Nikon 200-400 F/4 VR Image Samples
As promised, I am posting some images from the Nikon 200-400. I made these images at the LA Zoo.
I am very pleased with the autofocus. The ability to frame in the 200-400 range was tremendously valuable. The lens acquired focus quickly and accurately. I also like the VR. It works. While I was using a monopod, I would still expect some blur due to camera movement. I was shooting at 400mm (occasionally at 600mm due to DX crop factor) and still was able to shoot 1/90th of a second with no problem.
(f/4 – ISO 280 – 1/90 – 300mm)
The images show very good color rendition. They are sharp and the lens offers a nice soft bokeh, even though it’s only an f/4.
The D3/200-400 combination presents very nice images – on balance, some of the best I’ve ever shot.
(f/4 – ISO 200 – 1/750 – (-0.5 EV) – 400mm)
For a full size version of this image click on Flamingo.jpg.
There is always compromise – on the Canon 1DS MKIII, the camera would have captured more detail in the highlights and the gradation from bright to dark would have been smoother. But at press size, i.e. the size most of these images will appear in books (no larger than 8×10″) there will be no appreciable difference.
(f/4 – ISO 320 – 1/90 – 400mm)
I have uploaded one high res version – the bird image (Flamingo.jpg.) for you to investigate. In order to save bandwidth, I am only posting low-res versions of the remaining images.
NOTE: I shot these images in order to test the 200-400. So I am not claiming they are perfect. Just a quick test of the lens.
Comments are closed.
These images are really striking, even if you say they’re just a “quick test”! I often wonder how much such impressive images were altered during development – I am never sure whether my photos need better shooting or better post-processing (or both). Would it be much trouble, Scott, to post one or two of the “out of the camera” versions of these images so that we can learn from the changes you applied, if any? Similarly small JPEGs would be fine, I think, since as you say the bandwidth is not free.
Could you clarify the bit about the DX crop factor? I thought that issue went away with the full frame sensors.
Looks great Scott
May you have an excellent time breaking in the new lens.
@Kendall Lister the Flamingo picture is essentially right out of the camera. Just slightly adjusted exposure and added back in sharpening that digital takes out. The rest were processed with my normal workflow which is to vignette the corners, dodge and burn appropriately, remove dust/specs, adjust color and sharpen. For me, the real test of the lens is to see how photos look that are subject to my normal workflow. Since it’s the stuff I do all the time, I need to see how it looks under those conditions to evaluate the lens.
@Jon the D3 is a full-frame sensor but it has the ability to revert to DX crop factor at the hit of a button.
Scott,
Please tell me that is dirt on the flamingo not on you sensor already! That is a fabulous lens. I wish I could afford one.
David
looks like a very nice companion to the 70-200 2.8 VR. im currently shooting a D200/70-200 combination, and am hoping to step up to a D3 when the money picks up. i am a little concerned about the lack of performance the 70-200 provides on the D3, but am finding myself limited to ISO640 and needing more out of the camera. when you test out this lens on the D3 in FX, can you post some images? im hoping its more hype than truth!
great shots and subtle treatment
Good to see you’re liking the lens. The more I see your post titles with the 200-400 the more I wish Canon had a similar zoom. Funny how you don’t miss what you’re unaware of let alone don’t have. I guess what this means is I’m increasingly becoming green with envy of your 200-400 :)
One question for you…
With photos you post why not use LightBox or another plugin? Having the images linked to the same size image in a new window really isn’t adding much value to your posts.
What’s the difference between reverting to DX crop and just cropping in Photoshop?
@Jim I don’t want larger versions of the image online in most cases but we will find a more elegant answer when we move to WP 2.5.
@Stephen Cupp one difference is that you get appropriate framing in camera.
Very nice photographs Scott. And congratulations on a fine purchase. Just for comparisons sake, would you be willing to post the flamingo image as it came out of the camera as to allow a better feel of the lens quality (in camera), as apposed to it undergoing post processing?
Thanks again for sharing, and all your hard work…
Great images Scott. I am the 200-400 f4 lens is something I miss continually since I switched to Canon. I used it constantly when photographing sports or wildlife with the D2X body.
Gary
That lens has some amazing bokeh.
Wow, that lens is amazing. Thanks for the review! :)
@ Scott Thanks for the extra info – it’s appreciated. While the focus of this post was of course reviewing the lens, and so you understandably want to employ your typical workflow, would it be possible for you to prepare a short feature to demonstrate how much or little your typical enhancements change a shot between “out of the camera” and “appropriately coloured, sharpened, etc”? I know you’re doing this more or less out of the goodness of your heart, so I hope I’m not asking too much. Which raises another topic: is there anyway to subscribe or otherwise contribute to your costs as a thank you for the podcast and blog?
@Kendall I appreciate your tone and we’re working on a way to deliver more info to people who are willing to pay. That said, in this particular case, if you look at the Flamingo pic that is so close to the original it wouldn’t be worth the effort. I adjusted the exposure a half stop in post. Since it’s RAW that’s the same as adjusting it in field so there’s no value to seeing it a half stop overexposed. As for sharpening, I applied VERY little, as is my practice, only putting in what digital takes out. No other changes. So that shot should give you a good idea.
I like your 200-400mm photos! That was my dream lens but I settled for Nikon’s 80-400mm (which is below 400mm and good at 400mm if stopped to f/11.
@Scott Thank you very much for those extra details – that’s exactly what I was hoping for, and is very helpful.