Register · Software · Search · Image Upload · Buy & Sell · Reviews · Hosting

	Moderated by: guardian
	Username   Password Visit the FM Store · Image Upload · Buy & Sell FM Forum Rules Nikon SLRs, primes, and zooms lenses reviews FM Forums | Nikon-mount SLRs | Join Image Upload end

Rob Eckert Offline Image Upload: Off p.1 #1 · 200-400 f/4 VR Lens Hi Nikkonians, I have a question for you. I have been shooting mostly youth sports. I presently shoot with a Canon 1D MkII+300 2.8 IS (image stabilized) lens. I think every shooter on the fields would love to have a sharp 2.8 zoom to cover a usable sports focal length. This has been elusive so far. The Sigma 120-300 does not seem to fill the hole. Canon does not have a usable zoom in this range either. Hence my inquiry of the 200-400 VR. I see that Dave Black has some shots posted on his site http://www.daveblackphotography.com/workshop/1005.htm that were taken with a D2X+200-400 combo. Are there any FMers who posess this combo and use it for sports/action? If so, I would really appreciate your insights and possibly some examples of the shots from this set up. I am not a "hard core sports shooter". My needs would be more "vanity youth sports" shots. I do not have to capture the decisive moment in all weather and lighting conditions. I am looking for shots to sell to parents........you know the shots I am referring to: Thanks, Rob Eckert Edited on Nov 08, 2005 at 01:23 PM Oct 18, 2005 at 01:27 PM

butch350 Offline Image Upload: On p.1 #2 · 200-400 f/4 VR Lens Have you tried contacting Dave Black for his advice? Edited on Nov 08, 2005 at 01:23 PM Oct 18, 2005 at 03:25 PM

rafadavidc Offline Image Upload: Off p.1 #3 · 200-400 f/4 VR Lens d2x in hsc plus 200-400vr = drool. (800mm f/4 vr? come ON!! --RC Edited on Nov 08, 2005 at 01:23 PM Oct 18, 2005 at 08:54 PM

rffffffff Offline Image Upload: Off p.1 #4 · 200-400 f/4 VR Lens I don't have the lens, but by all accounts, its one of the best nikon has ever made... The whole thing depends on f/2.8 vs f/4 and the shutter speed you need to freeze the motion. How much light is there and how high will you go with ISO... My thought is that it would be awesome, but I think I would try a 70-200 2.8 with a 1.4tc first to see if its okay, then assume that the 200-400 would be just a bit better and quite a bit longer... necessitating a slight increase in shutter too, I would assume. If I had any justification at all, I would buy that one, but the 200 f/2.0 makes more sense the way I shoot... Edited on Nov 08, 2005 at 01:23 PM Oct 18, 2005 at 09:43 PM

Braingiant Offline Image Upload: Off p.1 #5 · 200-400 f/4 VR Lens I have had the lens for a few months and must say it is nicer than any lens I have ever shot with. I don't shoot sports, but I would imagine the ability to zoom and recompose would go a long way in terms of larger glass. It is a super fast, SHARP lens with a creamy bokeh. I shoot about 50-50 handheld vs tripod and the lens continues to surprise me (even from a kayak in rough water). I almost always have the TC14 attached and find that f5.6 produces excellent results (I have read others comments saying the lens needs to be stopped down a little for sharpness, but I haven't had issues with this). This was shot at about 75 feet from my kayak on a choppy lake a few months back. I don't think you could go wrong. Maybe this doesn't help, but it's my 2 cents worth Edited on Nov 08, 2005 at 01:23 PM Oct 18, 2005 at 09:54 PM

Rob Eckert Offline Image Upload: Off p.1 #6 · 200-400 f/4 VR Lens Braingiant wrote: I have had the lens for a few months and must say it is nicer than any lens I have ever shot with. I don't shoot sports, but I would imagine the ability to zoom and recompose would go a long way in terms of larger glass. It is a super fast, SHARP lens with a creamy bokeh. I shoot about 50-50 handheld vs tripod and the lens continues to surprise me (even from a kayak in rough water). I almost always have the TC14 attached and find that f5.6 produces excellent results (I have read others comments saying the lens needs to be stopped down a little for sharpness, but I haven't had issues with this). I don't think you could go wrong. Maybe this doesn't help, but it's my 2 cents worth Charles, Thanks for your insights and for posting the shot. Rob Edited on Nov 08, 2005 at 01:23 PM Oct 18, 2005 at 10:01 PM

Rob Eckert Offline Image Upload: Off p.1 #7 · 200-400 f/4 VR Lens rffffffff wrote: I don't have the lens, but by all accounts, its one of the best nikon has ever made... The whole thing depends on f/2.8 vs f/4 and the shutter speed you need to freeze the motion. How much light is there and how high will you go with ISO... My thought is that it would be awesome, but I think I would try a 70-200 2.8 with a 1.4tc first to see if its okay, then assume that the 200-400 would be just a bit better and quite a bit longer... necessitating a slight increase in shutter too, I would assume. I think I could get away with f/4 because I would not be doing "hard core" action/sports shots. I would probably be working in good light too. Thanks for your comments. Rob Eckert Edited on Nov 08, 2005 at 01:23 PM Oct 18, 2005 at 10:03 PM

Stripper Offline Buy and Sell: On p.1 #8 · 200-400 f/4 VR Lens Rob Eckert wrote: Hi Nikkonians, I have a question for you. I have been shooting mostly youth sports. I presently shoot with a Canon 1D MkII+300 2.8 IS (image stabilized) lens. I think every shooter on the fields would love to have a sharp 2.8 zoom to cover a usable sports focal length. This has been elusive so far. The Sigma 120-300 does not seem to fill the hole. Canon does not have a usable zoom in this range either. Hence my inquiry of the 200-400 VR. Rob, I do not own the lens, but I have used a friend's version on my D2X. I like it a lot, but it is no where near as fast to focus at your 300 prime. For my money, I would take the money you would save by not buying a new Nikon body and buy another Canon body and a 70-200 f-2.8 L-IS and a 1.4 extender. Having 2 bodies is much better than having one body with a zoom lens. The 200-400 is a sharp lens with most of what a prime will give you, but I will take the long prime any day. Edited on Nov 08, 2005 at 01:23 PM Oct 18, 2005 at 11:15 PM

Rob Eckert Offline Image Upload: Off p.1 #9 · 200-400 f/4 VR Lens Stripper wrote: Rob, I do not own the lens, but I have used a friend's version on my D2X. I like it a lot, but it is no where near as fast to focus at your 300 prime. For my money, I would take the money you would save by not buying a new Nikon body and buy another Canon body and a 70-200 f-2.8 L-IS and a 1.4 extender. Having 2 bodies is much better than having one body with a zoom lens. The 200-400 is a sharp lens with most of what a prime will give you, but I will take the long prime any day. John, Thanks for taking the time to reply to my question. I am a fan of your work. I think your reasoning is sound. My 1D MkII+300 2.8 IS is very fast. I think anything less and I would be longing for that combo again. Thanks again, Rob Edited on Nov 08, 2005 at 01:23 PM Oct 19, 2005 at 08:46 AM

glowrider Offline Image Upload: Off p.1 #10 · 200-400 f/4 VR Lens to be fair, it's not THAT slow to focus. I tried the 200-400 the other day at B&H which has pathetic fluorescent lighting and it focused pretty quickly imo. Not as fast as 2.8 of course, but not slow enough that you'd miss the shot in good light. I'm trying to buy this lens at the moment, hopefully things pan out and I get it soon. The reach is just what I need to finish my kit. Edited on Nov 08, 2005 at 01:23 PM Nov 06, 2005 at 01:11 AM

Rob Eckert Offline Image Upload: Off p.1 #11 · 200-400 f/4 VR Lens glowrider wrote: to be fair, it's not THAT slow to focus. I tried the 200-400 the other day at B&H which has pathetic fluorescent lighting and it focused pretty quickly imo. Not as fast as 2.8 of course, but not slow enough that you'd miss the shot in good light. I'm trying to buy this lens at the moment, hopefully things pan out and I get it soon. The reach is just what I need to finish my kit. Good luck in your quest David. I think I am just going to stick with my 300 2.8 IS for now. Nikon keeps beckoning me. There is just something different about thier images. Something I like. Rob Edited on Nov 08, 2005 at 01:23 PM Nov 06, 2005 at 01:11 PM

glowrider Offline Image Upload: Off p.1 #12 · 200-400 f/4 VR Lens I've come to an agreement with the seller, I just need to deposit the money, so this lens will be on its way to me soon. But, the 300 2.8 IS is a fantastic lens and I wouldn't switch for the 200-400. However, if you were more interested in the 200/2 VR, I'd tell you to sell that 300 2.8 IS and move as fast as possible. I did and it's just phenomenal. Edited on Nov 08, 2005 at 01:23 PM Nov 06, 2005 at 01:46 PM

Rob Eckert Offline Image Upload: Off p.1 #13 · 200-400 f/4 VR Lens 200 VR.........now my head is hurting. 200 VR with TCs on a D2X. Dare to dream. Rob Edited on Nov 08, 2005 at 01:23 PM Nov 06, 2005 at 03:06 PM

glowrider Offline Image Upload: Off p.1 #14 · 200-400 f/4 VR Lens A dream. Get the 2.0 and don't look back. Edited on Nov 08, 2005 at 01:23 PM Nov 06, 2005 at 04:15 PM

keeper6 Offline Image Upload: Off p.1 #15 · 200-400 f/4 VR Lens It sounds like you've already made your decision, but the 200-400 is a fantastic lens. I have shot numerous soccer games and several football games with both Nikon and Canon long glass, including the 200-400 and the Canon 300 f2.8 IS. If I were shooting outdoors during the daytime, my first choice would be the 200-400 f4.0 because it is extremely sharp, you have the reach of a 400 when you need it, and the zoom range eliminates the need for a 2nd camera to capture the action when it gets too close for a 400. Any difference in focusing speed between the 200-400 and a prime lens is not enough that it would make me choose the prime over the zoom. The only significant limitation of the lens is that it is only f4, so it is not as good of a choice as an f2.8 lens when shooting indoors and under lights. I don't know that I would switch from Canon to Nikon solely for the purpose of using this lens, but once you have it, it will quickly become a favorite for outdoor sports. Edited on Nov 08, 2005 at 01:23 PM Nov 07, 2005 at 09:12 PM

glowrider Offline Image Upload: Off p.1 #16 · 200-400 f/4 VR Lens I picked up the D2x initially because of the 200/2. Incredible how one lens can get someone to go to a new system like that. Wouldn't have done it for the 200-400 alone though. Edited on Nov 08, 2005 at 01:23 PM Nov 08, 2005 at 06:58 AM

Rob Eckert Offline Image Upload: Off p.1 #17 · 200-400 f/4 VR Lens Thanks again to all for your insights. Rob Nov 08, 2005 at 01:23 PM

	FM Forums | Nikon-mount SLRs | Join Image Upload end

You are not logged in. Login or Register

Username   Password   Lost password?