200-500 or 200-400 f/4?

[sdloeffler]

Greetings, can anyone give a real world comparison of the 200-500 f/5.6 vs the 200-400 f/4 VRII? I know the 2-5 is 100mm longer, and the 2-4 has faster focusing. I'm really interested in tracking subjects and image quality. There are some really good deals on used 200-400 in really good shape right now. Thanks

 

[Garyh58]

I have both. Bought a 200-400 VR II in like new condition. I like the look I get out of the 200-400 better. I think it is sharper across the frame than my 200-500. It also does not seem to have any issues with distance subjects that some have reported. The 200-500 is lighter and more compact but the build quality is not as good. But it goes to 500 mm without a teleconverter. Focus in the 200-500 is also slower. The 200-400 is a great option if it fits your needs and you don’t have $11 k to spend on the new 180-400 f4 E.

 

[sdloeffler]

I have both. Bought a 200-400 VR II in like new condition. I like the look I get out of the 200-400 better. I think it is sharper across the frame than my 200-500. It also does not seem to have any issues with distance subjects that some have reported. The 200-500 is lighter and more compact but the build quality is not as good. But it goes to 500 mm without a teleconverter. Focus in the 200-500 is also slower. The 200-400 is a great option if it fits your needs and you don’t have $11 k to spend on the new 180-400 f4 E.

Thanks for the info. Have you compared the 200-400 with a TC at 500 to the 200-500 at 500? Just curious.

 

[Garyh58]

No I haven’t. Lots of distractions for us this year. I will try and do so in the next week or so.
I would like to know myself

 

[Laurence Jackson]

I bought a mint secondhand VRII from the USA, shipped over to Australia, paid taxes and duty etc, all because I was going bear shooting this summer....which of course had to be cancelled, so I never got to point it anywhere near a bear. ..

I really wanted to like it, it was perfect for general wildlife on paper, however I never got on with it, the images just weren't sharp enough at even very moderate distances. Sometimes sharp, sometimes not, there was no pattern to it. I sold it for a little more than what i paid in total and bought a 300 f2.8 VRII, which is in a different class optically, but less flexible of course. If it was me, for birds with reach often being the holy grail, I would not consider the 2-4 but use the 300 with a TC, more handhold able and compact and arguably better and more consistent tracking and quality. I sold my 200-500 which was excellent but if I wasn't considering the 300 and only the 2-4, I would say the 200-500 would be the best option for birds.

 

[Thern]

I owned three copies of the 200-400 (still own the last)
Tacksharp ,primelike, at short to medium distance to subject.
Hate/love it beyond medium distance.
AF speed is fast, it’s weathersealed and it has lensbuttons, focusmemory, a real lenshood, dropin filters and is beautifull build and ,the cherry on top..., It’s a full stop faster than the 200-500.

Now would I recommend it? One would think it a no-brainer but..
It’s mixed bag it’s heavy and it has this longdistance issue.. (yes it does, I guess it’s in its blueprint)
If you’re willing to accept the learningcurve for this lens AND if but only IF you’re ALLWAYS shooting at short to medium distances I’d recommend it.
If you however need the extra 100mm of the 200-500 and/or you’re shooting at long(er) distances I’d recommend the 200-500.
In theory the 200-400 should work well with the TCs, in practice it doesn’t, however it improved a little with the TC1.4III
Btw the lens tends to perform somewhat better with a Z.

 

[Steve]

I too had a 200-400 that was prime-like at short range but suffered at longer distances. Like Laurence says, it didn't seem like there was much of a pattern to it. I like the fact that it was an F/4 lens for sure, but beyond that, I like the 200-500 better overall. As Roger says, if you're only using it for close / mid range work, it's a fine lens, but for me that wasn't good enough. Also, my copy never took TCs very well at all.

 

[Thern]

I too had a 200-400 that was prime-like at short range but suffered at longer distances. Like Laurence says, it didn't seem like there was much of a pattern to it. I like the fact that it was an F/4 lens for sure, but beyond that, I like the 200-500 better overall. As Roger says, if you're only using it for close / mid range work, it's a fine lens, but for me that wasn't good enough. Also, my copy never took TCs very well at all.

Yup, I had to carry the 200-400 plus the 600G those days.
The 200-400 for short to midrange with the versatility of the zoom and the 600 for the smaller critters and/or longer distances.
I’m a big strong guy but it was a relief once the 180-400 was released. LOL

 

[EricBowles]

The AF of the 200-400 is much more accurate with the Z cameras than with a DSLR. It's also much better with the 1.4 Teleconverter than that combination on a DSLR. I like the extra stop of the 200-400, so it's usually my preferred option with the Z6, but the 200-500 is better for handholding and for occasional landscapes. Sharpness is a toss up on the Z6. I think the issue on DSLR cameras is inconsistency - especially at longer distances.

 

[sdloeffler]

Thanks for all the feedback. Seems to be a general thought about the lens. Does the 180-400 seem to address the issues the 200-400 has? Also, what do you consider short to medium vs long distances?

 

[Thern]

Thanks for all the feedback. Seems to be a general thought about the lens. Does the 180-400 seem to address the issues the 200-400 has? Also, what do you consider short to medium vs long distances?

Yes, with the 180-400 Nikon adressed this issue and more.
Short to mid range for the 200-400 ranges from MFD till about 30-35 meters.
Beyond that results got inconsistent.

The AF of the 200-400 is much more accurate with the Z cameras than with a DSLR. It's also much better with the 1.4 Teleconverter than that combination on a DSLR. I like the extra stop of the 200-400, so it's usually my preferred option with the Z6, but the 200-500 is better for handholding and for occasional landscapes. Sharpness is a toss up on the Z6. I think the issue on DSLR cameras is inconsistency - especially at longer distances.

Would be true if it would be sharp at long distance when shot in Liveview or manual focus but even then it’s not really tacksharp.
The second problem, the inconsistency is however present beyond 25-35 meters, at least that’s what I see/saw with every copy I own(ed).

 

[EricBowles]

Would be true if it would be sharp at long distance when shot in Liveview or manual focus but even then it’s not really tacksharp.
The second problem, the inconsistency is however present beyond 25-35 meters, at least that’s what I see/saw with every copy I own(ed).
[/QUOTE]

I don't see the inconsistency problem on my Z6 with or without the teleconverter. The Z6/7 focuses with the sensor, so it's a hybrid phase detect / contrast detect. The improvement with the 200-400 was immediately noticeable compared to my D850. It's still an older lens design, and the 180-400 is an improvement. But the 200-400 is close to the 200-500 with the benefits of being a stop faster, better build, and faster AF. It also does not extend when you zoom, making it much better on a tripod or gimbal. The 200-500 is lighter, cheaper, and has a more recent version of VR, and I'd rate it slightly sharper, but not so much that I choose it over the 200-400 based on sharpness - especially with the Z cameras.

 

[HRB]

"The improvement with the 200-400 was immediately noticeable compared to my D850."

Did you also notice an improvement in image sharpness for long range targets using the Z6?

 

[Thern]

Would be true if it would be sharp at long distance when shot in Liveview or manual focus but even then it’s not really tacksharp.
The second problem, the inconsistency is however present beyond 25-35 meters, at least that’s what I see/saw with every copy I own(ed).

I don't see the inconsistency problem on my Z6 with or without the teleconverter. The Z6/7 focuses with the sensor, so it's a hybrid phase detect / contrast detect. The improvement with the 200-400 was immediately noticeable compared to my D850.

You clearly didn’t read my first post in this thread.
I said allready this lens performs better with a Z.

Like I said IF the longdistance issue would be caused by some AF error one could always use live view or manual for static subjects at long distance to get that sharpness. (Which clearly implies btw that I was talking about the performance in combination with a DSLR and this lens not with a Z)
Nonetheless the long distance issue is allso present with a Z, real sharpness is not there whatever you do/try.

Btw funny you rate sharpness to be better with the 200-500, not what I see. (At short distance up to 15 meters that is)
www.lenscore.org

 

[BLev65]

The 180-400 is the best performer in this class, but it is frightfully expensive.
There was a point in my journey when I owned the 80-400G, 200-500E, 300PF, 300 f/2.8 AFS, 200-400G, and 500PF all at one time. Now to be clear, some of this was for my wife, some for client use when teaching, and some up for sale at the time. Two years later, I now have the 300PF, 200-400G, and 500PF. When my 500PF first arrived I did a comparison between the 500PF, 200-500E, and 200-400G... you can see the non-scientific results on my blog ( Link ). I generally use my 200-400 w/ the Z6, and like others, have found the prior focus inconsistencies to be gone. The lens is prime sharp between 200 and 340mm at f/4, and is very sharp at f/4.5 when shooting at 400mm. Originally, I used 200-400 on D300's, D3s, D4, and D500s (since 2014). I now use my 500PF on my current DSLR bodies, and have made the 200-400 a Z-camera telephoto lens... while the lens has its warts, I find the build, focus, micro contrast @ f/4.5 (and beyond), and bokeh to be far superior to the 200-500. It took me about 5 years of dual possession, but I have finally sold my 200-500mm lens. Until the Z 100-400 or 200-600 is released or I find the $11000 I would need to buy a 180-400, I'll keep shooting with the 200-400 on my Z6/Z6II bodies.
cheers,
bruce

 

[Thern]

The 180-400 is the best performer in this class, but it is frightfully expensive.

It’s a bit better (NO vast difference) regarding sharpness and contrast has way better AF regarding consistency maybe also a bit faster at acquiring initial focus (but again no vast difference) and the inbuilt TC is very handy and it doesn’t show the long distance issue off course
However! If I’d be shooting at short/mid distances all the time I prolly wouldn’t have bought it.

It took me about 5 years of dual possession,

dual and dualistic LOL at least in my case and since you sold your 200-400 at least once (I think I read twice Bruce?) I guess also in your case.

Once I learned to master the lens it indeed became less of a hate/love relationship since I just didn’t bother to use it anymore in specific shootingscenarios.
That’s a ‘workaround’ to me and thus in fact a negative of the lens ,AGAIN to ME, but for those who find themselves shooting exclusively at short to mid distances there’s nothing negative to tell about it...

Regarding the enhanced AF consistency when the lens is paired with a Z (Z7 in my case) I see the same accuracy/consistency when shot in live view with a DSLR which is very nice, but long range performance is still ‘flawed’. (Maybe ,I didn’t really test it, a tad better with the Z but don’t take me on my word here)

 

[BLev65]

It’s a bit better (NO vast difference) regarding sharpness and contrast has way better AF regarding consistency maybe also a bit faster at acquiring initial focus (but again no vast difference) and the inbuilt TC is very handy and it doesn’t show the long distance issue off course
However! If I’d be shooting at short/mid distances all the time I prolly wouldn’t have bought it.



dual and dualistic LOL at least in my case and since you sold your 200-400 at least once (I think I read twice Bruce?) I guess also in your case.

Once I learned to master the lens it indeed became less of a hate/love relationship since I just didn’t bother to use it anymore in specific shootingscenarios.
That’s a ‘workaround’ to me and thus in fact a negative of the lens ,AGAIN to ME, but for those who find themselves shooting exclusively at short to mid distances there’s nothing negative to tell about it...

Regarding the enhanced AF consistency when the lens is paired with a Z (Z7 in my case) I see the same accuracy/consistency when shot in live view with a DSLR which is very nice, but long range performance is still ‘flawed’. (Maybe ,I didn’t really test it, a tad better with the Z but don’t take me on my word here)

To be clear... I've actually owned 3 and keep coming back to the lens. I shot mine with a D500 because I was focal length limited and benefited from the apparent 300-600mm field of view. Once I bought the 500PF, the latter became a fixture on the D500 and the 200-400 became my FX telephoto. As you state... super sharp, accurate, and useful when shooting within 30m. The Z6 has allowed me to use the lens with more distant subjects with greater accuracy, but I know that the lens can fail to deliver the same level of acuity when compared to the PF at a distance. As for the Z6 and the 200-400... they play well together. The newer Z6II (I've had since last week) is quicker to AF than it predecessor, and makes the lens even better....
Why do some of the long distance issues persist with this lens?... I suspect that the lens was optimized for places like a baseball or football field where the action is relatively close. There is a lot of glass in this lens with many air to lens surfaces. The focus can be fools by heat shimmer and atmospheric conditions like dust and fog.. by using LiveView or mirrorless tech, it seems that the AF system is less susceptible to the atmospheric conditions. I'll be using the Z6II w/ 200-400 throughout the winter. I shoot swans that overwinter in thermally heated region of a river. There is always a lot of winter mist and snow... this will be a real test for the AF performance of the Z6II w/ the 200-400mm lens.

bruce

 

[Thern]

To be clear... I've actually owned 3 and keep coming back to the lens.

LOL, now if that’s not a hate/love relationship.

 

[Calson]

Tracking is done by the camera and not the lens and a f/4 lens is providing twice as much light to the camera's autofocus sensors. A 500mm lens is not only 100mm longer, in this case it provides an image size that is 56% larger than that from the 400mm lens mounted on the same camera. This is even more important if shooting with a low resolution camera like a D5.