Got this bad boy last week

XMENPorsche · Post by **XMENPorsche** » Sat Dec 05, 2009 1:58 am

It's the Nikon 200-400 f/4 VR. Can't WAIT to try it out this weekend.

Post by **XMEN Gambit** » Sat Dec 05, 2009 10:26 am

Was talking to Tony T. at the gym the other day. He said it was huge.

Spinning Hat · Post by **Spinning Hat** » Sat Dec 05, 2009 2:22 pm

Wow.. Now THAT's a lens!

XMEN Ashaman DTM · Post by **XMEN Ashaman DTM** » Tue Dec 08, 2009 1:52 am

You do realize that you could go around with that thing in your pocket and tell people that you're happy to see them, right?

I envy you guys and your hobbies sometimes... so straightforward.

XMENPorsche · Post by **XMENPorsche** » Wed Dec 09, 2009 12:09 am

Couldn't fit it into my pants even if I wanted to. I used it all day Saturday - OMG but this thing is heavy. Thank God for monopods.

XMENPorsche · Post by **XMENPorsche** » Wed Dec 16, 2009 11:38 pm

Took the new lens out last weekend just to see how the weight felt, and how easy it would be to handle. Takes some getting used to. These are just a few random shots that I took at a local park.

BTW - these were actually taken with my 200-400 with the 1.4x TC attached, for an real focal length of 560mm.

This guy just kept peeking at me as if to say, "What are YOU looking at?"

Just a shot of a fountain. I could watch this kind of stuff all day. It's kind of mesmerizing.

I had to work on my technique for this one. This was shot with a shutter speed of 1/25. Even with VR on the lens, a 550mm focal length at this shutter speed was a HUGE challenge.

Post by **XMEN Gambit** » Thu Dec 17, 2009 9:21 pm

Verra nice.

One thing about turtles... you don't need a high shutter speed.

What's your EXIF data on that one? The depth of field has me curious.

BlackRider · Post by **BlackRider** » Thu Dec 17, 2009 10:33 pm

F/8

XMENPorsche · Post by **XMENPorsche** » Thu Dec 17, 2009 10:54 pm

When I embed the images in the frames in Photoshop I tend to lose the EXIF data.

It was 1/500, f/5.6, 550mm, ISO200, manual exposure. F/5.6 is the widest I could go with the 200-400 f/4 and the 1.4x TC.

BlackRider · Post by **BlackRider** » Fri Dec 18, 2009 1:05 am

Oh, forgot from the OP that you use a 1.4x... I'm used to my 2.0x and defaulted to F/8.

XMENPorsche · Post by **XMENPorsche** » Fri Dec 18, 2009 8:06 am

What's kind of odd is that I'm only getting 550mm.

400 x 1.4 = 560

Wonder why I'm not seeing the full 560mm? Sounds like a post for TPF.

Post by **XMEN Gambit** » Fri Dec 18, 2009 8:17 pm

Is your TC a Nikon, too? If not it could be the electronics aren't quite matching up. Tho I expect you got the Nikon. Could also be rounding error due to a dropped decimal somewhere?

XMEN Ashaman DTM · Post by **XMEN Ashaman DTM** » Sat Dec 19, 2009 5:08 am

Is it possible that your aperture is limiting the field of view?

I agree it does seem odd.

XMENPorsche · Post by **XMENPorsche** » Mon Dec 21, 2009 11:45 pm

Gambino: Yes, my TC is a Nikon.

Asha: Not sure what you're getting at. I don't see how aperture could affect focal length.

Anyway, I posted the same question on the Texas Photo Forum and here's the answer I got from a fellow Nikon user:

"It's due to the way the focal lengths get recorded in the EXIF. Nikon has always done this rounding, I don't know if Canon does too. (I've heard it's actually a limitation in the EXIF spec, but haven't looked at it myself)."

Make sense to me.

XMEN Ashaman DTM · Post by **XMEN Ashaman DTM** » Tue Dec 22, 2009 3:25 am

Actually that makes a lot of sense.

What I was getting at was if there was some constraint on the field of view of the camera using that big lens. But the round off error is more plausible.