Note that I kept using the lens during this six year+ period before me first review of the lens appeared (and now many years more). Indeed, I've taken the 200-400mm to Africa, Bosque, Denali, Yellowstone, and a host of other places where I shoot wildlife, and multiple times to some of those. I wouldn't keep using a lens that I had a question about if I felt that it had a truly serious problem. And, as I've already mentioned, only the TC-14E really keeps things within the realm of top Nikon autofocus performance anyway. That means you'll be shooting, at best, with a 560mm f/8 lens (one stop for the converter loss, one stop to recover some performance). That may sound okay to you, but the same converter on the 400mm f/2.8 doesn't require stopping down to obtain top performance, so you're two stops slower with the 200-400+TC-14E than you would be with the 400+TC-14E (actually, a bit more, since the 400mm f/2.8 starts at about t/3.2). And less sharp. As much as I like the convenience of the zoom, I now realize that I'm giving up something optically, too. By "sharp shots" I mean perfect tripod-equivalent sharpness when viewed at 100%, as shot on a D300 by me. For most uses, one can use much slower speeds. See Why VR Matters for more. The Memory Recall feature works even when the lens is set to manual focus, which is as I'd want it to work. The only thing that troubled me a little, is my sample came with a NC filter with white lettering and the word "JAPAN" instead of "MADE IN JAPAN" painted on the filter ring. The glass has a light yellow tint. Compared to another 52mm NC filter (bought brand new at B&H), that copy's tint is greenish. I am not sure if the light yellow tint filter is a fake. I only discovered this discrepancy in April 2018...ah! the perils of buying used. On my Botswana trip, I used the NC filter with the greenish tint, and it gave me beautiful results as mentioned in the first paragraph. Anyone who knows more about Nikon NC filter history, please kindly chime in....

Unlike the manual focus super-teles, the 200-400m manual focus ring is geared for precise adjustments. It turns the full 360 degrees to get from infinity to 6.5 feet (2m)!Finally, the newest version of the lens was tested directly against my old copy, using the same support setup, body, and targets for testing. The Nikon 180-400mm f/4E FL ED VR is not inferior in any way compared to its predecessor – it is built to last for many years. The build quality is as good as it gets for Nikon exotic lenses, starting from the metal barrel, all the way to small details like buttons and switches. Nikon engineers always do a phenomenal job at fine-tuning every aspect of their super-telephoto lenses, and this really shows on the 180-400mm f/4E. This means you can fill the frame with something only 2.3 x 3.4" (58 x 87mm) on DX, or 3.5 x 5.2" (89 x 133mm) on FX and film. The above study shows us that one should not be removing protective and drop-in filters from super telephoto lenses like the Nikkor 200-400mm f/4G, as they are clearly there for a reason. While removing the front filter does not do much aside from exposing the fragile and expensive front element, removing the drop-in filter drastically moves the focal plane, which might result in all kinds of focus problems and inconsistencies. The photographer who indicated that his lens was sharper without a filter most likely had focusing issues, or his testing methodology had some flaws.

Nikon's supplied foot for the lens is a little short, in my opinion—they appear to have designed it to fit the center of gravity of the D2/D3/D4/D5 series bodies. If you're using it on a lighter body, you might want to invest in a longer foot. Indeed, if you hand carry the lens, you might want one of the longer feet. The old adage ‘you get what you pay for’ generally holds true with photo gear. With the Nikon 180-400mm f/4E you’re paying for its solid weather-sealed build, f/4 constant aperture up to 400mm, the convenience of a built-in teleconvertor and outstanding image quality through 180-400mm.One variable that some people using these lenses aren't aware of is simply surface heat. When you're shooting and the ground heats up, you get heat waves that can interfere with light waves and impact optical performance, especially on more distant objects where there are more heat waves to shoot through. Because one of the things that I was experiencing was far focus problems, I had to rule out heat waves, which isn't an easy thing to do, as it turns out. Even shooting in winter doesn't always absolve you of this issue—I've seen heat waves coming off roads in the sun when the ambient temperature was below zero. Unfortunately, this is not a true zoom lens. Thus, if you set focus at one focal length and then zoom, you may need a slightly different focus position (the lens will beep twice short, then three long if this is the case--welcome to the Morse code of lenses).

It seems unlikely but it’s still possible that another manufacturer’s offering might be better – and make a difference. Once again, we can see that Nikon claims the 180-400mm to be noticeably sharper on the telephoto end. On top of that, judging by how close sagittal lines are to meridional, we can expect the lens to yield exceptionally beautiful bokeh, something exotic super telephotos specialize in. The 6.2 feet (2m) close focus distance is decent for 400mm, a bit long for 200mm. Shooting wildlife in Africa there have been times I've been too close to use the 200-400mm, believe it or not. Likewise, on sidelines of games there will be times when you zoom out but the action just gets too close to you. But that's pretty rare. A word of advice, though: figure out where 6.2 feet (2m) is relative to your position when you're using this lens and the subjects can move towards you. If you're covering sideline action, you probably should be that far off the sidelines, anyway, but I've seen folk get into focusing trouble because they didn't anticipate a close-in subject. Would Nikon make a top of the range professional super telephoto lens and then skimp by putting a below par drop in filter in the optical path?

Build Quality

Build wise either 200-400 wins - with a weight penalty around 7.5 pounds with hood compared to the 200-500 at just over 5 pounds. Either lens for birding IMO benefits from a tripod and gimbal.