400/2.8 VR vs 400/2.8 (non-VR) I or II

Not a regular poster here anymore, but this thread caught my eye, especially as I am actively looking to go the other way - from 400mm afs II to 200-400mm.

And the reason why I'd want to go zoom from one of Nikon's best primes? Well someone already posted the answer in the thread. "Supposedly" the quality of images from the 200mm -400mm are very good, just not as good as the 400mm.

Well the 400mm was a 'lust' item and it is a sweet item, but is it necessary for me and practical? I think I have recently come to the conclusion no.

I am not a daily shooter. Sometimes (often) it is weeks between chances to shoot. I shoot outdoor youth sports and birds primarily. I sell the sports shots from time to time, but sales are limited to 8x10 or 8x12 at most. I had lots of sales of these with the 300mm afs f4.

I am in Florida, where the light is great and I've always had good results with my 300mm afs f4 on my D2H. Yes the 400 f2.8 rocks on this camera, but I now carry a tripod, wimberley head and shoot more static birds or on the monopod at soccer games I get cut off feet and heads as the kids get close. I used to go cammando style, hand held with the 300 f4 and I actually miss that. The 400 afs II is a beast. A few shooters I know who use the "other" brand use the 400 f5.6 because IQ is great and weight and hand holding for BIF is great. They have galleries I would die for. That style just fits my shooting style better. Yes with the 200-400 I'd probably still shoot the tripod route, but would have access to the hand holding rout, and the zoom ability for field sports (and wildlife - remember in Florida the birds come to you rather than go away) would be great in our light. Daytime sports are not a problem for F4 here.

Yes, I will miss the lightning fast AF, its great ability with a 1.4tc and I will miss the unbelievable bokeh at f2.8, but in the end any potential customers will not tell the difference and I will not tell the difference (i'm sure the 200-400 still rocks on the d2h) when I weigh up the benefits a 200-400 would bring me.

So, anyone want to but a 400mm afs II or trade for a 200-400mm?

cheers
wembley

all the bird galleries here are with the 400 afs II (and lots with the 1.4tc)

http://picasaweb.google.com/wembleyphotography/link/

and here is a fav of what the 400 afs II can do

002DnokiN said:

I'm offloading my 200-400 VR, considering a 400/2.8. I will be using it for sporting events (indoors), nature/birding and airshows.

Any opines as to which version (AFS VR=2007, AFS non-VR II=2002, AFS non-VR I=1998)? Yes, I like the VR version for the low-light shots that could incur, closest-focus distance has dropped some, flatter MTF but not sure that significant, however obviously more cost and it's slightly longer by 3/4" and a skosh more weight than non-VR II. I've also thought about the 500/4, less weight like a 200-400, but about an inch longer. I think I would rather manage the increase in weight versus and increase in length (but that's just me). I've heard the 400/2.8 TC's well with the 1.4x, would be nice if it TC'd with a 1.7x (what a combo if it does!).

I did search the archives and found a few scraps of info, but would be interested in any thoughts to any who have used both or all three versions. best... dj
--
http://www.pbase.com/scorpius
D700 :: D300 :: D70
Nikkor 200-400 f/4 AF-S VR ED
Nikkor 300 f/2.8 AF-S VR ED N
Nikkor 200 f/2 AF-S VR ED
Nikkor 24-70 f/2.8 AF-S ED N
Nikkor 14-24 f/2.8 AF-S ED N

Click to expand...

http://www.nikonians.org/forums/dcboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=146&topic_id=167159&mesg_id=167159&page=
Not for the want of trying....

I did get this in the early part of shooting,some light PP, basically out of camera and crop.:



but still no luck with D300, 300f4afs and TC1.7
Bummer,
Cheers,
--
Tom
http://taja.smugmug.com/

I also considered the 200-400 for the versitility, but I think I'm landing on the 400. If you couple it with the 1.4x you have a 560 f/5 and with the 2x an 800 f5.6.

Due to finances I will probably have to settle for a good used copy of the first or second version, but after reading this thread, I really want the new VR version.

Thanks for a lot of good information.

Mark

...this was not easy. I looked at many lenses, but in the end the 400/2.8 VR won me over. In the end I did many a comparison between it & earlier models, but figured I might want the VR and nano. Then there were the 400/2.8 VR comparisons vs 500/4 VR, nearly thru dice to decide. But it was the 400/2.8 VR I chose. It will arrive soon and I'll be sure to post some pix of this cheap, consumer-grade lens best... dj (with a lighter wallet now)
--
http://www.pbase.com/scorpius
D700 :: D300 :: D70
Nikkor 400 f/2.8 AF-S VR ED N
Nikkor 300 f/2.8 AF-S VR ED N
Nikkor 200 f/2 AF-S VR ED
Nikkor 24-70 f/2.8 AF-S ED N
Nikkor 14-24 f/2.8 AF-S ED N

What are you saying Marianne?
--
Jim

JimPearce said:

What are you saying Marianne?

Click to expand...

I've been able to get the D300 to autofocus with the 200-400 + TC-17, but the D3 refuses to. Ironic, since it's the D3 that can optically take advantage of the combination.