Between those two lenses I’d take the 300 f2.8 and all three TC’s over the 200-400. Had both and wasn’t happy with the 200-400.
Nikon super telephoto lenses
- Thread starter HRB
- Start date
If you would like to post, you'll need to register. Note that if you have a BCG store account, you'll need a new, separate account here (we keep the two sites separate for security purposes).
Well I'll be the contrarian here... I still own and shoot the 200-400mm f/4 VR. It is an underrated lens, amazingly flexible, and has very pleasing bokeh. The lens does not do well beyond 30 meters (90 feet) but within that range, it is outstanding. I use mine with a D500 and a Z6. With the D500 you get a 600mm F.O.V. which seems to be perfect for mammals. I also have a 500PF. The 500PF is the sharper of the two lenses and is hand-holdable. I can not shoot w/ the 200-400mm lens without a tripod.
If money were no object, I'd buy the 180-400mm lens, but the price to play is beyond my means.
regards,
bruce
If money were no object, I'd buy the 180-400mm lens, but the price to play is beyond my means.
regards,
bruce
Last edited:
JANuser
Active member
There is no doubt in my mind either that the AF-S 200-400 F4G VR is a great lens, in the range that it is best suited for it give unpairelled image quality and colour. It seems best suited to sports photography, but it does well enough for wildlife which I shoot more. While I'm sure the new 180-400 is better, the price difference is huge. Used copies of the 200-400 (gen 1) are very well priced for what you are getting in terms of sharpness, build quality and auto focus performance.