Nikon 400mm f/2.8G VR vs Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8G VR II + TC-20E III
Here, I am comparing the Nikon 400mm f/2.8G VR with the Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8G VR II + TC-20E III @ 400mm. I know that it is unfair to do such a comparison, because the 70-200mm can only get to 400mm with a 2x TC-20E III teleconverter that negatively impacts its image quality. This comparison is only here as a reference, for those who wonder about sharpness differences. Please note that the image from the Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8G VR II looks smaller, because of the “focus breathing” issue, as explained in my Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8 VR II Review.
Lets see how both compare wide open (Left: Nikon 400mm f/2.8 @ f/2.8, Right: Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8 + TC-20E III @ f/5.6):
Nikon 70-200mm @ f/5.6 cannot even come close to 400mm @ f/2.8, as can be clearly seen above. Stopping down the lens to f/8.0 gives slightly better results, but still much worse than that of the 400mm, as expected.
Comparison Summary
While the Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8G VR II works reasonably well with the TC-20E III teleconverter, its sharpness performance on the long end is weak when compared to the Nikon 400mm f/2.8G VR, even when stopped down to f/8 and f/11. This is because the TC-20E III degrades sharpness and contrast on the 70-200mm, while the Nikon 400mm f/2.8G VR is razor sharp at all apertures. Corner performance looks even worse in comparison, so I decided not to include it here.
Let’s take a look at lenses that are more comparable – Nikon 300mm f/4 and f/2.8 lenses.
Compared to Nikon 300mm f/4 AF-S
What about my favorite Nikon 300mm f/4D AF-S lens? How does it compare to the Nikon 400mm f/2.8G VR with and without teleconverters? Because of the field of view differences, here are the focal lengths and TC combinations that I will be comparing:
- Nikon 400mm f/2.8 vs Nikon 300mm f/4D + TC-14E II @ 420mm – 20mm difference
- Nikon 400mm f/2.8 + TC-14 E II @ 560mm vs Nikon 300mm f/4D + TC-20E III @ 600mm – 40mm difference
Nikon 400mm f/2.8G VR vs Nikon 300mm f/4 + TC-14E II
Left: Nikon 400mm f/2.8G VR @ f/2.8 400mm, Right: Nikon 300mm f/4D + TC-14E II @ f/5.6 420mm:
The Nikon 300mm f/4D AF-S is a very sharp lens, even with a TC-14E II teleconverter, as can be seen from the above image crops. However, it cannot match the wide open performance of the 400mm f/2.8G lens. If both lenses are stopped down to the same aperture, the difference in sharpness is even more noticeable.
Nikon 400mm f/2.8G VR + TC-14E II vs Nikon 300mm f/4D + TC-20E III
Left: Nikon 400mm f/2.8G VR + TC-14E II @ f/4.0 560mm, Right: Nikon 300mm f/4D + TC-20E III @ f/8.0 600mm:
Even if the 300mm crop is magnified more due to focal length difference, the Nikon 300mm f/4D AF-S still cannot resolve as much detail as the Nikon 400mm f/2.8G VR does with a TC-14E II teleconverter. It only gets comparable when stopped down to f/11, which is 3 stops slower:
Corner performance provides very similar results.
Comparison Summary
It is difficult to compare the Nikon 300mm f/4 lens against the Nikon 400mm f/2.8 due to focal length differences. The first test shows that the Nikon 300mm f/4 with a TC-14E II at f/5.6 performs worse than the 400mm wide open, that’s with 2 full stops of difference. The second test shows that the Nikon 300mm f/4 with a TC-20E III can only yield comparable results when stopped down to f/11. Now that’s in a lab environment. In real shooting conditions, even in bright light, the Nikon 300mm f/4 does not autofocus with the TC-20E III and becomes a very slow f/8 manual focus lens. So the second test is not really relevant, unless you will be shooting in manual focus only. This leaves only one scenario for the 300mm f/4 – for use with the TC-14E II. I did not bother providing test results with the TC-17E II, because I find it unusable on the Nikon 300mm f/4D, just like the TC-20E II or III.
Nikon 400mm f/2.8G VR vs Nikon 300mm f/2.8G VR II + TC-14E II
Let’s see how the 400mm compares with the excellent Nikon 300mm f/2.8G VR II. How does it compare to the Nikon 400mm f/2.8G VR with and without teleconverters? Because of the field of view differences, here are the focal lengths and TC combinations that I will be comparing:
- Nikon 400mm f/2.8 vs Nikon 300mm f/2.8 + TC-14E II @ 420mm – 20mm difference
- Nikon 400mm f/2.8 + TC-14 E II @ 560mm vs Nikon 300mm f/2.8 + TC-20E III @ 600mm – 40mm difference
Left: Nikon 400mm f/2.8G VR @ f/2.8 400mm, Right: Nikon 300mm f/2.8G VR II + TC-14E II @ f/4.0 420mm:
Similar to the 300mm f/4, the Nikon 300mm f/2.8G VR II is less sharp with the TC-14E than 400mm f/2.8G VR wide open. Let’s see what happens when the 300mm f/2.8G VR II is stopped down to f/5.6:
Both are comparable, but the Nikon 400mm f/2.8 seems to be slightly sharper. And let’s stop it down more to f/8:
The situation does not change when the 300mm f/2.8G VR II is stopped down to f/8. This clearly shows that even the excellent TC-14E II still degrades image sharpness a little.
Nikon 400mm f/2.8G VR + TC-14E II vs Nikon 300mm f/2.8G VR II + TC-20E III
Left: Nikon 400mm f/2.8 + TC-14 E II @ f/4.0 560mm, Right: Nikon 300mm f/2.8 + TC-20E III @ f/5.6 600mm:
As expected, the sharpness difference here is quite obvious – TC-20E III negatively impacts the sharpness, especially at the largest aperture of f/5.6. Let’s see what happens when we stop down to f/8.0:
With a 2 stop difference, now both are more or less comparable. What if we stop down the 300mm all the way to f/11?
When stopped down to f/11, the Nikon 300mm f/2.8G VR II + TC-20E III looks sharper than Nikon 400mm f/2.8G VR + TC-14E II wide open – a difference of 3 full stops. If the Nikon 400mm f/2.8G VR + TC-14E II is stopped down to f/5.6, then both look about the same again.
Comparison Summary
When compared to the Nikon 300mm f/4D, the Nikon 300mm f/2.8G VR II is a different beast that works well with all three teleconverters. The good news is that autofocus on the Nikon 300mm f/2.8G VR II works with the TC-20E III attached, so the second test is still valid when shooting outdoors. The only caveat to the TC-20E III, is that it requires good light to get accurate focus. In medium and low-light situations, the Nikon 400mm f/2.8G VR with the TC-14E teleconverter will provide better AF accuracy results than the Nikon 300mm f/2.8G VR II with the TC-20E III, so keep this in mind. If you do not mind stopping down by 2-3 stops with slower and less reliable AF, the Nikon 300mm f/2.8G VR II is a great alternative that can get you to 600mm.
Nikon 400mm f/2.8G VR vs Nikon 200-400mm f/4G VR
While the Nikon 200-400mm f/4 VR has been my wildlife lens for the past 5 years, I wanted to see how it compares against the Nikon 400mm f/2.8G VR in detail, with and without teleconverters. The Nikon 200-400mm f/4.0 VR has recently been updated to version II, with no optical changes to the lens design.
The Nikon 200-400mm f/4 VR is the only lens here that can be fairly compared to the Nikon 400mm f/2.8G VR, due to its 400mm focal length on the long end. While doing my tests at roughly 6 meters, I discovered that the Nikon 400mm f/2.8G is actually a bit shorter in focal length (could be another lens breathing issue), which is roughly equal to 380mm on the Nikon 200-400mm. For comparison purposes, I had to change the focal length of the 200-400mm to roughly 380-385mm to have the same field of view.
Compared to the Nikon 400mm f/2.8, The Nikon 200-400mm f/4.0 is a versatile lens, offering the ability to zoom from 200mm to 400mm, which is very useful for sports and wildlife photographers. Being able to zoom in and out is useful for large mammals and I know that many photographers that do safari trips to Africa and travel to Alaska to photograph bears love the 200-400 for this particular feature. But what about sharpness, and how does the 400mm compare to the 200-400mm? Let’s see how both lenses compare at 400mm wide open (Left: Nikon 400mm f/2.8 @ f/2.8, Right: Nikon 200-400mm f/4 @ f/4):
Both look about the same to me. Let’s see what happens when both lenses are at f/4:
Again, not much difference between the two, with the Nikon 400mm f/2.8G VR having a slight edge over the 200-400mm. Here is f/5.6:
And f/8.0:
Stopping down these lenses does not seem to help improve the lens performance.
Nikon 400mm f/2.8G VR + TC-14E II vs Nikon 200-400mm f/4G VR + TC-14E II
Now let’s see what happens when both lenses have the TC-14E II teleconverter attached. First, let’s see what happens with both wide open (Left: Nikon 400mm f/2.8G VR + TC-14E II @ f/4.0 560mm Right: Nikon 200-400mm f/4 VR + TC-14E II @ f/5.6 560mm):
The Nikon 400mm f/2.8G + TC-14E II appears sharper than Nikon 200-400mm f/4G + TC-14E II. What if we stop down the 400mm by a full stop to make lens apertures match on both?
The Nikon 400mm f/2.8G gets ever crispier! Now both stopped down to f/8.0:
The Nikon 200-400mm f/4 VR + TC-14E II clearly lags behind the 400mm f/2.8G VR + TC-14E II.
Nikon 400mm f/2.8G VR + TC-17E II vs Nikon 200-400mm f/4G VR + TC-17E II
Now that we know the 200-400mm f/4 with a 1.4x TC performs worse than the 400mm f/2.8 with a 1.4x TC, let’s see how these guys will do with a 1.7x TC-17E II teleconverter. Here are both lenses at maximum aperture (Left: Nikon 400mm f/2.8G VR + TC-17E II @ f/4.8 680mm, Right: Nikon 200-400mm f/4G VR + TC-17E II @ f/6.7 680mm:
At their largest apertures, both look about the same to me. Let’s see what happens when lenses are stopped down to f/8:
The Nikon 400mm f/2.8G VR + TC-17E II looks slightly sharper than the 200-400mm f/4G VR + TC-17E II. The Nikon 200-400mm f/4G VR only catches up at f/11 (Left: Nikon 400mm f/2.8 + TC-17E II @ f/8, Right: Nikon 200-400mm f/4 + TC-17E II @ f/11):
See my notes in the summary below about using TC-17E II on the 200-400mm f/4.
Nikon 400mm f/2.8G VR + TC-20E III vs Nikon 200-400mm f/4G VR + TC-20E III
The last test is to see how both lenses optically compare when the new TC-20E III is attached to them. Here are both lenses at their largest apertures (Left: Nikon 400mm f/2.8G VR + TC-20E III @ f/5.6 800mm, Right: Nikon 200-400mm f/4G VR + TC-20E III @ f/8.0 800mm):
I would say both look pretty close at their largest apertures. Now let’s see how the lenses perform when stopped down to f/11, which is a sweet spot when using the TC-20E III:
The Nikon 400mm f/2.8G VR is slightly sharper and has a little more contrast than the 200-400mm f/4G VR.
Comparison Summary
As can be seen from the above crops, the Nikon 200-400mm f/4G is a very sharp lens at 400mm, which closely rivals the 400mm f/2.8G in the center. The same cannot be said about its corner performance, where it slightly lags behind the 400mm f/2.8G, but it is still not bad for an f/4 lens. With the TC-14E II teleconverter, the Nikon 200-400mm f/4 shows weaker performance than the 400mm f/2.8, but it is not a huge difference. One thing the above lab tests do not show, is the AF performance and reliability when coupled with teleconverters. While the AF performance of the TC-14E II is very good with both lenses, the 400mm f/2.8G seems to be slightly more accurate than the 200-400mm f/4. When shooting with the 200-400mm f/4, I first start out without the TC-14E and only add it when I need the reach. With the Nikon 400mm f/2.8G on the other hand, I just did not want to take the TC-14E II off; it worked so well that I did not even notice it on my lens.
The story with the TC-17E II is very different though. Although sharpness comparisons seem to be suggest that the Nikon 200-400mm is as sharp as the 400mm, the field use suggests otherwise. This is because the Nikon 200-400mm f/4 just does not work couple well with the TC-17E II and its AF is all over the place. If you can get the 200-400mm to focus you might get good results, but it is not easy, especially with moving subjects. Using live view to focus the 200-400mm f/4 + TC-17E II is simply not practical on the field. Even in bright conditions, the TC-17E II struggles with acquiring good focus. Nikon states in its documentation that lenses coupled with TCs with smaller aperture than f/5.6 do not autofocus. They do, but not reliably and the Nikon 200-400mm f/4 is a clear example of that.
As for the TC-20E III, forget about using it on the Nikon 200-400mm f/4. At maximum aperture of f/8, AF is pretty much dead. Expect the lens to hunt even when using contrast detect in live view. The Nikon 400mm f/2.8G VR, on the other hand, works as well as the Nikon 300mm f/2.8G VR II does with the TC-20E III. Autofocus is a little tricky, but works fairly well in bright conditions. In low-light situations, the lens might start to miss focus and hunt, so you might need to assist with pre-focusing the lens before pressing the AF-ON button. Keeping the focus limiter switch at 6m also helps, because you won’t have to wait as long when you miss focus. The sweet spot for the TC-20E III is f/11, which is fairly slow, so you might need to increase your camera ISO to keep up with the shutter speed. Talking about the shutter speed, 800mm is a very long focal length. Even slight vibrations can cause camera shake and image blur, so you have to make sure that you have the lens mounted on a very stable tripod system. Turning VR on in “Tripod” mode might also help with vibrations, so try it and see how it works out for you. In addition, at 800mm you have to be careful about heatwaves that might impact the sharpness of your images.
One important fact that I have not mentioned here is the flexibility of the 200-400mm versus 400mm prime. Some photographers argue that the 200-400mm is a very practical and flexible lens compared to primes, because you can zoom from 200 to 400mm and you can make it a 280 to 560mm zoom with the TC-14E II teleconverter, something you cannot do with primes. This is obviously a valid concern for those who shoot wildlife at close distances, like bears in Alaska. But then for most wildlife out there, you need as much reach as you can get. Going back and looking at all the pictures I have taken with the 200-400mm during the last 5 years, I would say that only 3-5% of the images were taken at focal lengths shorter than 400mm. When it comes to photographing wildlife, focal length just never seems to be enough. So the 400mm f/2.8G gives you much more reach when you need it, all the way to 800mm, while the 200-400mm is pretty much capped at 560mm with the 1.4x TC.
Nikon 400mm f/2.8G VR + TC-14E II vs Nikon 500mm f/4G VR
The last test is to see how the Nikon 400mm f/2.8G VR fares against the Nikon 500mm f/4G VR. Again, there are no truly comparable focal lengths here, so here is what I am comparing:
- Nikon 400mm f/2.8 + TC-14E II @ 560mm vs Nikon 500mm f/4 @ 500mm – 60mm difference
- Nikon 400mm f/2.8 + TC-17E II @ 680mm vs Nikon 500mm f/4 + TC-14E II @ 700mm – 20mm difference
- Nikon 400mm f/2.8 + TC-20E III @ 800mm vs Nikon 500mm f/4 + TC-17E II @ 850mm – 50mm difference
This is an interesting comparison. With the TC-14E II, the Nikon 400mm is also an f/4 lens, but with 60mm more reach. Here are some crops off the center on both lenses at f/4 (Left: Nikon 400mm f/2.8 + TC-14E, Right: Nikon 500mm f/4):
The Nikon 500mm f/4G VR is a very sharp lens, as can be clearly seen from the image crop above. At f/4, it has more contrast and sharpness than the 400mm f/2.8G with a 1.4x TC. Let’s see if anything changes at f/5.6:
Things start evening out at f/5.6, but the Nikon 500mm f/4 is still sharper. Here is f/8:
Nothing changes at f/8. These lenses are both very sharp starting from f/5.6, so the 500mm f/4 only has an advantage when shot wide open, plus there is a difference of 50mm in focal length.
Nikon 400mm f/2.8G VR + TC-17E II vs Nikon 500mm f/4G VR + TC-14E II
Although there is only a 20mm of difference in focal length in this test (680mm vs 700mm), the actual difference is more like 40-50mm. This is very similar to the issue I had when testing the 400mm against the 200-400mm – the 400mm was actually shorter, more like 380mm. It is probably related to the fact that my test target was fairly close (6m) and the lens probably has a focus breathing issue at close distances. That’s why there is a bigger field of view difference here. Let’s take a look at both lenses wide open:
The Nikon 500mm f/4 + TC-14E is sharper than the Nikon 400mm f/2.8G + TC-17E at the maximum aperture of f/5.6 and f/4.8. Let’s see what happens with both lenses at f/5.6 (400mm f/2.8 stopped down to f/5.6):
The Nikon 400mm f/2.8 quickly catches up with sharpness. Here is f/8 performance:
Both lenses look about the same at f/8 and the same is true for f/11.
Nikon 400mm f/2.8G VR + TC-20E III vs Nikon 500mm f/4G VR + TC-17E II
The last test is to see how the Nikon 400mm f/2.8 with the TC-20E III fares against the Nikon 500mm f/4 with the TC-17E II. Now before I show you the results, I would like to point out that the Nikon 500mm f/4 does not couple well with the TC-17E II, similar to the 200-400mm f/4. It is not as bad as the 200-400mm, but AF is still very unreliable. If you can get the 500mm to focus accurately, then the sharpness results are impressive. Let’s take a look at the crops at maximum aperture (Left: Nikon 400mm f/2.8 + TC-20E III @ 800mm, Right: Nikon 500mm f/4 + TC-17E II @ 850mm):
As expected, the wide open performance of the Nikon 400mm f/2.8G VR with the TC-20E III is rather weak when compared to the Nikon 500mm f/4 with the TC-17E II. The 500mm is sharper and has better contrast. Both stopped down to f/8:
Now the Nikon 400mm f/2.8 catches up and both have about the same sharpness and clarity. Finally f/11:
Again, both lenses look pretty good at f/11, with the 500mm f/4 having a little more contrast.
Comparison Summary
Without a doubt, the Nikon 500mm f/4 VR is a very sharp lens. Its performance without teleconverters is top notch and it works very well with the TC-14E II, as I have shown in the above tests. At focal lengths below 700mm, the Nikon 500mm f/4 is a little better wide open, but the difference diminishes very quickly when both lenses are compared at same apertures, with the 400mm stopped down a little. Beyond 700mm, the Nikon 400mm f/2.8G VR is the winner for one main reason – the Nikon 500mm f/4G VR does not work well with either the TC-17E II or the TC-20E III, while the 400mm f/2.8G does. I tried to use the TC-17E II with the 500mm f/4G VR on a bright day photographing birds and came home with soft images, mostly due to bad focus. I am not even going to mention the TC-20E III performance with the Nikon 500mm f/4, because it simply does not work. Forget about autofocus at f/8.
So if you need the reach with working autofocus, the Nikon 400mm f/2.8G VR is the answer. However, there is one big dilemma when comparing these lenses – the Nikon 400mm f/2.8G is bigger and heavier than the Nikon 500mm f/4 – it weighs 740 grams more, which is around 1 pound and 10 ounces, close to how much the Nikon D7000 weighs. If you are trying to decide which one to get, you need to factor in the weight difference. The good thing about the Nikon 400mm f/2.8G VR with TC combinations, is that it gives you a choice to go shorter at 400mm, or longer (560mm, 680mm or 800mm) when you need to get closer to the action. The Nikon 500mm f/4, on the other hand, only gives you two options – 500mm and 700mm.
Table of Contents