Thom article and the 200-400mm

Started May 20, 2008 | Discussions thread
Thom Hogan Forum Pro • Posts: 13,659
Re: Thom article and the 200-400mm

RGT5 wrote:

If I were you I would use the 200- 400 and do not feel empty. Thom
points out that there are problems when traveling with the 600 VR in
the article which would be obvious.

Actually, it goes like this for travel (worst to best):

  • 600mm f/4

  • 400mm f/2.8

  • 500mm f/4

  • 200-400mm f/4

  • 300mm f/2.8

  • 200mm f/2

Two primary factors come into play:

1. Weight. By the time you pack the 600mm into something that's going to protect it, you're likely at 14-15 pounds WITHOUT a camera body. You almost certainly can't make the 22 pound limit some airlines impose with a full set of equipment.

2. Front element size. The two lenses at the top of the list have very big front elements, which prohibits packing them in a padded case that'll fit in any RJ or turboprop overhead (and some under seat areas). I can just squeeze my 200-400mm into a padded bag that'll fit into an RJ overhead. (Hoods almost certainly have to go in checked baggage.)

Obviously, if you travel only locally, your only restriction is how much you want to carry ; ).

-- hide signature --

Thom Hogan
author, Complete Guides to Nikon bodies (18 and counting)

Post (hide subjects) Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow