 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / Film Photography / 35 mm / October 2005Nikon 200-400mm f/4G VR
I'm considering buying this lens, however am very hesitant as it is a zoom. I would like to hear from somebody who has compared this lens at 400mm to say, a 400 2.8 or other fixed focal length. Thanks much.  SignatureJimmy Greene > I'm considering buying this lens, however am very hesitant as it is a > zoom. I would like to hear from somebody who has compared this lens > at 400mm to say, a 400 2.8 or other fixed focal length. > > Thanks much. The zoom ratio on that lens is very small (only 1:2), so there's every reason to believe that it wouldn't be all that compromised...-Especially when it's "wide" is way up at 200mm. I wish Canon would release a lens of this range...perhaps instead of (or in addition to) the more compromised 1:4 zoom ratio of their 100-400 IS. >> I'm considering buying this lens, however am very hesitant as it is a >> zoom. I would like to hear from somebody who has compared this lens [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > I wish Canon would release a lens of this range...perhaps instead of (or > in addition to) the more compromised 1:4 zoom ratio of their 100-400 IS. Yeah, sure, Mark, so we can have a lens collection that looks like: 16-35 f2.8L 24-70 f2.8L 24-105 f4L IS 70-200 f2.8L IS 200-400 f4L IS And then include the: 100-400 f4.5-5.6L IS Because you just never know when you need that overlap... My AmEx cringes at the thought...even if I do already own 4 of them! ;-) BTW, I found the USB cord... SignatureSkip Middleton http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com >>> I'm considering buying this lens, however am very hesitant as it is >>> a zoom. I would like to hear from somebody who has compared this [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > My AmEx cringes at the thought...even if I do already own 4 of them! > ;-) BTW, I found the USB cord... Great! (about the cord). -I'll have you know that I crawled through my attic...dug through boxes, and made every effort to find it for you...but without any luck. Do I still get credit for trying? I must have sent it with the rest of the rubble that was left of my poor D30. Seriously, though, if Canon came out with a 200-400 f4 IS, I'd snap it up in a jiffy (my credit card be danged). I sold my 100-400 IS and sometimes miss it...but a faster, sharper, less compromised 200-400 would be great, and makes perfect sense in their line-up as you show above. Some overlap is good--especially at the mid-range (which I'm discovering with my 24-70...-always leaves me wishing for a few more mm on the long end...-Used to my old 28-135). Sheesh. Oh, wait! We can't talk like this lest Dallas' imagined bubble of supposed anti-Nikon religion be burst. -Heaven forbid we should BOTH be noting the good idea Nikon had of offering a 200-400. Actually...No matter...since he'll likely pretend you and I never had this exchange. :) > Seriously, though, if Canon came out with a 200-400 f4 IS, I'd snap it up > in a jiffy (my credit card be danged). Really? Even at $5000? http://tinyurl.com/8mjj2 SignatureRegards, Matt Clara www.mattclara.com >> Seriously, though, if Canon came out with a 200-400 f4 IS, I'd snap >> it up in a jiffy (my credit card be danged). > > Really? Even at $5000? http://tinyurl.com/8mjj2 Oh dear! :) Didn't realise it was that high...yipe. Still...it might keep me from drooling over the 400mm 2.8 IS L with it's even higher price tag. If a 200-400 alternative was as sharp as the 70-200 2.8 IS L, I'd put up with the f4 aperture in trade for the amazing usefulness of the zoom range over the fixed 400. For me, it would be the near-perfect wildlife lens. OTOH...I won't be shelling out 5K for anything at this particular moment... :( Thanks for the price-check, though, Matt. :) >>> Seriously, though, if Canon came out with a 200-400 f4 IS, I'd snap >>> it up in a jiffy (my credit card be danged). [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > Thanks for the price-check, though, Matt. > :) Yikes!! I was thinking it was in the range of $2000, not $5000. For that, I could get a 200mm f2.8L, 300mm f4L IS, and 400mm f5.6L. That averages out to f4, doesn't it? <G> SignatureSkip Middleton http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com > Seriously, though, if Canon came out with a 200-400 f4 IS, I'd snap it up in > a jiffy (my credit card be danged). [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > exchange. > :) Oh look! A juicy bit of fish! Wait! What's this? A piece of steel in the hook? And...and...oh dear...some nylon line too. It leads up to something bobbing around the top. A cork??? SignatureDD (everything is temporary) www.dallasdahms.com >> Seriously, though, if Canon came out with a 200-400 f4 IS, I'd snap >> it up in a jiffy (my credit card be danged). [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > dear...some nylon line too. It leads up to something bobbing around > the top. A cork??? Dallas, I think it's time I put you in the klink file. When you change your name for the umpteenth time, I'm sure I'll give you another look, but for now...you'll have to get through life without me. I hope you can bear it... Happy shooting, and I'll see you on your next alias. Take care, -Mark > > Oh look! A juicy bit of fish! > > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Take care, > -Mark What a prat. You bait me and then you killfile me for not responding in the manner you designed your inflammatory little anecdote to elicit. Well, I'll be sure to let you know well in advance the next time I change my handle. That way you can continue to exclude me from your "big wide world with lots of ideas worth thinking about". SignatureDD (everything is temporary) www.dallasdahms.com . >>> I wish Canon would release a lens of this range...perhaps instead of >>> (or in addition to) the more compromised 1:4 zoom ratio of their [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > I must have sent it with the rest of the rubble that was left of my poor > D30. Sure, you get credit for the attempt! > Seriously, though, if Canon came out with a 200-400 f4 IS, I'd snap it up > in a jiffy (my credit card be danged). [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > for a few more mm on the long end...-Used to my old 28-135). > Sheesh. That's where the new 24-105 f4L IS comes in handy, if Canon ever gets the bugs out of it and gets it to market... > Oh, wait! > We can't talk like this lest Dallas' imagined bubble of supposed [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > exchange. > :) Actually, I was thinking that the new Nikon 18-200VR lens was a great thing for Nikon, too, and something Canon should have for the guys who are disappointed in the DSLR zoom ranges compared to compacts. Not my cup of tea, so to speak, but there should be a great market for that lens and the D50, and there could be one for Canon, too, with the 350D. Image quality should be superior in a low level DSLR and a 26-300mm equivalent lens compared to a compact with a 35-400 or so equivalent. But you're right, Dallas would never believe you and I have anything positive to say about Nikon, he'll just thing the headers are spoofed! <G> SignatureSkip Middleton http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com glad to see this as i now see the pattern... you just spew stuff off as you feel like it without regard to the original question. perhaps you missed the op words "I would like to hear from somebody who has compared this lens..." >> I'm considering buying this lens, however am very hesitant as it is a >> zoom. I would like to hear from somebody who has compared this lens [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > I wish Canon would release a lens of this range...perhaps instead of (or > in addition to) the more compromised 1:4 zoom ratio of their 100-400 IS. > glad to see this as i now see the pattern... you just spew stuff off > as you feel like it without regard to the original question. perhaps > you missed the op words "I would like to hear from somebody who has > compared this lens..." What the heck is your problem, Chris? If you want to live in a tunnel-vision world, go right ahead... As for me, -It's a big world, with lots of ideas worth thinking about. Out of these little diversions come conversation. Topics come up here all the time that branch off into other directions, heaven forbid. Did you notice that Skip responded to my post as a non-moron? Learn from Skip. Tunnel-vision is great if all you want to see a pin-hole world. >>> I'm considering buying this lens, however am very hesitant as it is >>> a zoom. I would like to hear from somebody who has compared this [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >> (or in addition to) the more compromised 1:4 zoom ratio of their >> 100-400 IS. Thank you! > glad to see this as i now see the pattern... you just spew stuff off as > you feel like it without regard to the original question. perhaps you > missed the op words "I would like to hear from somebody who has compared > this lens..." What, we're not allowed to discuss what was said? Is the post so sacrosanct that only those who have actually compared two very esoteric and expensive lenses are allowed to comment? Is your post pertinent to the subject? Don't you think it would be up to the original poster to take Mark to task, if he has an objection? SignatureSkip Middleton http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com not exactly what you are looking for, but it should prove to be interesting reading... http://www.biglens.com/reviews/nikon300200400.htm > I'm considering buying this lens, however am very hesitant as it is a > zoom. I would like to hear from somebody who has compared this lens at > 400mm to say, a 400 2.8 or other fixed focal length. > > Thanks much. Thanks again VERY much. This was extremely helpful. > not exactly what you are looking for, but it should prove to be interesting > reading... [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > > > Thanks much. Thanks for posting that link. I am also looking at getting this lens. I might be shooting the A1GP here in Durban come January and this would definitely be the right lens for it. SignatureDD (everything is temporary) www.dallasdahms.com > I'm considering buying this lens, however am very hesitant as it is a zoom. > I would like to hear from somebody who has compared this lens at 400mm to > say, a 400 2.8 or other fixed focal length. > > Thanks much. The problem is the lens is so expensive I've yet to meet anyone on the net or elsewhere who owns one, and that's why none of us can respond directly to your questions. I believe it's a stellar performer, and at that price (5k US), if it's not, I'd certainly return it. SignatureRegards, Matt Clara www.mattclara.com I just ordered one. I'll drop a line about it's performance. >I just ordered one. I'll drop a line about it's performance. Be sure and let us know how it stacks up against the 400 f2.8... SignatureSkip Middleton http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.