Excellent video. I have had this lens for almost two years and have never had a problem with it. I looked this up only because I wanted a little more feedback regarding the VR. But excellent video James!
James if you are shooting headshots with that 400 they can't hear your instructions. :) While the photos tend to be nice that might be a little bit big for some instances of everyday headshot usage. Not that is can't produce a very nice shot, but I think that clarification should be made that in a smaller studio environment that a 400mm lens may not be usable. I actually think my Nikon 300mm f/2.8 produces better looking images, but the Nikon 400 f/2.8 has more reach, and very good results. Also my 300 2.8 VR is just as fast as my 400. I'm not so sure if the 400 in my case is faster then my smaller Nikon lenses which tend to focus blazingly fast. But my results just seem to be different I guess even though we seem to be using similar glass. I regularly use my 400 on a basketball court for isolated frames on the far end of the court. To be honest I wouldn't worry about the VR on switch much. Most time having it on a monopod will keep VR off lots of times, so its not like its being used daily but rather only when the need arises. The hood screws are not made to be tightened that much so much that you are sweating turning those screws. Just a enough turing until it stops turning is all you need, So don't torque it like your life depends on it.. Also if you shoot sports why are you hand holding that lens at a city council meeting? You don't own a monopod that you can take to that meeting. But to be honest if you are doing press work a 70-200 should be what works best in that room. Lastly, you claim the 400mm lens is a lens for "HARDCORE" Professionals So who looking at this is a "SOFTCORE" Professional? Man we are all just Professional it's just that some of don't require Super Telephotos to work....hahahaha!
Maxnnibal There has been no improvement in optical quality since the manual focus 400 2.8, but a slight degradation, the newer lenses are slightly worse. The best 400mm ever made is the Nikkor 400mm 3.5.
I own the 500mm f4 and wanting to get the 600mm f4. Would be better to get the 400mm f2.8 and add a 2.0 TC ? I found out this lens has no focus limitations with a 2.0 TC. The 500 and 600 work great with a 1.4 TC, not the 2.0
I've asked Nikon professional support in Los Angeles and they said they haven't ever seen a VR ring/control break, however I do agree it's a bad design and it bothered me for years. Nikon listened though and the FL version no longer has this ring switch, but a side switch instead. The two part hood design had nothing to do with the trunk case design by the way, it had to be a two part lens hood so it would fit reversed on the lens as the tripod foot is in the way. You'll notice that the 500mm f4 VR has a single and much longer hood than the 400mm or 600mm VR lenses, because it's tripod foot is reversed and is near the back of the lens as opposed to the front here on the 400mm f2.8 VR. By the way you're front element looks horridly dirty and your drop-in filter is backwards, which is kinda a no-no as it's part of the optical formula. You probably won't notice a difference in image quality with it backwards or even removed, but Nikon does not recommend doing either so you might want to fix it. The glass 52mm clear filter should be facing forwards towards the front of the lens and not backwards like here in the video.
Nikon state that the filter holder can be inserted either way with no adverse effect. Was interested in your 2 piece hood explanation, it's a pity Nikon didn't shorten the foot to accommodate a one piece hood though....Same issue with my 600mm F4
@@johnedwards2696 Well I would tend to agree with you on a standard drop-in NC filter, however the CP drop-in clearly has an arrow pointing forward and is designed to only be used in that position. Also the super-tele lenses ship with the drop in filter facing forwards as in they are intended to face forward. Reversing it could ever so slightly change the position of the filter and were talking like less than a mm, so thats why I tend to agree. However I personally always insert my drop-in filters the intended was forward. It's obviously more important when I'm using the drop-in CPL, but even with the NC filter I always make sure it's facing forwards.
@@patricksmith2553 My comment was aimed only at the standard NC filter and, as you say, the CPL1L is a different fish altogether. The Nikon gelatin holder doesn't appear to state a preference either, what do you think?
I'm considering this lens and I was curious why anyone would want VR. I feel like you gave me a clear picture of why I might or might not, in addition to some great details regarding the hood, VR ring, and focus ring. Do you know if the recent FL version has corrected these issues?
Doing some research last night, it appears the VR switch is fixed, the hood is a single piece, and *maybe* the focus ring is improved. Not sure about that last one.
+Rashid Altouqi For outdoors shooting, if you have the light, I would start off at f3.2 and 1/1000th of a second for shutter speed. Then just change your ISO to get the desired exposure. If you can go even faster on the shutter, great! I know most pro soccer and football photos are shot at about 1/2500th or so.
Haha yeah I noticed that too, but this is most likely a pool lens and is shared with other press photographer's. The drop-in filter was inserted backwards when he went to pull it out, I laughed at that too, because that filter is part of the lenses optical design and therefore should never be inserted in backwards or removed. Also someone has put almost an entire roll of duct-tape on the tripod foot so they can more comfortably rest it on their shoulder when carrying the lens attached to a monopod. I had this version for years and then a few months ago, I upgraded to the new FL version Nikon 400mm f2.8 VR. Honestly this lens is much a better deal than the new one, but the new one is lighter by two pounds, which is a huge difference! The new FL version is supposedly a little sharper than this VR version, but honestly you'll never really see the difference as this lens was already ridiculously sharp. It's near perfect MTF chart is more like a WTF chart, so a small increase in sharpness will not be noticed until you attach a teleconverter. With Nikon's latest 1.4x TC-14E III teleconverter the new FL version does much better than the older VR version with the same teleconverter or the older TC-14E II. If you own this original version you can pretty much skip the newer TC-14E III and save some money and buy a used TC-14E II. With the newer FL version and TC-14E III the sharpness and autofocus performance is both improved over the older lens and older TC. Nothing else though is really improved and honestly if it wasn't for my bad back I would have never upgraded to newer lighter lens as this version is incredible, especially today as they sell for about $4000-$4500 used. The newer FL version is about $11,300 USD new, but I recently upgraded to it by way of used like new condition for $7400! It's 2019 and although these 400mm f2.8 lenses are rare, ebay does usually have a couple used copies of both the VR and FL versions! The newer FL was made in 2016 so they are starting to show up used more often than a couple years ago. Nikon typically only produces about 6,000-7,000 copies though for the entire world market so they remain quite rare indeed, especially when most people hold on to them for many years.
An excellently delivered and informative review James. Thank you for taking the time to make it.
Excellent video. I have had this lens for almost two years and have never had a problem with it. I looked this up only because I wanted a little more feedback regarding the VR. But excellent video James!
James if you are shooting headshots with that 400 they can't hear your instructions. :) While the photos tend to be nice that might be a little bit big for some instances of everyday headshot usage. Not that is can't produce a very nice shot, but I think that clarification should be made that in a smaller studio environment that a 400mm lens may not be usable. I actually think my Nikon 300mm f/2.8 produces better looking images, but the Nikon 400 f/2.8 has more reach, and very good results. Also my 300 2.8 VR is just as fast as my 400. I'm not so sure if the 400 in my case is faster then my smaller Nikon lenses which tend to focus blazingly fast. But my results just seem to be different I guess even though we seem to be using similar glass. I regularly use my 400 on a basketball court for isolated frames on the far end of the court.
To be honest I wouldn't worry about the VR on switch much. Most time having it on a monopod will keep VR off lots of times, so its not like its being used daily but rather only when the need arises. The hood screws are not made to be tightened that much so much that you are sweating turning those screws. Just a enough turing until it stops turning is all you need, So don't torque it like your life depends on it.. Also if you shoot sports why are you hand holding that lens at a city council meeting? You don't own a monopod that you can take to that meeting. But to be honest if you are doing press work a 70-200 should be what works best in that room.
Lastly, you claim the 400mm lens is a lens for "HARDCORE" Professionals So who looking at this is a "SOFTCORE" Professional? Man we are all just Professional it's just that some of don't require Super Telephotos to work....hahahaha!
Thank you for the video. What mic did you use to record this video? And what video head are you using?
May I ask what is the main difference between that lens and non VR model? I mean, just about image quality, considering shooting speed over 1/1000...
Maxnnibal There has been no improvement in optical quality since the manual focus 400 2.8, but a slight degradation, the newer lenses are slightly worse. The best 400mm ever made is the Nikkor 400mm 3.5.
I own the 500mm f4 and wanting to get the 600mm f4. Would be better to get the 400mm f2.8 and add a 2.0 TC ?
I found out this lens has no focus limitations with a 2.0 TC. The 500 and 600 work great with a 1.4 TC, not the 2.0
I've asked Nikon professional support in Los Angeles and they said they haven't ever seen a VR ring/control break, however I do agree it's a bad design and it bothered me for years. Nikon listened though and the FL version no longer has this ring switch, but a side switch instead. The two part hood design had nothing to do with the trunk case design by the way, it had to be a two part lens hood so it would fit reversed on the lens as the tripod foot is in the way. You'll notice that the 500mm f4 VR has a single and much longer hood than the 400mm or 600mm VR lenses, because it's tripod foot is reversed and is near the back of the lens as opposed to the front here on the 400mm f2.8 VR. By the way you're front element looks horridly dirty and your drop-in filter is backwards, which is kinda a no-no as it's part of the optical formula. You probably won't notice a difference in image quality with it backwards or even removed, but Nikon does not recommend doing either so you might want to fix it. The glass 52mm clear filter should be facing forwards towards the front of the lens and not backwards like here in the video.
Nikon state that the filter holder can be inserted either way with no adverse effect. Was interested in your 2 piece hood explanation, it's a pity Nikon didn't shorten the foot to accommodate a one piece hood though....Same issue with my 600mm F4
@@johnedwards2696 Well I would tend to agree with you on a standard drop-in NC filter, however the CP drop-in clearly has an arrow pointing forward and is designed to only be used in that position. Also the super-tele lenses ship with the drop in filter facing forwards as in they are intended to face forward. Reversing it could ever so slightly change the position of the filter and were talking like less than a mm, so thats why I tend to agree. However I personally always insert my drop-in filters the intended was forward. It's obviously more important when I'm using the drop-in CPL, but even with the NC filter I always make sure it's facing forwards.
@@patricksmith2553 My comment was aimed only at the standard NC filter and, as you say, the CPL1L is a different fish altogether. The Nikon gelatin holder doesn't appear to state a preference either, what do you think?
Very good review, I don't own the 400mm 2.8 but heft around with the 600mm F4. You're obviously a guy that uses his gear rather than plays with it!!
If you choose 1 of 2 Nikon 300mm f2.8 VRII wool and 400mm f2.8 VR, which one would you choose?
Excellent presentation!
Hi James, Good videos! quick question...did you get rid of the 120-300?
+Ray Martinez Yes sir! I really enjoyed it, but I needed the cash to help pay for the 400.
Makes perfect sense. I'm thinking about it, but I'm not sure if worth the investment. Great portfolio by the way, and greetings from MHK!
I'm considering this lens and I was curious why anyone would want VR. I feel like you gave me a clear picture of why I might or might not, in addition to some great details regarding the hood, VR ring, and focus ring. Do you know if the recent FL version has corrected these issues?
I believe the new lens has a different hood design, but I think the VR switch is the same way.
Doing some research last night, it appears the VR switch is fixed, the hood is a single piece, and *maybe* the focus ring is improved. Not sure about that last one.
The hood, being a single piece, is now $1000 if you break it. Ha!
If any of you needs a bargain, the first AF-S version of this lens without VR is slightly better optically and only about 3000 bucks. AF is as fast.
nearly bought one other day but ended up buying a thermal monocular instead
Excellent presentation. Much better that Matt Granger who keeps boasting what he has and keep mumbling in presentation.
Chi Ngo Yes and Matt Granger doesnt really own one but keeps renting it.
Good job 🤓
Hi James, just a quick question are these lenses weather sealed?
Yes Andrew, this lens is weather sealed. I've taken mine out in freezing rain with no issues.
This lens is still brill in 2020.
Hi
What the best setting i can go to shooting sport out door .am using d4s with nikon lens 4mm 2.8VR
+Rashid Altouqi For outdoors shooting, if you have the light, I would start off at f3.2 and 1/1000th of a second for shutter speed. Then just change your ISO to get the desired exposure. If you can go even faster on the shutter, great! I know most pro soccer and football photos are shot at about 1/2500th or so.
thank you very much James
hell... your front lens element is dirty as hell .... :_D
Haha yeah I noticed that too, but this is most likely a pool lens and is shared with other press photographer's. The drop-in filter was inserted backwards when he went to pull it out, I laughed at that too, because that filter is part of the lenses optical design and therefore should never be inserted in backwards or removed. Also someone has put almost an entire roll of duct-tape on the tripod foot so they can more comfortably rest it on their shoulder when carrying the lens attached to a monopod. I had this version for years and then a few months ago, I upgraded to the new FL version Nikon 400mm f2.8 VR. Honestly this lens is much a better deal than the new one, but the new one is lighter by two pounds, which is a huge difference! The new FL version is supposedly a little sharper than this VR version, but honestly you'll never really see the difference as this lens was already ridiculously sharp. It's near perfect MTF chart is more like a WTF chart, so a small increase in sharpness will not be noticed until you attach a teleconverter. With Nikon's latest 1.4x TC-14E III teleconverter the new FL version does much better than the older VR version with the same teleconverter or the older TC-14E II. If you own this original version you can pretty much skip the newer TC-14E III and save some money and buy a used TC-14E II. With the newer FL version and TC-14E III the sharpness and autofocus performance is both improved over the older lens and older TC. Nothing else though is really improved and honestly if it wasn't for my bad back I would have never upgraded to newer lighter lens as this version is incredible, especially today as they sell for about $4000-$4500 used. The newer FL version is about $11,300 USD new, but I recently upgraded to it by way of used like new condition for $7400! It's 2019 and although these 400mm f2.8 lenses are rare, ebay does usually have a couple used copies of both the VR and FL versions! The newer FL was made in 2016 so they are starting to show up used more often than a couple years ago. Nikon typically only produces about 6,000-7,000 copies though for the entire world market so they remain quite rare indeed, especially when most people hold on to them for many years.
Hi i m goig buy this lens used at a reasonable price by selling of 200-500 f5.6 E ...