Limited time only: Get pro member benefits for less than $5/month. Access Classes, Stats, Priority Directory listing and more!Upgrade now

Nikkor 400mm 3.5 MF, worth it?

Published November 23rd, 2011

I am not the best in manual focusing and the little dot has fooled me more than once :) sooooooo, I guess I know the answer, get a AF but darn it they cost more than my car!!!!

Anybody out there have used the 400mm 3.5? I can get a nice clean one for less than 1000 dollars as for the 2.8 it can cost almost 2 grand or more!

Any photos to share? How's the sharpness and bokeh? is it crazy to use it handheld? I have a 300mm 2.8 MF that weighs a ton!!

Thank you guys and gals for any comments and photos to help on this matter.


Login or sign up to comment.

Adrian Tavano  almost 6 years ago

Hello Haas!
Thank you for the link, it was very helpful and informative. For $950 dollars I think it would be a very affordable and quite good "fast" lens, his comments and score was not as bad as I thought it would be.
Older Nikkor lens were built better and they do last a lifetime as today's primes are not only out of mosts reach (financially speaking" but they don't have that feel of durability. VR is not really necessary since on a quite fast 3.5 I would shoot above 1/600 anyway.
Thank you again my friend! - Adrian

Ernst Haas  almost 6 years ago

Hi Adrian,
I don´t know if you know the site of Bjorn:
His experiance I can confirm. Compared with the 70-200/2,8 AF plus Converter from Nikon but also with the new Tamron 70-300 (without so only 300mm) I´d go with the zooms. The chromatic aberration is too high and you neithertheless have to carry many kilos.
Best regards Ernst