Story   Photographer   Editor   Student/Intern   Assistant   Job/Item The Online Resource for Sports Photography

 Front Page
 Member Index
 Latest Headlines
 Special Features
 'Fun Pix'
 Message Board
 Educate Yourself
 Equipment Profiles
 Classified Ads
 Monthly Clip Contest
 Annual Contest
 Current Issue
 Back Issues
 Members Area
 "The Guide"
About Us:
 About SportsShooter
 Contact Us
 Terms & Conditions

Sign in:
Members log in here with your user name and password to access the your admin page and other special features.



|| Member Message Board

Nikon 400mm f/2.8G vs F2.8E (and 200-400 f/4)
PJ Heller, Photographer
Christchurch | NZ | | Posted: 12:13 AM on 04.29.15
->> Anybody shooting with the latest Nikon 400mm f/2.8E lens? Is there a big difference — other than the weight and one-piece hood (and the price :-) — between it and the previous version.

Have many people replaced the 400 f/2.8 with the 200-400 f4? Or is the 400 still the go-to lens.
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Chuck Liddy, Photographer, Photo Editor
PLANET | EARTH | | Posted: 8:08 AM on 04.29.15
->> I switched to the 200-400 and have never looked back. Not only for the huge price difference but it's way lighter.
I use it for all the sports and often will take in on regular assignments because it's a lot easier to manage with the size and weight differential.
 This post is:  Informative (1) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Michael Augustin, Photographer
Plano | TX | USA | Posted: 9:06 AM on 04.29.15
->> Can't speak for the new Nikon 400mm Fluorite lens, but I can opine on the "old" 400mm VRII vs the 200-400 f/4.

My personal experience has been that the 200-400 zoom is a very capable, lightweight (compared to the 400mm) and versatile lens when there is good light. It is my "go-to" baseball zoom for day games or games played in pro-level venues with good lighting. Unfortunately, that does not always include HS baseball, which is what I primarily shoot. If I am shooting a HS night game I use the 400mm f/2.8.

For night football I leave the 200-400 f/4 zoom at home and instead I use the 400mm f/2.8 prime along with a a 70-200mm f/2.8 and sometimes my 14-24 f/2.8. The extra stop is crucial for night football in order to avoid ISO's greater than 6400 on my D4S'.

I have heard that some have experienced AF and/or softness issues at 350mm+ with the 200-400mm and I can say that I have as well. I have not used the 200-400mm with a TC for sports.

I use both lenses frequently and I am fortunate to own both. I also have the 300mm f/2.8 and I admit that it is rarely used since I added the 200-400 to my stable.

 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Chris Peterson, Photographer, Photo Editor
Columbia Falls | MT | USA | Posted: 9:20 AM on 04.29.15
->> The 400 AFS II is a great lens, but bigger and heavier. I owned the 200-400 first version and it was a good lens, but not as good as the prime. In low light, the AF is definitely slower. I switched to a 300 2.8 AFS II, 'cos on a D800 series camera I can switch between FX and DX mode, which makes it a 450 on the long end. Plus, it weighs under 6 pounds, which helps my back significantly. The 300 is very sharp and very fast. The 200-400 weighs just under 8 pounds. The 400 AFS II weighs over 10 pounds.

To each his own, eh?
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Steve King, Photographer
Ann Arbor | MI | USA | Posted: 11:30 PM on 04.29.15
->> I'm with Chuck, I switched from the 400mm f/2.8 to the 200-400 f/4 shortly after trying it with the D3 that Jon Soohoo had and loaned to me for a few minutes (I'm sure he knew I wouldn't give it back), and never looked back. Now I use it with both the D3S and a D7200 to get some extra crop reach. I don't see any AF change from the 400, and the IQ is great, no softness, no issues with either the D3, D3S, or the D7200.
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Chuck Liddy, Photographer, Photo Editor
PLANET | EARTH | | Posted: 11:33 AM on 04.30.15
->> Addendum: I forgot to mention that I use D4's with my 200-400, so low light isn't really a factor with that amazing camera.
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Gavin Werbeloff, Photographer
New York | NY | USA | Posted: 2:03 PM on 05.01.15
->> I have a 6 year old 200-400 v1, and have used it on a variety Nikon bodies. I use mine more for wildlife than sports, and the biggest weakness I've found is sharpness when focussed at infinity, regardless of focal length. The 500mm I'm rented a few times and used side by side with the 200-400 has been sharper under the same circumstances. I've also found that the 200-400 with a TC-14E really does't perform fantastically, even with the newest version of the teleconverter. Hopefully they will release an update that has better optics on the long end.
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Randy Rimland, Photographer
Charlotte | NC | USA | Posted: 5:06 AM on 05.03.15
->> I gotta have 2.8 FX in the old high school stadiums I shoot and $12K for a 400 2.8 is IMO ridiculous

The 400 2.8 VR is a great lens and since I can't hold either I don't really care about weight savings
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (1) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Michael Clark, Photographer
Santa Fe | NM | USA | Posted: 11:37 AM on 05.04.15
->> I just sold my 200-400 because of sharpness issues at infinity. I rented the 400mm f/2.8 while shooting surfing in Hawaii a few months ago and the AF on that lens is far, far superior to the 200-400, especially wide open.
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Add your comments...
If you'd like to add your comments to this thread, use this form. You need to be an active (paying) member of in order to post messages to the system.

NOTE: If you would like to report a problem you've found within the website, please let us know via the 'Contact Us' form, which alerts us immediately. It is not guaranteed that a member of the staff will see your message board post.
Thread Title: Nikon 400mm f/2.8G vs F2.8E (and 200-400 f/4)
Thread Started By: PJ Heller
Member Login:

Return to -->
Message Board Main Index
Want to know which shooter is majoring in Chemistry? Click here to find out! ::..