Nikkor 400mm 2.8 AFS II

[chris.evans]

I had a 300 2.8 VR for ages and I loved it. It was stolen and I bought a used 400 2.8 to replace it.

Having shot with this a few days, I have questions for anyone who owns this lens:

1) It's not really hand holdable. Not so much because it's heavy, but mainly because with my 1.4 tc it's an 840mm f/4 on a d300 (crop)

2) It seems to have a much shallower DOF sweet spot or area of focus than the 300, only maybe 1-2cm when wide open (something close).

3) The feet are awkward, as is the strap location. I ordered the Wimberly replacement foot.

It doesn't seem to give me so much more over the 300, anyone used both a lot?

Thanks,

[David_Buzzard]

The 400mm is a huge lens, especially with the 1.5x crop the D300 gives you. I've used the 400mm, but only on a mono-pod, as it's way too big to handhold for more than a few minutes at a time. And the DOF, wide open, is razor blade thin.

I'm not sure what you're using the 400mm for, but it's really built for shooting sports like football, soccer, and baseball, where you're in a fixed position. The 500mm f/4 seems like a more popular lens for wildlife shooters, as it's a lot less weight.

David Buzzard

[Terry Zorich]

I have the VR version of the 400/2.8 (AF-S Nikkor 400mm 2.8G ED), which is a good bit lighter than an older version of the lens, which I had a chance to rent before buying this one.

Yes, the DOF is very thin, and more so when the subject is very close. When the subject is further from the camera, it's better. If it's too thin, stop the lens down a little.

Here's a sample shot at f5...I don't think I could have shot this at 2.8 and gotten sufficient DOF.