, I'm going to! It's pointless having it sit in a cupboard.
Oscar
Nick.
Oscar
Nick.
Half this 'reach' you think you need is not really needed - there's always a way to get the shot.
You can get a AF-S II from £4000 to £5500 I have one of the last AF-S II made( there was only 3 more after mine) as Nikon make them in batches once a year, as they do with all the 2 3 4 5 600.
Phil.
Ps the AF-S II is about 20mm shorter to giving better balance
Its easy for an old sod like me to say as I have all the kit you could wish for, but do not rush into it. Take the advice of the Nikon shooters here on the forum and make certain it is what you want before parting with the cash. Plenty of time for expensive toys after you have your degree and are earning the big bucks
Bob
Oscar
Basic rule with long lenses is you use them with T/C's only if you have to or else move up to the next focal length.
I'm on a Canon system and use a 400/2.8 every day as a sports lens on it's own, it does what it does faultlessly but recently I've been using it with a 1.4x t/c regularly because I've moved to full frame 1Dx bodies it does well but it's not faultless in terms of image quality or especially AF performance. I'm going to have to buy a 500/4 or 600/4 if I want image quality and speed of AF.
Regards,
John
Phil.
http://www.photosynthesis.co.nz/nikon/specs.html
Ok thanks for that Phil. What's the AFS-I version like? There are a couple on ebay, and are not too expensive either.
Oscar
Phil.