This is not meant to be a review, there’s lots of those elsewhere if you were to search for one, but more of my own experience of this lens. Also, this site was never meant to be a gear site, and it never will be, but with this kind of post I’m hoping to add my own experiences to that of my subjects in the field too.

I once hired larger lenses like the Nikon 300 f/2.8 and 200-400 f/4 zoom for my trips, because it was cost effective, but last year I decided to grow up and get one of my own. Whether to get a fast 300, the 200-400 zoom, or a 500 was answered in part given the range of focal lengths the zoom offered, but there was also the nagging doubt associated with it of distant subject performance. But I bought the 200-400mm anyway, and it was not long before I realised that there was nothing to regret with my decision.

Nikon’s 200-400mm f4 G VR AF-S IF ED Zoom Lens.

It’s reasonably common knowledge (to gear aficionados anyway) via the internet forums that subjects taken at more than about 50 metres distant with this lens in some cases can result in rather soft pictures. And indeed my hired example was particularly guilty of this. In fact, in my case, my 300mm f/4 with converters easily beat this with regards to performance and acuity over these longer distances.

But having said all that, over 90% of my pictures were at a closer range, and were just fine. Well, not just fine actually, but just superb. A 300mm f/2.8 with a 1.4 converter is too restricting and nonsensical while this Nikon 200-400 f/4 zoom is on offer. That’s particularly true for my kind of photography, that is for large mammals at varying distances from either me or my vehicle.

Young male lion at Moremi, Botswana, May 2010.
Taken using a Nikon D300, 200-400mm zoom lens at 260mm, f/4.8, 1/125th and ISO 360.

Click on the image for a larger, 1000 pixel view.
And click here for a section of this image at 100% view. You can see the fly’s eyes at the bottom left!

So then I grew up and purchased my 200-400, and quickly learnt that the distance shots for this particular unit were in fact quite acceptable, as opposed to my hired one which just quite simply was not. So there’s some sort of sample variation going on here, I think.

I’ve used my 200-400 fairly abundantly now, including a very rewarding trip to Botswana in May where I found practically every image was sharp, including some at middle to far distance. Remember, great distances with long lenses will often be softish anyway, particularly in hot weather due to the heat creating waves in the air.

One constant with wildlife photography is that you never know what you’re going to see next, whether it’s something small or something bigger, or whether it’s something close or something afar. I have a utterly wonderful series of pictures of a leopard encounter (I think so anyway) which would not have been so achievable if I’d used a fixed focal length lens. I would have had a few good pictures, I’m sure, but certainly not the range and variation I was able to come away with on this particular occasion. The purchase of this lens over a fixed focal length one proved itself during this 40 minute encounter alone.

Handholding requires a little heft, and while I’m not exactly small and lithe, I’d still be reluctant to hoist this around all day without a tripod. Carrying it around is easy, but hoisting it up at eye level to take pictures all day gets quite tiring. Bean bags are the perfect foil for this lens if you’d be travelling in a vehicle. Indeed, my upcoming Kenya trip may well see me leave my tripod at home.

And speaking of carrying it around, this lens comes with a neat carry bag which accepts the lens with a camera attached as well. I comfortably attached a D700 with a battery grip and a 1.4 converter and put it all in the bag, and slung it over one shoulder. This is all very compact and lighter than you might think too.

VR is very good, but I’m finding this best left off these days using either the bean bag or a tripod with a Wimberley Sidekick attached. Shutter speeds down to 1/125 are working for me at full zoom and with a converter attached, for a focal length of 560mm. But I did turn it on when using the sidekick at lower speeds like 1/45th of a second. My tripod and sidekick settings tend to be a bit (deliberately) loose, and I don’t tend to tighten everything down before I shoot.

Recently I ventured out to Richmond Park (a park near London full of deer) with the sole aim of shooting with a D700, this lens, and a 1.4 converter. I shot at a half stop down (effectively f/6.7 after allowing for the one stop factor the converter gives). They say you should shoot at a stop down (i.e f/8), but i didn’t, just the half stop, and I was quite happy with that. It’s a good thing I did this exercise, because now I can be pretty confident of using this combination come Kenya. The 1.7 converter was quite hopeless, though, but I know that if I need more reach, I can always put a D300 camera on and take advantage of it’s 1.5 crop factor.

There’s a good argument for two cameras, one with a long 400 or 500mm fixed focal length and one with something like a 70-200 maybe with a converter. I still like that argument, but right now I’m happy with my 200-400 one camera and a 70-200 on the other. Other times I might attach the D300 to my 300mm f/4 with a converter because that works really well for me for an effective 630mm option or should I have any remaining doubts about the far off distance shots when using the 200-400.

I use the first release version of this lens, and recently version II became available. But I’ve not seen the new one, let alone used it. However everything I write here applies to both versions, from my understanding and from what I’ve read about the new one.

Cameras never lie, but a computer can

Maybe I’ve two of three qualities required for a little premature success. I can take above average pictures, am an above average retoucher, but unfortunately I lack an important third quality, which is the appetite for fakery.

I’ve a long shelf of books by wildlife photographers and it’s a collection I’ve often sought inspiration from. But sadly I’ll be putting a couple of those away now, now I’ve seen that of the photographs within, many aren’t photographs at all. They’re manipulated images, or they’re composites — where two or more photographs are combined to create an image that existed only in the maker’s mind in the pretence that they’re photographs.

There are many photographers whose work is superb without requiring such embellishment, but unfortunately there also seems to be a number who appear to deem themselves not good enough, so have to add extra elements to their photographs to be competitive. Only they’re not photographers now, they’re digital artists, for want of a name. Fair play though, but if you’re a digital artist then you must say so, just don’t have the world think you’re a photographer.

It’s not about what they’re DOING that irks me, it’s what they’re NOT doing, and that’s being unclear about their affiliation by not declaring their vocation properly, or indeed at all. It’s not illegal, but it’s deceptive, and in the minds of many it’s unethical.

You may write of your profession, your cameras and lenses, your understanding of your subjects, not to mention your skills in locating them. And you might write about the light, whether to shoot at ƒ2.8 or ƒ5.6, or the best focal lengths to use. But by not mentioning your Mac with the big processor, your compositing skills of adding falling rain or snow, more zebra to a herd, or more dust for drama, is deceptive. Deliberate omission of the whole truth is deception.

You’re afraid to show your hand because your integrity may suffer or you may not sell so many. You may also no longer be considered a photographer of exotic wildlife but instead, of an image maker more akin to a digital David Shepherd. It’s a shame that all your bona fide photographs will now be suspect on the evidence of your altered ones. And it’s a shame too, that bona fide photographers might be judged on the prescence of a suspect few like yourselves. You’re also taking from an unsuspecting public who believe they’re admiring a great talent – deceiving those who fund your profession.

I recently spent £40 on a large book, a wonderful book full of wildlife photographs taken by an experienced wildlife photographer who I’d long admired. It purports to be a book on wildlife photography. Indeed it’s text speaks of a love of photography and the animals photographed, but now I know – only some of those images really existed before the camera or the photographer.

Those images were largely or in part created on a computer in an office, combining ordinary images to make mighty ones. They existed only imaginatively and subsequently probably exist as a layered image file on a hard drive. Those images were never played out on the savannah or ever existed in a camera.

So I was misled, duped into thinking that it was a book of wonderful photography.

There’s no complaint here about manipulating an image to make it better, or of combining two images to make it one. But don’t call it photography, or pretend it to be because that would be a lie.

If you’re a digital artist then for the sake of photography say so. And if you’re a photographer, don’t be afraid to claim yourself as one.