I need a lens for our door work. Softball, Baseball, Rugby, Soccer etc. Probably Bobsleigh, Skeleton too.
Light might not be a major concern and I am thinking of grabbing a D4 too this year.
With the D4 capabilities over my D3s the 200 - 400 at f4 will be a stop better effectively at ISO 6400 so maybe I can also use the 200 - 400 with the D4 for Ice Hockey too. This will be a better solution I think than lugging round a 400 prime.....BUT 400 plus a 2X gives an 800 f5.6 which is crazy too.
I'd like all of it but lack of Lotto win is holding me back.
That 400 2.8 can't be beat, BUT if the shot is too close, the zoom wins every time. With a D4, the F4 min apature might not be a big concern. Most agree the 200-400 isn't too hot at a distance, but at closer ranges it's amazing.
Can't speak for the pro body's, nor the 400 primes. However, focus with the 80 - 400 can be slow and spotty (5.6 at 400mm). I like the versatility of the 200-400, which I normally use on a monopod. Focus is good with the 1.4 teleconverter on the 200-400, as well. Focus at a distance is not too bad on my copy of the 200-400. I imagine the 400 2.8 is stunning however. Good luck with your decision.
Keith W.
You won't get the look of the 400/2.8 with any other lens, plain and simple.
That said, if I had to ask on a forum if to get this lens or the 80-400, of all lenses, then no, I wouldn't spend $9k on a lens. You will only regret the expense and the daily burden to carry it around, without a frame of reference why you're doing it. I'd get something like the 300/4 AFS, shoot with it for a while, and then see if I'd need anything else. The 300/4 AFS is small and light (compared to the 400/2.8 or 200-400 anyway), sharp and focuses fast. You can also put a TC on it for more reach, and it focuses closer than the 400/2.8 or 200-400.
400 2.8 VR...definitely ! It's one of the sharpest lens's around and the 200-400 f4 is a bit soft at distance imho. I shoot with another member from FM and he turned me on to ditching the monopod and carrying the 400. Best move I could have made, a lot less cumbersome and more keepers. A bit heavier but you can never have too fast of a lens.
Steve Perry wrote:
That 400 2.8 can't be beat, BUT if the shot is too close, the zoom wins every time. With a D4, the F4 min apature might not be a big concern. Most agree the 200-400 isn't too hot at a distance, but at closer ranges it's amazing.
Zebrabot wrote:
As mentioned, forget about close focusing with any 400mm prime.
The nikon 400mm f/2.8s are some of the most unwieldy beasts to carry around and use. There's no reason to even compare it to some little zoom lense.
This isn't really true, close focus relative to distance works out to give you a pretty nice magnification should you chose to use it this way (I love shooting logos in game with this) also they really are not that unwieldy once you get used to them, the 400 2.8 AF-I was my primary lens for almost 2 years and while it is a beast in every sense it is something you learn to handle and use, my recently acquired 400 2.8 AFS2 feel like a feather and I regularly hand hold it for basketball
I have the 200-400 and I love the lens for its adaptability to a subject. The ability to zoom when the subject gets closer or further away is nice. Its harder doing that with long primes.
Mishu01 wrote:
I have no experience with it but I know some people who swear the new Sigma 120-300/2.8 with OS is very good even used with a Sigma 1.4x TC.
I sold my 200-400/4 VR and bought a 400/2.8 VR. Both are great lenses. I mostly shot my 200-400/4 at 400mm (it's just a great zoom though). The 400/2.8 VR gives me better IQ especially with TC's (stopped down 1-2 stops). And of course in lower lighting, that extra stop is welcome. With a 400/2.8 you do gain a bit of weight, it's more front heavy, but despite this I have hand held it for 8-9 hrs (taking some breaks of course!). I also hope to use it with the D4 (pre-ordered).
In the end, maybe ask yourself how much you would use the zoom and whether or not you need the extra stop and of course cost. cheers... dj
ishootsports3 wrote:
This isn't really true, close focus relative to distance works out to give you a pretty nice magnification should you chose to use it this way (I love shooting logos in game with this) also they really are not that unwieldy once you get used to them, the 400 2.8 AF-I was my primary lens for almost 2 years and while it is a beast in every sense it is something you learn to handle and use, my recently acquired 400 2.8 AFS2 feel like a feather and I regularly hand hold it for basketball
How do you position the 400mm when you need to take a a leak at a urinal, wash your hands or tie your shoe laces or jump in and out of a car? The thing is a real PITA to haul around.
It's a beautiful lense though. All the ultra costly telephotos deliver on what you pay for them.
I need a lens for our door work. Softball, Baseball, Rugby, Soccer etc. Probably Bobsleigh, Skeleton too.
Light might not be a major concern and I am thinking of grabbing a D4 too this year.
With the D4 capabilities over my D3s the 200 - 400 at f4 will be a stop better effectively at ISO 6400 so maybe I can also use the 200 - 400 with the D4 for Ice Hockey too. This will be a better solution I think than lugging round a 400 prime.....BUT 400 plus a 2X gives an 800 f5.6 which is crazy too.
I'd like all of it but lack of Lotto win is holding me back.
I have had the three lenses that you mentioned. I am still have the 200-400mm VR. Let's stress, I would not buy the 80-400mm since it is a pretty old lens that should be replaced in the next year or so. I did use that lens for a while but it was pretty slow focusing and I do bird photography. Sadly, Nikon does not have an equivalent to the Canon 100-400mm and the other lenses within that range (made by Sigma and other manufacturers) are not good enough.
Your decision should be between the 400 f/2.8 prime or the 200-400mm f/4 zoom. The 400mm VR is a wonderful lens for sports but not great for bird/wildlife photography even with a TC 2.x III. I sold my 400mm and I bought a 600mm VR that is what you need for serious wildlife and bird photography. I have kept the 200-400mm for its versatility and because Nikon does not have other alternatives. The 200-400mm is sharp but it has a structural weakness. It is not a good lens for shooting subjects beyond 300 feet. I have made comparisons between pictures taken with the 600mm and the 200-400mm in which the subject is beyond 300 feet and the differences in IQ are noticeable using the same D3s.
Finally, if I can buy only one long lens and my choices are between a 400mm f/2.8 and a 200-400mm f/4, I would get the 400mm since it is a superior lens.
Zebrabot wrote:
How do you position the 400mm when you need to take a a leak at a urinal, wash your hands or tie your shoe laces or jump in and out of a car? The thing is a real PITA to haul around.
It's a beautiful lense though. All the ultra costly telephotos deliver on what you pay for them.
honestly, I have the strap on it and throw it over my shoulder, I have walked into the bathroom with it over my shoulder more than once and walked to and from venues with it plenty (that is to say across campus), in and out of a car, it is the thing that I pay attention to and have it by the foot securely with one hand, I see your point that its not a small lens but the reality is that if you use it enough you become comfortable with it and it really isnt that bad
