Nikon 400/2.8 for Nature/Wildlife

[jim_korczak]

I have searched the archives and found little discussion regarding the Nikon 400/2.8 (or comparable from other mfr.) lens. Notwithstanding the price issue, this lens would appear to make a great, flexible nature/wildlife lens. Combined with a 1.4 or a 2.0 converter, it would seem to be ideal. I know it weighs 12+ pounds, but so does much of the other big glass. Has anyone had any experience with this piece? Is the AF version worthwhile, or is the MF just as good, aside from the 'convenience' of AF? Hope this is not too foolish a question, but I would love to hear of others experience in the field before I start saving my pennies (or spending them)!

[dan_smith]

I am not the one to comment on the manal v autofocus, but if you have autofocus you can always use it on manual but not the other way around.

This lens weighs about the same as the 600 f/4 and is a stop faster. The 1.4 will give you a 560 f4 and the 2x will give an 800 f5.6. If you get the 600 f/4, the converters give you an 840 f/5.6 and a 1200 f/8. A lot more power with the loss of one stop.

If you are out in the field I thing(personal experience) you will find the need/want/desire for more power, this so many wildlife shooters choosing the 600 over the 400 even with the one stop light loss. For football & some sports the 400 is great(personal experience) yet given the choice my money went to the 600. Then I supplement with a 300 2.8, much lighter and a good alternative with which I shoot high school & college wrestling, basketball and snakes, butterflies and a lot of nature stuff when combined with a PK13 extensiion tube on the Nikons. If you can get to a place like Del's in Santa Barbara you might be able actually try the lenses you are thinking of & I bet you go with the bigger glass.

[bobatkins]

Dan speaks from direct pro experience, so his comments are the most

valauble!

 

<p>

 

I'm just an amateur, but to me, a 400/2.8 isn't as desirable as

a 600/4 for wildlife work. For a start 400 is a bit short. Once

you add a TC (any TC) quality inevitably drops. It can still be

very good, but not as good as the prime. If the 400/2.8 was

significantly lighter than the 600/4, then it might be a different

story. The Nikon 400/3.5 was such a lens and was very popular, but

it isn't available in an AF version. Most shooters would probably

pick the 500/4 over the 400/2.8 for field use if weight was a

concern, or the 600/4 if it wasn't.

 

<p>

 

Most of the serious wildlife shooters I know tend to end up with

the 300/2.8, 400/3.5, 500/4 or 600/4. Very few seem to go with the 400/2.8. You really don't need the extra stop most of the time for

wildlife work, at least not as much as you need the extra reach of

the longer lenses.

[bob_royse]

There is one feature in using the 400f2.8 with tc's where I think it would excel over the other alternatives - that's in the closer minimum focusing distance.

 

<p>

 

I use a 500f4 and 1.4x. I purchased it largely for the reasons stated above by Bob Atkins. Nevertheless, one of my primary phtographic subjects with this lens is small passerines. I'd say that least 50% of the time I have an extension tube attatched so I can have a 700mm lens that focuses as closely as 12ft. When using the 500 alone from a blind I have to add even more extension. Since I use a Nikon F4, I also lose spot metering unless I add 2/3 stop (not convenient). If I was using an AF lens, I'd also lose AF. The 500f4 focuses down to between 15 and 16ft. by itself, but that's not quite enough. The idea of a close focusing 560f4 and 800f5.6 sounds very attractive.

 

<p>

 

I primarily use Contax cameras and Nikon only for this telephoto. There are rumors that Zeiss will be releasing a 400f2.8 this year. That will certainly be my dream lens assuming it's the expected quality. If it's also the expected price, I better start buying lottery tickets :)

[don_baccus]

In the Canon world (just as a point of reference) you don't lose AF with an extension tube, so the problem Robert alludes to isn't there. You do lose spot metering on the EOS 1/1N, but still have the "partial" mode available, which works essentially like a slightly larger spot, making this only a slight inconvenience.

 

<p>

 

I almost always just leave a 25mm extension tube on my 600/4. Losing AF would be unacceptable. Doesn't Nikon provide an extension tube that maintains AF with the AFI-D and AF-S teles, at least with the N90 family and F5 bodies?

 

<p>

 

Like Dan, I've augmented my 600/4 with a 300/2.8. The latter lens is a great all-around lens, useful for much more than simple wildlife shooting. I get good spacing with the 1.4x, i.e. 300/2.8, 420/4, 600/4, 840/5.6. With both 400/2.8 and 600/4 you get 400/2.8, 560/4, 600/4, 840/5.6 - not very good spacing. Thus the popularity of the 300+600 combination in the wildlife shooter's kit (many substituting the 300/4 for its light weight and cheaper cost).

[paul_wilson2]

Robert,

 

<p>

 

Why does spot metering not work with the f4 + 500 + tube combo? Is this a problem with the F4? I would think that TTL metering would take care of any light loss from the tube.

[don_baccus]

As usual, this has digressed from the original question (now we're on spot metering and extension tubes!) but it's the kind of digression I personally enjoy...

 

<p>

 

I think the most elegeant solution - speaking as a technoid - to the whole telephoto system question is Leica's. They provide two back ends and two front ends, which can be combined to provide a 300/2.8, 400/2.8, 600/4 and 800/5.6 as I recall (I might have specific mm lengths wrong), each giving top prime performance.

 

<p>

 

Of course, it's manual focus and it costs a bunch more than any Japanese 300/2.8 + 600/4 + 1.4x, but when I got to play with one I thought it was pretty damned cool!

[bob_royse]

To answer the questions that have diverted from the original question - The Nikon F4 underexposes everything by about 2/3 stops when an extension tube is added. That's just the way the meter works. Various tube, lens, and focusing screen combinations might be different. A Nikon technician explained it to me once and I don't want to embarrass myself by trying to paraphrase him. Call 1-800-NIKONUS if you want the technical details. On the Contax AX the spot meter OVERexposes with an ext. tube added. This can be annoying if you're photographing wildlife moving through tricky lighting situations. Changing meter patterns, exposure compensation dials and following agile subjects doesn't work too easily. Camera makers obviously don't consider this to be important when designing their meters. Some cameras, like the Contax RTSIII, 167MT, and numerous others aren't affected by extension tubes while spot metering. To answer Don's question - no, Nikon doesn't make any ext. tubes that allow AF functions, although some third party makers (Kenko, I think) do.

 

<p>

 

Getting back to the original 400f2.8 question - I think it's a valid option if it fills a need for speed at 400mm and/or close focus at 800mm. I really want that Zeiss lens - bad! But an amateur like myself could never justify its (presumed) price.

[don_atzberger]

I've got a manual focus 400/4 Tamron with Tamron's 1.4x and 2x Adaptall converters and often wish I had a 600. The 400 with the two teleconverters stacked makes an 1100/11 of pretty shaky quality. The 2x converter alone works quite nicely, but sometimes 800 feels a tad short for birds. Dan's comment about wanting more and more reach in the field is dead on the mark -- I find myself wishing for more reach whenever I'm out for bird shots.

 

<p>

 

AF is a big help to me for focus tracking in-flight birds. At present, my longest AF lens is a 75-300mm Nikkor, but when I'm tracking birds, I find the 75-300 gives me more sharp slides than the 400. The 600/4 AF-I is pretty expensive used and I seriously doubt you'll see many used AF-S lenses for a while.

 

<p>

 

Unfortunately, there's little in the way of affordable AF lenses beyond 400mm. The only one I know of is the 500mm f/4.5 Sigma, but I've heard some horror stories about that lens (separated into two pieces on a guy while he was shooting a golf tournament).

[don_baccus]

My first telephoto was a Vivitar 400/5.6 that separated into two pieces in Florida.

 

<p>

 

It took me awhile, but I figured out how to remate the pieces. It was actually designed to come apart, probably a good thing in some repair circumstances.

 

<p>

 

I'm not saying one should take a coming-apart episode lightly (it should never happen through normal use) but repair costs might just consist of someone clever figuring out how the puzzle fits.

 

<p>

 

My expensive Canon telephotos have lenshoods that lose screws, due to my extensive driving on Great Basin gravel roads, with washboard road chatter subjecting everything to vibration (an old Minolta body lost its rewind lever that way, too). No big deal, but I bet the Japanese engineers at both companies have never seen roads like I travel on, much less make it standard practice to do so for several hundred miles a year!

[bob_royse]

Jim, sorry to load up you mailbox with questions you haven't asked, but I have a question for all those 600f4 freaks. How often do you really take quality shots with a 600f4 and 2x? Is how a lens performs at f8 even a consideration here? I haven't even seriously considered purchasing a matched 2x for my 500f4 for a 1000f8. Yes I could put a 2x on my 500, load it with fast film and get some fuzzy shots to document some state bird record, but there are already so many people who do that kind of stuff and I'd like to keep my photography as artful as possible. I really consider f5.6 the limit in both focusing ability and quality on film. Beyond that it's time for me to pull out the binoculars to enjoy the view or put a macro or wide angle lens on the camera and find a different photographic subject.

 

<p>

 

I must say, though, there are many times when I would have liked to have had an 800 or 840f5.6 vs. 700mm or would have appreciated an f2.8 over f4 when light got low. I also have had back or shoulder aches from carrying around ONLY a 500f4+tc, camera, tripod, and ballhead all day.

[danny_weber]

Although this is completely unrelated to the original question, the Kenko AF extension tubes provide full AF and meter coupling for Nikon shooters.

[jim_korczak]

Thanks all to have answered,

 

<p>

 

I must apologize for not providing a little more info in my original question. I am an amateur (for the last 20 years) that strives for profesional quality prints for my own enjoyment. I have an AF body (Nikon N70), so that is why I asked the AF/MF question. My goal was to find out if the AF version was optically superior. This may be the wrong forum for this question.

 

<p>

 

I will throw one more feature in while I am at it. I have an opportunity to purchase a mint used 400/2.8 MF lens for $4500 (or hopefully less). Is this a worthy price? I understand that no matter how long a lens you get, it's never enough. But I would rather take advantage of an opportunity to get as far as reasonably possible without another mortgage.

 

<p>

 

BTW, I appreciate the related comments in the thread because they teach me quite a bit. No need to hold back on my account.

 

<p>

 

Thanks again to all.

[don_baccus]

Jim, the older MF 400/2.8 has six elements in eight groups, the AFI-D 7/10. The AFI-D focuses to 3.3 meters, the MF to 4 meters. I got this from the B&H website (I was curious) where the MF is advertised at $7,500. This may be a MAP (manufacturer's advertised price) and B&H may actually sell it cheaper, only way to find out is to ask them. $4,500 "or hopefully cheaper" seems like a decent price to me, but I've not investigated the used market for Nikon gear so don't take my word for it.

 

<p>

 

I would assume Nikon incorporated a more complicated optical formula in the AFI-D version in part to improve optical performance, but haven't personally seen any lens tests, etc.

 

<p>

 

Robert: I've used my 2x on my 600/4 in a pinch a few times. Even fewer times, I've gotten decent images. My sharpest came when I had enough light to stop down 2/3 (f10), use mirror lockup, early in the day in windless conditions. These were really excellent. Wide-open it seems a bit soft to me. Most of the time when I get fuzzy results I'm sure it's due to vibration and/or atmospheric effects.

 

<p>

 

Remember, though, I can take fuzzy rare bird photos on fast film in three neighboring states without ever leaving my porch if I just stack the 1.4x and 2x on the lens together! :)

[anthonty_debase]

The 500mm f/4 P Nikkor telephoto lens in very good to excellent condition can be purchased in the $3,000 range. As Don points out in his website (correct me if you have changed this recommendation, Don) the "affordable" way to get into the Big Glass is via Nikon's new or used manual focus telephotos. Unfortunately, the wonderful USM/SilentWave glass by Canon and Nikon is too expensive for many of us. :(

 

<p>

 

Incendentally, I have run into several bird photographers who use the 400mm f/2.8 with a 2X convertor. They claim to have sold shots to various magazines taken with that combo. Of course, I am in no position to verify any of this information.

[don_baccus]

Anthony - the 400/2.8 has a bigger front "dinner plate" than the 500/4, which is why it's more expensive than the 500/4, which is cheaper new as well as used.

 

<p>

 

For birds, the 500/4 is a better choice, IMO.

 

<p>

 

But the question was "nature/wildlife lens". While I personally think it's not the best choice, others, like Robert Royce, think it's a great length though he personally owns a 500/4. The latter is certainly more specialized. When you get to this realm, we're nitpicking. "best", besides being a matter of personal opinion, doesn't mean "the other" is bad. I think the 400/2.8, 500/4 and 600/4 issue may boil down to personal taste in the photos one takes.

 

<p>

 

If Jim meant "birds" rather than "nature/wildlife" I'd even more strongly argue for a 500/4 or 600/4...

 

<p>

 

My main argument against the 400/2.8 is that for the same weight and not much more money (9 to 7 ratio) you can get a 600/4. On the other hand, all us 600 owners end up buying 300/2.8 or 300/4 lenses, so I guess that should be added in. The 500/4 is probably the best compromise if you're not going to add a 300/2.8, though. The 400/2.8 weighs the same as a 600/4 without the length.

 

<p>

 

Yet, 400/2.8 is seductively attractive. I'd use one if I owned it! Just not as much as a 600/4 (or 500/4). The 600/4 because if I'm going to kill myself over weight, might as well get some length out of it. The 500/4, because hey! it's lighter than the 400/2.8 and longer, too! But for sports shooting (which I'd love to do sometime, in a serious way) the 400/2.8 seems really hot.

 

<p>

 

And if they made a 6 lb 400/2.8, they'd sell a ton of the suckers.

 

<p>

 

I think all the Nikon/Canon (and probably Minolta/Pentax) superteles with a 2x can produce images salable to birding magazines. The 600/4 with a 1.4x will out-perform a 400/2.8 with 2x, so this might affect a photo editor. Often, though, in the bird magazine world they need a specific species at a specific time of year (i.e. breeding or migrating) so they'll take what they can get as long as it meets a minimum threshold.

[bill_oneill]

For what it's worth, the curvature on the front element of the 400/2.8 is considerably more than on a 600/4 or 500/4. It is more difficult to make accurate lenses which have more curvature. I may be wrong, but I would bet (not much, mind you) that the 600/4 or 500/4 would produce slightly better images wide open than would the 400/2.8 stoped down to f4.

[bob_royse]

The price Jim mentions seems like a decent one for a 400f2.8. But as others have noted 500f4's are even less expensive. If the lens was to be used a good deal of the time at 800mm I'd certainly like to know how it performs there before I put my money down on it. The newer AF Nikkors can only be presumed to be better optically. The same goes for the newest Canon version. The Zeiss lens would be attractive to me because of the reputation of their 300f2.8 and mythological 600f4 with teleconverters. The Nikon 400f3.5 can also be found used at a decent price and it is highly regarded with a matched 2x. Larry West's "How to Photograph Birds" has many shots taken with this combo. The weight issue seems most significant on slow days when there's not much opportunity to set down the tripod and you find your self saying "why am I lugging this thing around?"

 

<p>

 

You do need one of these big lenses for quality wildlife photography, though. They're all a compromise somewhere. For myself I doubt that I'll purchase anything new in the next few years (unless I win the lottery). I think that patience, persistence and knowledge of subjects have more to do with a successful photograph than whether you have 700mm or 800mm. I'd rather put the money into travel to use what I already have.

[doug_herr]

The big, fast lenses such as the 400 f/2.8, 600 f/4.0 etc. have become quite popular for wildlife work but there's another approach you might consider that requires a different mind-set: a lightweight, hand-held lens that's actually designed to be used hand-held. I've been using this sort of rig for a number of years and while I'll miss some shots in dim light I'm not burdened with a "Fred Flintstone's Club" sized monster with tripod to match so I am willing (and actually do) carry my rig further afield and into situations where the tripod is useless.

 

<p>

 

I find that with this sort of equipment my photos are much more dynamic and I don't need as long a lens. Either the Novoflex 400 or Leica 400 f/6.8 will do.

[bobatkins]

I don't believe you can get sharp results with a slow 400mm lens

handheld. You can get snapshots, or you can get fair images with

fast film in good light. You can have fun and obtain images which

make you happy. However it's not a recipe for success most of the

time. With ISO 100 film you <em>might</em> get decent sharpness under full sun (around 1/500 at f6.8), but full sun is the worst light for

most work, and even 1/500 at 400mm isn't fast enough for critical

sharpness every time. In dimmer light, you're out of luck. You can

go to ISO 200 or ISO 400 film to increase your odds, but you're losing

image quality and you're still pushing your luck to its limits under

typical lighting conditions for wildlife work!

[dan_smith]

I went from the Novoflex follow focus to a 600 f/4 edif and there is no comparison in the lenses. The results are apparent on the light table and on the negs while still wet out of the fix and rinse. The follow focus lenses are nice but no longer measure up to the top of the line(and heavy & costly) modern big glass. If I were going to compromise, I would buy long lenses from Century as I have seen a lot of them on the Pro Surfing tour and see good results from them. As to our original question, if the price is really good go for the 400 f/2.8 as you will learn to work with whatever you get and the ED glass or L(or whatever other code name) is much, MUCH better than the straight glass. How do I know? Was shooting a 49ers game with a good friend(NFL photog of the year) and I had the 600 f4, he the straight 600 f/4.5 canon. I was shooting at f/4(wide open) and he was shooting at f/8, his best aperture. Later in the darkroom he was asking about the lens as he was thinking of getting the L glass for his canons(he had 3 600 f/5.6 lenses). In the middle of our conversation he pulled my negs out of the initial rinse after fixing and the comment was " Holy shit, Just how good is that lens"? He could see the difference in contrast from his that easily. You DO get what you pay for. Three days later he had a new 400 f/2.8 canon and loves it.

[doug_herr]

I don't think either Bob Atkins or Dan Smith have seen what a good hand-held 400 can do. Dan's Novoflex was undoubtedly an older model. I wasn't too impressed with the optical quality of that equipment but recent Novoflex lenses use Leica glass which in my experience blows the Nikkors away.

 

<p>

 

As for the belief in the viabilty of using a hand-held 400 for professional-quality work I invite anyone to look up the Prairie Warbler photo on Peterson's CD-ROM bird guide, or the perched immature Northern Goshawk in the Stokes Field Guides. The Prairie Warbler was made with Kodachrome 25. I had about 2 seconds to raise the camera to my eye, focus, set the exposure, frame the image and shoot as the bird jumped into and then out of range. The shutter speed was 1/60 sec. My experience has been that excellent results at 1/60 sec are frequently possible and that 1/125 sec nearly always guarantees professional-quality results.

 

<p>

 

Where the Northern Goshawk was, it would have been impossible to set up a tripod let alone haul a tripod to the site. This was made at 1/125 sec on Kodachrome 64.

 

<p>

 

The trick to all this is a good shoulder brace and excellent ergonomic design. I sold my Nikons and Nikkors because neither their optical quality nor the ergonomics measured up to the Leica 400.

[bryan_kochis]

MAN, I wish I had the $$$ you all have! There's NO WAY my wife would let me blow 9 grand on a 600/4 without first selling about 6 million images. So, who has the keys to the money chest? Can I borrow them?

[bobatkins]

Well, you've got to look at lens prices in the context of what

else you spend your money on. Do you have a new $20,000 car like

a lot of folks or do you drive a 5 year old car worth maybe $8000?

That 600/4 you buy used for $7500 will probably be worth $7500

in 10 years time, while your $20,000 car will be a $2000 rust

bucket! Big lenses are expensive, but don't think that everyone

who owns one is rich. You don't know what they don't have because

they do have the lens!

[eielrt_anders]

My idea of 35mm photography is that it should be quick, easy, and hand holdable. I resent using tripods in the field. With the fast, new, high quality films a large proportion of my shots are excellent, but it gets tougher when I get to the long focal lengths. I own the Leica 400 f6.8 Telyt, and use it for portraits, closeups, landscapes (with this lens every vista is a thousand landscapes!), and nature photography. I too, have taken hand held shots with this lens, and gotten remarkable results, but it's a challenge. I have recently acquired the Leica shoulder stock, but have not had time to evaluate it's effectiveness. With my style of shooting, I just can't see myself carrying around a monster 400 f2.8 lense. No doubt the percentage of acceptable shots would increase, but ouch, my back and my pocketbook! I have not compared the Telyt with Canon or Nikor glass, but it is an excellent lense with no flare (a single componenbt two glass lens), excellent sharpness, and brilliant contrast. The APO lenses probably outclass it at f6.8- f8, but beyond that, it will give any lens a run for the money. You can pick it up used for 600-850 dollars, and some have been adapted for Nikons and other makes.