Nikon 400/5.6 ED-IF AI Lens on D300

<p>I've an opportunity to get a Nikon 400mm f/5.6 ED-IF AI lens for $569 - it appears to be in pretty good condition. How will this lens fare on my D300 - i.e., will the 12MP sensor be too much for it? This would be used for long landscapes so AF is not a requirement. My only other long lenses are a 80-200/2.8 AFS, 180/2.8 AF-D, 200/4 AIS, and 70-300VR.<br>

I could get a TC20EII and use it on my 80-200/2.8 AFS (for a 400mm f/5.6) or on the 180/2.8 AF-D (for a 360mm f/f5.6), but does anyone know how the IQ of these lenses + 2xTC would compare to the 400/5.6 ED-IF AI lens?<br>

The cost of a TC20EII is about $500 - almost as much as the 400mm f/5.6 lens!<br>

Thanks -<br>

John</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I forgot that you can't use the TC20EII on the 180/2.8 AFD, so it would have to be a TC201 (or a Kenko 2x TC).<br>

John</p>

<p>I would not use a 2x of any kind on that lens. No way. For starters, it would be the equivalent of f11, which would be far too dark to focus it. Try taking one of your current lenses, stopping down to f11 with DOF preview button, and see how dark it is. I suspect the image quality from a 400mm f5.6 + 2x would be just slightly worse than the image quality from a camera phone.<br>

Kent in SD</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I would not use a 2x of any kind on that lens. No way. For starters, it would be the equivalent of f11, which would be far too dark to focus it. Try taking one of your current lenses, stopping down to f11 with DOF preview button, and see how dark it is. I suspect the image quality from a 400mm f5.6 + 2x would be just slightly worse than the image quality from a camera phone.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Kent - You missed the point. I didn't say I wanted to (nor never would I) use at 2x TC with the 400mm/5.6 - I was saying do I buy the 400/5.6 ED-IF OR do I use a 2x TC with my 80-200/2.8 to get a 160-400/5.6. Which would have better 400mm IQ?<br>

John</p>

<p>The 400/5.6 EDIF wins hands down to the 80-200 w 2x. Stop it down to f8 and IQ is excellent.<br>

I had this lens as well as the 400/5.6ED and the ED was already excellent at 5.6.<br>

The older version also works very well with the TC-301<br>

<a href="http://www.slopoki1.smugmug.com/">http://www.slopoki1.smugmug.com/</a></p>

 

<p>Another vote for the 400 AI. It would be much better optically than any zoom with a 2x TC. I have both lenses and was never happy with the TC20E on the 80-200 AFS; I am happy with the 400 AI.</p>

<p>You are pretty much certain to lose with the TC. The 400/5.6 ED is pretty good on a D300, which reminds me that I should do a controlled test. In any case, vibration, bad focusing and atmospheric effects are usually a bigger problem at this level than lens quality (at least with this lens; one saw a pic from a sigma 400/5.6 and man that was bad...)</p>

<p>I used a Nikkor 400mm f5.6 ED-IF with a D200. It was good wide open but I sold it to help pay for a Nikkor 500mm f4 P. If its in good condition I think you will be happy with it. I probably should have kept it in hindsight. Its relatively small and light with a very good feel.</p>

<p>Well, I just bought it. Turns out is was the AIS version (slightly better tripod collar than the AI version) and it was in excellent condition. The price came down to $500 with some dealing and trade in so in the end I paid $268 (incl. taxes) for it. Traded in my 105/2.5 AIS that I really liked, but did not use much since I got a 85/1.8 AFD.<br>

Some hand held shots showed decent wide open performance and it's hard to focus without using live view on my D300. When the focus is nailed it's pretty good.<br>

Maybe I'll report back with some pictures taken on a tripod later on this week.<br>

John</p>

<p>Now that I own this lens, anyone have a good idea for a soft padded snug-fitting pouch for this lens? Obviously the included case is way too bulky for everyday carry-around use.<br>

Thanks - John</p>

<p>Tamrac and LowePro have a good selection of padded pouches. I use one for my 70-200mm f2.8 VR.<br>

Kent in SD</p>

<p>On slide film I felt the AIS version of the 400mm f5,6 lens to be truly superb. Astonishingly this performance by and large held up if the lens on a sturdy tripod was used with a TC14A converter, normally intended for short tele lenses, that I happened to have handy at the time. That TC has mostly disappointed me with other lenses I have tried it with.<br>

With a D200 my sample feels soft, never really attaining critical sharpness like with Ektachrome (the brand I used it with at the time).<br>

I hope you fare better with yours. I will keep my lens for another try with FX- once and if I take the leap.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>On slide film I felt the AIS version of the 400mm f5,6 lens to be truly superb. Astonishingly this performance by and large held up if the lens on a sturdy tripod was used with a TC14A converter, normally intended for short tele lenses, that I happened to have handy at the time. That TC has mostly disappointed me with other lenses I have tried it with.<br /> With a D200 my sample feels soft, never really attaining critical sharpness like with Ektachrome (the brand I used it with at the time).<br /> I hope you fare better with yours. I will keep my lens for another try with FX- once and if I take the leap.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yes, I'll give it a proper testing today on my D300 if the fog ever clears. Just hand-holding it I've found that focusing is very critical to get decently sharp images. In general I've found that older MF lenses have to be really accurately focused to maximize their IQ on DSLRs while on film it seems to me it was not so critical. I too have the TC14A and will give it a go with the 400/5.6 - I found this TC to be excellent on my 200/4 AIS and even on my 180/2.8 ED-IF AF when stopped down just a bit from wide open (contrary to some reports). I have a new Kenko 1.4xTC (300 DG Pro) coming in a couple of days and I'll be able to compare the two TCs.<br>

- John</p>

<p>Well, I had a chance to compare the 400/5.6 ED-IF AIS against:<br>

70-300VR<br>

80-200AFS + TC14A<br>

180/2.8 AF + TC14A<br>

all three with the images upsized to match the magnification of the 400/5.6.<br>

Short of showing pictures, the 400/5.6 ED-IF AIS was the clear winner, even wide open. Now granted the TC14A is not known to be the best of TC's, but the differences were quite clear. I'll be getting a Kenko 1.4x TC in the next week and will re-test (wish I had the Nikon TC14EII, but the Kenko is supposed to be just as good). The 70-300VR at 300mm and up-rezed was not even close (no TC) at any aperture (a known weak point of this lens).<br>

A few observations:<br>

- Focus is critical with these long lenses (I used LiveView on my D300)<br>

- A good tripod and delayed shooting/cable release as well<br>

- Atmospheric turbulence was also noticeable for my test target - but it was the same for all of the lenses. I suspect the 400/5.6 may be even sharper with clear air (400mm is getting into telescope territory!).<br>

Overall I'm pleased with my first test. I also found the corners to be just as good as the center even wide open. I suspect this would not be the case with an FX sensor.<br>

More to come later!<br>

John</p>

<p>Well, I had a chance to compare the 400/5.6 ED-IF AIS against:<br>

70-300VR<br>

80-200AFS + TC14A<br>

180/2.8 AF + TC14A<br>

all three with the images upsized to match the magnification of the 400/5.6.<br>

Short of showing pictures, the 400/5.6 ED-IF AIS was the clear winner, even wide open. Now granted the TC14A is not known to be the best of TC's, but the differences were quite clear. I'll be getting a Kenko 1.4x TC in the next week and will re-test (wish I had the Nikon TC14EII, but the Kenko is supposed to be just as good). The 70-300VR at 300mm and up-rezed was not even close (no TC) at any aperture (a known weak point of this lens).<br>

A few observations:<br>

- Focus is critical with these long lenses (I used LiveView on my D300)<br>

- A good tripod and delayed shooting/cable release as well<br>

- Atmospheric turbulence was also noticeable for my test target - but it was the same for all of the lenses. I suspect the 400/5.6 may be even sharper with clear air (400mm is getting into telescope territory!).<br>

Overall I'm pleased with my first test. I also found the corners to be just as good as the center even wide open. I suspect this would not be the case with an FX sensor.<br>

More to come later!<br>

John</p>

<p>I acquired a 400/5.6 AIS ED-IF in the last year or so and I think it's a -great- lens. Wide open it's sharp as a tack. Relatively small/light for a 400, although some people think that's a disadvantage with that focal length. I used it on my D300 before I sold it, as well as my film cameras. Did some really nice shots of the moon, among others.<br>

This is the kind of thing that makes me really happy that Nikon stuck with the F-mount all these years. Back in the olden days I couldn't dream of affording a lens like that. :-)<br>

(My next project will be to get one of those aftermarket CPU chips added to it so I don't have to manually dial-in the custom lens number to setup the meter on newer cameras.)</p>