I tried the 1.7x with the 200-400 and the results were catastrophic no matter the range and the aperture I dont think I will keep it. I dont plan neither to buy the TC20EIII altough apparently better than tc17 with the 200-400. 550mm with the 1.4x is sufficient for my current needs. The 500mm is very sharp but it's not really a walk about lens. Yes you can walk a few miles with it but you are aware you have it and it is, for me anyway, primarily a tripod mounted lens. I did say that you would be looking at a change of birding style if you bought that or the 600mm ! The 200-400mm VR is a seven-pound (3.2kg) hulk of finesse and precision. You have to feel it to believe it.

Like the rest of this group, it's a lens designed for professionals for grueling daily use in all conditions while delivering superb optical quality. 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. Whoa! Now that’s interesting. It turns out that the 52mm drop-in filter severely moves the focal plane. So it is not just sitting there for nothing! 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. 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.The biggest detriment to sharpness is the reality that temperature variations in the atmosphere create constant shimmers. In extreme cases these shimmers appear as mirages, but when using any high-powered optics one sees these shimmers even in normal conditions. Looking through the atmosphere with heat shimmers is exactly like looking down into a swimming pool from above: you get waves which obscure details. So knowing what I know now would I buy this lens again? Absolutely, yes. For me its been a great addition to my collection as I think it would be to anyones. The optics are incredible even wide open at 400mm and it is more than usable with a TC attached if you really need that extra reach and have reasonable light. If you shoot larger birds, animals or sporting events then I wouldn’t hesitate for a second in recommending this lens as the ability to zoom can be a life saver at times and the VR, whilst no good at freezing fast action, can sometimes give you that little advantage you need when shooting slow targets in low light. I’ve shot wildlife, people and even panoramic images with this lens so it truly is a versatile bit of kit! Ergonomically I found handling on both very good, too. The rubberized zoom rings are big and easy to locate with your eye to the viewfinder and switches well-placed, with a reassuringly robust action. Now, I know what you're thinking: "hey Thom, dude, what are you smoking; no lens is going to resolve bear hair at 300 feet." Well, you're wrong. My 400mm f/2.8 VR does. Indeed, when I shoot that side by side with the 200-400mm, it's clearer than ever to me that the 200-400mm isn't a distance lens. Where that crossover between superb (closer focusing) and adequate (far focusing) occurs on the 200-400mm, I'm not 100% positive about. I know a lot of sideline shooters that have the 200-400mm and love it, so shooting across the width of an American football field must still be in the realm of "close." Shooting the length of the soccer field puts you in the "far" category, though. Finally, the newest version of the lens was tested directly against my old copy, using the same support setup, body, and targets for testing.

This explains why so many people thought I was nuts when I first wrote that I thought the 200-400mm had some sort of sharpness issue: most people weren't shooting with it at distances that would trigger the problem. But National Park service regulations keep us wildlife photographers at long distances from some animals (e.g. the grizzly), so I was occassionally seeing the poor end of the 200-400's performance.Would Nikon make a top of the range professional super telephoto lens and then skimp by putting a below par drop in filter in the optical path? Nikon 200-400mm f/4 VR, as adapted by an American sportsmen ( FX, DX and 35mm coverage, 52mm drop-in filters, 7.2 Incidentally, glare was not a problem, and I think I can agree with some, the nano-coating may be unnecessary. Personally, I sold my 200-400mm f/4 and use the 200-500mm f/5.6 when I need a good telephoto zoom, as I’m often dealing with distant subjects. But that loss of a stop is something that you might not be able to tolerate, even given how good the higher ISO results are with recent cameras. If I were mostly shooting sports where I had good sideline access, I probably would have kept the 200-400mm; the 200-500mm isn’t a good substitute for that type of usage, in my opinion.

Sure, you may stop down from time to time, but to get those fast shutter speeds for action and shallow depth-of-field to isolate the subject, you’re shooting wide open. quality now is not the same? I only know that replacing my nikon filter with the Heliopan from that time period made a significant “positive” change, the Note that I kept using the lens during this six year+ period before me first review of the lens appeared (and now many years more). Indeed, I've taken the 200-400mm to Africa, Bosque, Denali, Yellowstone, and a host of other places where I shoot wildlife, and multiple times to some of those. I wouldn't keep using a lens that I had a question about if I felt that it had a truly serious problem. Not for: It's too heavy for me. I'd consider the 300mm f/2.8 VR II instead, which costs less and is a stop faster, in exchange for one fixed focal length instead of the small zoom range of this 200-400mm. For bird photography and for shooting surfing from the shore, you never can be too close, so you'll want the 600mm f/4 instead.

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 It seems unlikely but it’s still possible that another manufacturer’s offering might be better – and make a difference. Flare: Use the hood and flare is almost never an issue. Don't use the hood and you'll see a clear drop in contrast using this lens. I also see a slight contrast boost in removing the protective front element. I should also note that I've often used this lens with gloves on. Sometimes multiple layers of gloves. Unless you have to set the switches, all handling is glove friendly. Lenses – Should have no marks on the elements andoptically clear. There may be light dust present that will not effect theimagery.