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

Product Information

The above study shows us that one should not be removing protective and drop-in filters from super telephoto lenses like the Nikkor 200-400mm f/4G, as they are clearly there for a reason. While removing the front filter does not do much aside from exposing the fragile and expensive front element, removing the drop-in filter drastically moves the focal plane, which might result in all kinds of focus problems and inconsistencies. The photographer who indicated that his lens was sharper without a filter most likely had focusing issues, or his testing methodology had some flaws. Lens releases like the 180-400mm f/4E are very rare in the photography world. We see camera and lens announcements practically every month, but true high-level innovations are not easy to bring out due to the amount of time, effort, and resources that are required to make it all happen. That’s why top-of-the-line super-telephoto lenses are expensive, as they require many years of engineering and testing in the field. Again forward of this, on the left side of the lens, is what can only be described as the control panel. Containing four two-position slide switches they control, from top to bottom, AF/MF, focus limit (full/6m ), VR on/off, and VR mode (normal/active). Next up is the zoom ring which, at nearly 80mm wide with a clean ribbed pattern, is a joy to

In short, I was unsure of whether it was the lens, my sample of the lens, my technique, my camera body, or something else that was causing the slightly different results I got as I used this lens. No one did, so these sat on dealers' shelves unsold. Nikon sold less than 500 of them. By comparison, Nikon has sold millions and millions of 50mm lenses. With the TC-14E teleconverter, the 200-400mm VR becomes a 280-550mm f/5.6 VR, as indicated in EXIF data.The only thing that troubled me a little, is my sample came with a NC filter with white lettering and the word "JAPAN" instead of "MADE IN JAPAN" painted on the filter ring. The glass has a light yellow tint. Compared to another 52mm NC filter (bought brand new at B&H), that copy's tint is greenish. I am not sure if the light yellow tint filter is a fake. I only discovered this discrepancy in April 2018...ah! the perils of buying used. On my Botswana trip, I used the NC filter with the greenish tint, and it gave me beautiful results as mentioned in the first paragraph. Anyone who knows more about Nikon NC filter history, please kindly chime in.... 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. N: Nano-crystal coating, meaning a coating which varies its index of refraction continuously to achieve even greater reflection reduction. It's probably only on one surface, and is used mostly for marketing purposes. Let’s face it, it’s really all about how great the images are at the maximum aperture on lenses like this.

Nikon's first 200-400mm f/4 ED was a manual focus AI-s lens. No one bought it because it was such a silly focal length range, and it was big and very expensive. Let's face it: it's a 200mm f/4 that crops in a little. Who cares? Lens Description: This powerful super telephoto zoom lens offers incredible image quality. Enhanced Nikon VR II image stabilization, a constant aperture and Nano Crystal Coat make this lens an ideal choice for sports photography, wildlife and more. My final observed difference isn't really so much a difference between the older and newer models, but between older and newer teleconverters. Simply put, I was very surprised at the results with the TC-20E III on both the old and new version of the 200-400mm. I had originally concluded that teleconverters were not a strong point of this lens: the only usable one at the time I originally wrote the review was the TC-14E and that needed to be stopped down a stop to get what I felt were acceptable results. Nevertheless, the inconsistency of some results kept me from writing a review. I really didn't want to write a review that said "really good lens but sometimes not so much" without being able to get to the heart of that. Suffice it to say that I've tested my samples of the 200-400mm more than any other lens, and I've tried many other samples of the lens at least once. I think my results are now consistent and I can speak with some authority about what I see and perhaps even why. I love the 400 f2.8- it's big and heavy but for the flexibility it offers and image quality it's hard to beat. Maybe the 600/800mm lenses but I've never even seen an 800mm Nikon let alone used one and it must be pretty heavy too.Before I call out some individual optical attributes, there's one thing I should mention: this lens is not f/4. Let me correct that: this lens is not t/4. (A t-stop is the actual transmitted light, an f-stop is the theoretical light transmission.) Actual performance is somewhere around t/5. This is somewhat normal for a zoom lens with complex optics (each air/glass surface is less than perfect in transmitting light), but it's going to be a real issue for many users of this lens. Going from the mount, first you get a 52mm drop in filter with a switch panel to the left of this containing two slide switches for the memory recall, one an on/off and the second an on/off for the focus beep facility. Next up is the tripod mount collar with a nice sized release knob, markings for portrait and landscape orientation and a pair of lugs for the carrying strap. Now, I know what you're thinking: "hey Thom, dude, what are you smoking; no lens is going to resolve bear hair at 300 feet." Well, you're wrong. My 400mm f/2.8 VR does. Indeed, when I shoot that side by side with the 200-400mm, it's clearer than ever to me that the 200-400mm isn't a distance lens. Where that crossover between superb (closer focusing) and adequate (far focusing) occurs on the 200-400mm, I'm not 100% positive about. I know a lot of sideline shooters that have the 200-400mm and love it, so shooting across the width of an American football field must still be in the realm of "close." Shooting the length of the soccer field puts you in the "far" category, though. 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. VR works well and I even had it on with my camera at 1/3,200s. Photos turn out just fine. That said, I never had a blur image from high shutter speeds with VR in operation.