Sponsor Message:
Aviation Photography Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Nikon 200 - 400 AFS VR F4  
User currently offlineRotate From Switzerland, joined Feb 2003, 1491 posts, RR: 14
Posted (12 years 4 months 2 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 6132 times:

aloha guys,

sofar I am using the 80 - 400 AF VR for real tele around 300 to 400 ..... , I was thinking about buying this damn exspensive Nikon 200-400 AFS VR, cause I got pretty used to AFS on my 80 -200 2.8 from Nikon. Does anyone have used that 200 - 400? I know its exspensive, I know what various internet sites are saying, just corious,if there is any Nikon guy out there allready using that beauty? any help appreciated .......

cheerio robin

5 replies: All unread, jump to last
User currently offlineBromma1968 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (12 years 4 months 2 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 6107 times:

Used on a digital Nikon this lens would operate as a 300-600mm zoom.
I believe a 80-200 1:2.8 or 70-200 1:2.8 with a 1.4X or 2X teleconverter
is easier to use for aircraft photography. As you wrote, is't a very expen-
sive lens and very heavy. Most photographers will probably us a tripod to-
gether with this lens.


User currently offlineFallingeese From Canada, joined Apr 2001, 2097 posts, RR: 16
Reply 2, posted (12 years 4 months 1 week 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 6073 times:

It was a nice little dent in my wallet when I bought my 80-400VR. I was looking at the 200-400VR at my camera shop out of curiousity, not that I can afford the $8000CAD price tag, it is a beast of a lens.

Mark McWhirter...Contrails Photography
User currently offlineJwenting From Netherlands, joined Apr 2001, 10213 posts, RR: 17
Reply 3, posted (12 years 4 months 1 week 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 6050 times:

Haven't used it, and know noone who has.
Not only is it not yet on the market (or it wasn't last month) but the pricetag is just too high for me at almost €10000.

For that money I'd probably rather get a 70-200VR, a 2x TC, and a used 500mm f/4 AF-S.

I wish I were flying
User currently offlineChrisair From United States of America, joined Sep 2000, 2440 posts, RR: 3
Reply 4, posted (12 years 4 months 1 week 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 6005 times:

I shot with a "pre-production" model back in October. If you think you can hand-hold that and point it at planes, you're very wrong. It weighs about as much as a 400 f/2.8 and that, I can hand hold for about 3 minutes before it goes crash.

Don't bother with this lens. Get a 2x and throw it on the 70-200.

User currently offlinePilothighflyer From Canada, joined Jul 2003, 220 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (12 years 4 months 1 week 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 6000 times:

I'm not sure what camera you use but, for my D100 the weight would be:
*Nikon 200 - 400 AFS VR F4 (300-600mm)
Lenes 7.2 lbs
Body 1.54 lb.
Grip 1.00
Battery (2) .32
10.06 pounds, Have fun hand holding that

*With 70-200VR (210-600mm)
Lenes 3.20 lb
Teleconverter: .782 lb.
Body 1.54 lb.
Grip 1.00
Battery (2) .32
6.482 pounds, Saving 3.578 lb.
I'd go with the 70-200 and a teleconverter


Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Nikon 200-400mm F/4 VR - Anyone Have One? posted Thu Jul 27 2006 04:05:32 by Psyops
Nikon 80-400 VR Lens posted Sun Nov 20 2005 06:45:28 by Psyops
This Is The Difference Between 200-400-800 ISO posted Wed Jul 10 2002 21:54:07 by BA777
ISO 100/200/400 Etc.. posted Thu Jan 17 2002 10:44:51 by Aps
Usage Of 100,200,400,800 posted Tue Dec 4 2001 22:12:44 by SafetyDude
New Nikon 80-400 Zoom posted Thu Jun 8 2000 16:05:06 by Propfreak
Any One Already Bought The Nikon's AF VR 80-400? posted Wed Jan 17 2001 12:12:42 by Sia jubilee
Nikkor 70-200 VR + TC posted Tue May 30 2006 10:00:38 by Jarek
First Shot With New EF 70-200 F4 L Lens posted Sun Feb 19 2006 17:00:24 by Linco22
Any First Experiences With Nikon 18-200mm VR? posted Sat Jan 14 2006 17:26:32 by Oldeuropean