This pattern has repeated and gotten more reliably seen as the sensor resolution has gone up. I wouldn’t be happy with the 200-400mm f/4 on a D810 at long distances. Hey guys, I finally pulled the trigger on a Nikon 200-400mm f4. I was debating with the 300mm f2.8 but I needed zoom flexibility so I opted inthe end for the 200-400 f4. Indeed, using this lens was one of the ways I first noticed the gaps in the D2 series autofocus system. When my subject was dead on one of the T sensors or covered multiple sensors, the lens was snappy fast. When my subject was small and landed in or near the dead zone between sensor coverage, autofocus performance suddenly lagged.

With the TC-14E teleconverter, the 200-400mm VR becomes a 280-550mm f/5.6 VR, as indicated in EXIF data. What will you be shooting with the lens? If you are shooting at greater than 200 feet, the 'poor at long distances' issue identified by Thom Hogan might be an issue for you, although my guess is that issue MIGHT be more noticeable with the VR 1. Light falloff: There's noticeable corner vignetting wide open, which is mostly gone by f/8. Generally, I haven't found the vignetting to be a problem. The type of subjects you'd usually shoot with this lens actually benefit a bit from the darker corners at f/4. It won't autofocus with the cheapest new AF film cameras like the N55, but if you focus manually, everything else works great. Even if you lose autofocus, these cameras have in-finder focus confirmation dots to help you. Cameras – LCD screen is heavily worn either by de-lamination or has scratches to it. Rubber grips are starting to come away from the body.

Our verdict...

Personally I'm not a fan of the Nikon 200-400 and I was disappointed when they released the mkII with no real world image quality improvements focusing instead on nano coating etc etc- at the end of the day it's sharp images at 400mm that count and it struggles to deliver that consistently- at least in the light here in Scotland- might be different in other light Distortion: close to zilch. I can't get an accurate measurement for linear distortion off my test charts, as it's well less than a half percent (barrel). Let’s face it, it’s really all about how great the images are at the maximum aperture on lenses like this. Nikon introduces the original 200-400mm VR. It's also big, heavy and expensive and doesn't do much compared to a fixed lens.

If you can get the original version on close-out, you just got yourself a bargain, because this new lens is the same thing.Note that when you get into the long telephotos and start using them on targets large and small, both close and far, a lot of variables start coming into play. At distance with teleconverter (and certainly wide open as here), the lens sometimes fails to get the kind of acuity we desire. It's like the optomitrist flipped the wrong correction in front of our eye, as nothing quite resolves into focus.

All said, the people who buy 200-400mm pro zooms are serious shooters, and this new VR II should be at least as excellent as the original. Our used products are subject to wear and tear in comparison to brand new products. This also applies to accessories that are supplied with the camera including batteries which may have a lower optimum performance level/life expectancy. By the time 2007 rolled around and the D3 and D300 came out with autofocus fine tuning, I thought that I might find the answer to my issues there. Well, maybe. I certainly was getting better results most of the time, but I still didn't have a complete handle on what was going on. Fast forward through the D700 and to the D3x and still more use of the lens and...well, I'm still going to equivocate a little bit when we get to performance, though I have a much better idea about what's going on. No one did, so these sat on dealers' shelves unsold. Nikon sold less than 500 of them. By comparison, Nikon has sold millions and millions of 50mm lenses. I am considering the VR2 version so I guess that would focus much faster even with the TC14 than the 200-500.Before I call out some individual optical attributes, there's one thing I should mention: this lens is not f/4. Let me correct that: this lens is not t/4. (A t-stop is the actual transmitted light, an f-stop is the theoretical light transmission.) Actual performance is somewhere around t/5. This is somewhat normal for a zoom lens with complex optics (each air/glass surface is less than perfect in transmitting light), but it's going to be a real issue for many users of this lens.

Nevertheless, the inconsistency of some results kept me from writing a review. I really didn't want to write a review that said "really good lens but sometimes not so much" without being able to get to the heart of that. Suffice it to say that I've tested my samples of the 200-400mm more than any other lens, and I've tried many other samples of the lens at least once. I think my results are now consistent and I can speak with some authority about what I see and perhaps even why. So, at shorter sideline and close animal approach distances, the 200-400mm is a real winner. It's dead on sharp and quite impressive. But watch out when your subject is far off; the lens starts to let down a bit on resolving power as you approach infinity focus. It seems unlikely but it’s still possible that another manufacturer’s offering might be better – and make a difference. The other option is the rest-in-the-crook-of-your-elbow postion, but I don't like that with this lens as it means you're shooting with a slight twist to your body. Neither position can be held reliably for any length of time, and twisting while holding weight isn't exactly recommended. Thus, invest in a decent monopod (and consider adding the Really Right Stuff or similar monopod head). You'll be glad you did. The 200-400mm VR is a seven-pound (3.2kg) hulk of finesse and precision. You have to feel it to believe it.Some of you will be tempted to use converters on the 200-400mm to give it more reach. Here's the thing: that means you're likely shooting at longer distances from the subject. So you trigger the "far focus fade" as I've come to call it. That plus the acuity loss from the converter itself can put the combination beyond what I call usable. The Nikon 200-400mm f/4 VR is the largest of Nikon's pro AF-S zooms in 2008, which includes the 14-24mm f/2.8, 17-35mm f/2.8, 24-70mm f/2.8 and 70-200mm f/2.8 VR. Let’s take a look at what has changed since the 200-400mm f/4G ED VR II. Nikon 180-400mm f/4E VR vs Nikon 200-400mm f/4G VR II