Nikon 200 - 400 AFS VR F4 — Aviation Photography Forum

Sponsor Message:


My Starred Topics \| Profile \| New Topic \| Forum Index \| Help \| Search

Nikon 200 - 400 AFS VR F4

Rotate From Switzerland, joined Feb 2003, 1480 posts, RR: 18
Posted (9 years 5 months 1 week 15 hours ago) and read 3588 times:

Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

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

ABC

5 replies: All unread, jump to last

Bromma1968 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (9 years 5 months 1 week 14 hours ago) and read 3563 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.
http://www.nikon-image.com/eng/news_release/2003/afs_vr200_400.htm

Anders

Fallingeese From Canada, joined Apr 2001, 2097 posts, RR: 20
Reply 2, posted (9 years 5 months 1 week 10 hours ago) and read 3529 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

Jwenting From Netherlands, joined Apr 2001, 10213 posts, RR: 21
Reply 3, posted (9 years 5 months 1 week 7 hours ago) and read 3506 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

Chrisair From United States of America, joined Sep 2000, 1796 posts, RR: 4
Reply 4, posted (9 years 5 months 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 3461 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.

Pilothighflyer From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 220 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (9 years 5 months 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 3456 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

~Robert

Top Of Page

Forum Index

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

Printer friendly format

Similar topics: