I'm considering getting a super-telephoto (and basically bankrupting myself) but I can't decide what to get. I want to get the 400 2.8 but don't see myself spending that much on glass as I just got a D700 and also a 24-70. I shoot hockey and some night time sports primarily as well as other indoor sports (though i don't need to use the super telephoto for that, my 70-200 on one body and 24-70 on the other is all I need). I shoot with my D90 and my D700 usually with the 70-200 on the d90 and the wider glass on the d700. If I got a super telephoto I think I'd use it on the D700 and switch the 24-70 to the d90 (losing some wider range). I can't decide whether to get a 300 f/2.8 or the 200-400 f/4. Is 200-400 as sharp? Is the 200-400 fast enough for indoor D1 college sports? I really appreciate everyone's help. I've done research but have found conflicting information.
skyvan wrote:
I've done research but have found conflicting information.
Thats because everyone shoots different things, in different styles, in different venues for different clients.
Perhaps the arena I shoot, lets say volleyball, in is well lit enough to use a 200-400 (which I do in fact) and that arena has shooting positions where I can make use of a given focal length.
Well if your shooting volleyball in a different arena, that is perhaps not as well lit, then you'd probably need f2.8 or maybe even f2.8 won't cut it and you need a 200 f2
But then your shooting for a different position because a 200mm isn't long enough for shooting from a catwalk but then again perhaps your venue doesn't even have a catwalk so even if you had the light levels to shoot a 400 f2.8 it wouldn't do you any good because its too long
Get my drift ?
200 f2, 300 f2.8, 200-400 f4, 400 f2.8 and 600 f4 are all amazing sports lens and they are all capable of producing great shots in the right hands.
There is no right or wrong choice, simply what works best for you and your budget and the type of clients you have.
skyvan wrote:
Great answer I think a 200-400 might be the best bet then, but I've heard concerns about image quality? Do you not find any problems with it?
Please see the other thread about the 200-400 vs the 400 and some debate on IQ
Had both the 300 f2.8 and the 200-400 f4 and had a hard time deciding what to do, i.e. keep both or sell one and pick up another lens.
Here is a snap taken with the 200-400 @ 300
and one taken with the 300
Both photos taken moments apart using the same tripod mounted camera, I kept the 300 and added the 200 f2 after selling the 200-400 and very happy with the 200 and 300 combo
200 with a 1.4x though is next to identical to the 300 though so I don't really see the point in both of those.
Granted you could then put a 1.4x on the 300 for a 420 f4, but if you wanted 400mm why not go for a 400 or a 200-400 since you've already got 300 f2.8 covered by the 200
Plus trying to carry both the 200 and 300 together up and down the sideslines seems like a real pain not to mention that you'd be switching lens so often
skyvan wrote:
Great answer I think a 200-400 might be the best bet then, but I've heard concerns about image quality? Do you not find any problems with it?
I would reconsider a 200/400. It's a great lens, but it doesn't do the job in low light and it's big and heavy. The IQ is fine for sports (at least mine was)
I sold mine (3 mos old) and bought a Sigma 300 2.8 & got a Sigma 1.4. It's smaller, lighter & allows me to take my 70/200 in the same bag. I have a D700 (FF) & D90 (DX). I have plenty of reach & low light flexibility. I also have a Tamron 200/500 that's light (mediocre IQ) but gives me extra reach in daylight. I suit up for the activity.
The 200/400 wouldn't allow me to carry add'l gear.
You may want to try your longer glass on the D700 and use the D90 for closer stuff. For example, a 300/f2.8 on FX is actually pretty darn amazing for hockey, and the 70-200VR on the D90 would work nice for closer stuff. I have fallen in love with the 300/f2.8VR on FX for hockey and indoor stuff now, and would highly recommend it. Then add in the D90 and a 1.4X TC for outdoor sports and throw it on the D700 too... makes a great versatile kit.
EXIF should all be intact. All with D700 and 300/f2.8VR:
Okay I am getting carried away again. But f2.8, usable FL both indoors and out (especially with a 1.4X thrown in for versatility), and absolutely top-notch IQ.
The only "but" I would throw in there is if you want the 400mm FL on FX more, in which case you're debating between another killer lens. It is a lot more money though too. I won't ever argue against the 300/f2.8VR for performance though.
Rags Hef wrote:
I would reconsider a 200/400. It's a great lens, but it doesn't do the job in low light and it's big and heavy. The IQ is fine for sports (at least mine was)
I sold mine (3 mos old) and bought a Sigma 300 2.8 & got a Sigma 1.4. It's smaller, lighter & allows me to take my 70/200 in the same bag.
Rags
How much weight difference is there between the Sigma 300 2.8 and the 200-400 ? About a pound or less ?
I'm guessing the Sigma is about 6lbs and the 200-400 is 7lbs......
Not really sure how the 200-400 could be said to be a big and heavy lens. Its a joy to carry around compared to a 400 2.8 or 600 f4 etc
When I shot with canon, I had the 200 1.8, 300 2.8 IS & the 400 2.8 IS. I now have the 200 f/2 & 400 2.8 VR. Several of my colleagues have or had the 300 & 200-400 lens and now only prefer to shoot with a 400, especially the VR lens. This is what I always tell them and now you guys, "The 300 lens gets you there, but the 400 will take you there with incredible sharpness and IQ and is second to none." The 400 2.8VR is as sharp/vivid contrast as the canon 200 1.8, but is faster at focus speed and most importantly 2x closer. Yes the 400VR is extremely costly, but definitely worth every penny. The 300 & 200-400 are great lens and beat the competition respectfully, but well never ever be able to hold the beast (400VR) lens jock.
There is something magic about the 400 2.8 VR and I believe its the twilght factor over the others. I feel like one of the luckiest guys out there to have the best of both worlds in having the 400 2.8VR and the 200 f/2.
I will give you guys an example on wht I mean about the twilight factor. When I shoot with other lens of the same event, I would sometimes have to add/subtract the contrast or hightlights of the images just to get the full optimum of the shots.
I almost never have to do that with the 400, in fact all I usually do after an event is just crop and syndicate my images via wire services. I shoot 3 to 5 times a wk. and cover anywhere from cheer competition to college and pro sports. The 400 just saves me time and continues to amaze me at how tack sharp a lens this big can be.
IMO, Nikon has the best ultimate sports lens in the world in the 400 2.8 VR.
Having both the 400 and the 200-400 I've got to respectfully disagree with you. The 200-400 is a hands down better lens than the 400. I actually just sold my 400 because unless you need an extra stop of light there is no other real advantage.
Why haul around a lens that is heavier, far more expensive and far less versatile ?
I always used a 400 when I was a Canon shooter, and then when I switched to Nikon I naturally bought another 400 as I didn't really give the 200-400 a serious look.
If I could of done it all over again I'd of never bought a 400. Its not a bad lens by any means but its not a 200-400 which has been for me the single biggest revolution in sports photography since auto focus.
Any magic it may have had was gone the first game I shot with the 200-400. 400 became a big heavy limited usefulness lens sitting in its case gathering dust overnight lol.
I was just shooting a soccer game the other day and watching as my fellow shooter had to keep going from his 400 on one body to trying to grab his 70-200 on the other each and every time the action came across midfield.
Got no choice though with a 400. Who wants a soccer photo without the feet and ball ? Or who wants a soccer photo without the head ? If its too tight 9 times out of 10 it gets deleted.
I can just smoothly zoom out as they approach keeping the action perfectly frame filling for maximum impact shot after after.
Its revolutionized most everything I cover. Swim meets I can now shoot almost the full 25 meters of the pool.
Soccer, field hockey, lacrosse, football. Haven't tried baseball but being able to cover both the 1st and 3rd baseline with the same lens is going to be so useful. haven't tried it yet for hockey either but again should be stellar from blue line to blue line.
I'd buy another 200-400 in a heartbeat no matter what the cost.
I just frankly can't imagine how anyone could go from using a 200-400 to anything else, it would feel like shooting with one hand tied behind your back
millsart,
I understand your perspective and I will not undermind you.
You are right on the 400 being much heavier than the 200-400, but are we comparing the 400 2.8VR or just a reg 400 2.8? Have you actually tried shooting the f/4 w/D3 at 6400 ISO at any HS indoor events or even college football night games. There is just no way you will get better images than the 400vr at 2.8 in those areas. I dont personally know of any of my fellow photogs that I shoot with, and I know a lot, at numerous major sporting events that still have the 200-400 and/or prefer it over the 400 2.8 VR. Yes, its a GREAT lens, but it does have its limitations at f/4. For those that think you can push your D3 in decent lighting and still get awesome results are fooling themselves. Shooting during the daytime and some D1 college indoor events will yield great results at f/4.
BTW, for those that are learning about getting limbs cut off and all, just learn and practice with the type of lens your shooting with. If its a fixed lens then you will need to learn all about position, position, position. I still get plenty of full body shots, but you know wht, many times its great to only get very tight crop shots as well, even at the expense of cutting out certain limbs. Tight and close shots with eyes and ball are wht I look for, in fact the tighter the better in certain aspects of the game. Goto my website and checkout my soccer shots and tell me wht you think about the prime beast of the 400 2.8 VR shots.
I have been wondering if it would be better for me to pick up a 300 / 400 2.8 or a 200-400 f4. The majority of stuff I shoot is during the daytime, however I do shoot a dozen or so night HS football games. We have a well lit stadium but I don't know if even at ISO 6400 if I could get my SS above 1/320th at f4.
I am guessing that I am going to have to fork over the money for some rentals here in the near future to figure it out.
The problem with this thread is there is no correct answer. I have shot extensively with all of the lenses in question.
Here is my take on it. For indoor sports the 400 2.8 VR is going to be too long. Outside it is ideal. However, the cost is prohibitive. The 200-400 will provide a range of focal lengths and for outdoors, reasonalbe light it is fine. However, when shooting sports high shutter speeds are critical. In less than ideal light (night time and most gyms) you will miss the extra stop. The 300 2.8 may be the ideal choice for the poster. Indoors it will be a very useable focal length on the FX sensor and outside either with a TC or on DX it will provide adequate reach for the majority of your shooting needs.
So given the poster's questions I would say go with the 300 2.8. Regarding the 200-400 debate I'll take a 400 2.8 over the 200-400 all day long. Yes, the 200-400 is outstanding, but the 400 2.8 is in another league. FWIW. Thank you.
Jack
www.allstarimaging.com
PS: DJ nice shots, great colors, white balance, etc. I'm sure that combo is awesome, the fast primes are a pleasure to shoot with.
I think a 200-400 might be the best bet then, but I've heard concerns about image quality? Do you not find any problems with it?
