200-400 vs 400 2.8?? - FM Forums

Register · Search · Software · Join Upload & Sell · Hosting

Moderated by: Fred Miranda

FM Forum Rules
Nikon SLRs, primes, and zooms lenses reviews

FM Forums \| Nikon-mount SLRs \| Join Upload & Sell	Search Used
1 2 3 4 5 end

Archive 2009 · 200-400 vs 400 2.8??

galenapass
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #1 · 200-400 vs 400 2.8??

ScottSchupbach wrote:
millsart wrote:
Alright, I'll do some when I get home this evening. Really won't prove that much between the lenses I don't think, but then again, that is actually sort of the point I guess lol

I would really appreciate a few from each. I would like to try the 200-400/4, but I don't have anywhere near me that rents glass like this.

You don't need anyone near you....

http://www.lensrentals.com/category/supertelephoto/for-nikon

I have had great service from these guys.

Oct 30, 2009 at 12:42 AM

Rodolfo Paiz
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: On

p.2 #2 · 200-400 vs 400 2.8??

I only rented a 300/2.8 from them once, but the whole experience was exemplary. I'd do business with them again in a heartbeat.

Oct 30, 2009 at 01:28 AM

millsart
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #3 · 200-400 vs 400 2.8??

Alright, since there is rumored to be a big difference between the 200-400 and the 400 2.8 in terms of optical quality, bokeh and isolation, I thought I'd upload some images and we can see if there is any truth to that. These aren't 100% crops obviously and I don't think we need to get into a pixel peeping debate but even at web size I think we should be able to judge bokeh and general "purdy-ness"

1

This image is copyrighted by the owner

2

This image is copyrighted by the owner

3

This image is copyrighted by the owner

4

This image is copyrighted by the owner

5

This image is copyrighted by the owner

Oct 30, 2009 at 02:18 AM

millsart
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #4 · 200-400 vs 400 2.8??

And a few more for good measure

6

This image is copyrighted by the owner

7

This image is copyrighted by the owner

8

This image is copyrighted by the owner

9

This image is copyrighted by the owner

10

This image is copyrighted by the owner

Oct 30, 2009 at 02:20 AM

ScottSchupbach
Offline
Upload & Sell: On

p.2 #5 · 200-400 vs 400 2.8??

Well, I certainly can't make a call on which is from the prime or zoom.

bye the way, nice work Jeff.

Oct 30, 2009 at 02:35 AM

ishootsports3
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #6 · 200-400 vs 400 2.8??

great shots, cant pick which is which.
would love to see some night game shots tho...

Oct 30, 2009 at 02:38 AM

stedge
Offline
Upload & Sell: On

p.2 #7 · 200-400 vs 400 2.8??

i'll guess just for fun. 1, 8, and 9 are the prime.

Oct 30, 2009 at 01:16 PM

Rodolfo Paiz
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: On

p.2 #8 · 200-400 vs 400 2.8??

I can't really see a difference, but then again, I didn't expect to. The only imagine that gets my attention is #9 because it has such shallow DOF, and that might indicate the wider aperture of the prime... but that's really a very wild-assed guess.

Oct 30, 2009 at 02:59 PM

millsart
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #9 · 200-400 vs 400 2.8??

Well, what might surprise some, and hopefully illustrate one of the points I was making earlier in this thread, is that isolation and shallow DOF aren't the exclusive domain of a fast supertelephoto

Image 1 was actually shot at 280mm, F6.3 200-400 with a 1.4x TC that was zoomed out all the way. The zoom proved very invaluable for shooting that play as Coleman brought that interception all the way back for a touchdown, 89 yards I believe it was

Image 8 was shot at 300mm, f4, and then the resulting image 9, part of that same sequence was backed off to 260mm as they drove the ball returned back into his own territory further before Storm Klein apparently tried to twist the guys head off.

This isn't supposed to be any definitive end all evidence or anything along those lines, but simply to hopefully show that you don't need to shoot at 400mm, wide open for every image.

For some a 400 still would be a better choice as well, its not a black and white issue but a highly subjective one based upon each persons unique needs.

What you loose with a 200-400 is a stop of light. No argument there but as far as losing any sharpness, quality of bokeh or subject isolation I don't think its an issue.

And then the framing versatility from the zoom is just a huge advantage that you just don't know how you lived without.

Oct 30, 2009 at 04:19 PM

Rodolfo Paiz
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: On

p.2 #10 · 200-400 vs 400 2.8??

So, which of those shots from the 400 prime?

Oct 30, 2009 at 04:44 PM

dionysis
Offline
Upload & Sell: On

p.2 #11 · 200-400 vs 400 2.8??

Daytime sports I would think the 200-400mm would have an advantage because of zoom. The big question to me comes when the sun goes down. Can the 200-400mm produce sharp (non-blury) images under the lights? I know that this varies field to field but when it comes down to it you still have to be able to stop motion.

Oct 30, 2009 at 05:43 PM

stedge
Offline
Upload & Sell: On

p.2 #12 · 200-400 vs 400 2.8??

:-)

Oct 30, 2009 at 05:45 PM

Andre Labonte
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #13 · 200-400 vs 400 2.8??

millsart

KUDOS!!!

Regards,
Andre

Oct 30, 2009 at 07:39 PM

stevekphotos
Offline
Upload & Sell: On

p.2 #14 · 200-400 vs 400 2.8??

If I had to take a reasonable guess, I would say:

1- Zoom
2- Zoom (but could be either)
3- Prime
4- Prime
5- Prime
6- Zoom
7- Zoom
8- Zoom
9- Not sure, but would say Zoom
10 - Prime

But it's very hard to tell at those light levels.

Oct 30, 2009 at 07:52 PM

Rodolfo Paiz
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: On

p.2 #15 · 200-400 vs 400 2.8??

dionysis wrote:
Daytime sports I would think the 200-400mm would have an advantage because of zoom. The big question to me comes when the sun goes down. Can the 200-400mm produce sharp (non-blury) images under the lights? I know that this varies field to field but when it comes down to it you still have to be able to stop motion.

This has a simple answer. If you're using a 300/2.8 or a 400/2.8, and you're using it wide open during night games, simply look at the shutter speeds you're getting. Could you live with either half the shutter speed, or one stop higher ISO, or some combination of the above? If so, then yes. If not, then no.

It's not about the lens producing or not producing sharp images... it's simply a question of having (or not) sufficient light to get the shot.

Oct 30, 2009 at 08:20 PM

gewall
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #16 · 200-400 vs 400 2.8??

Check out the photo pit down the firstbase line and you can see how many 200-400 are being used at the world series.
http://mlb.mlb.com/mlb/ps/y2009/gigapan.jsp

By the way this Gigapan was shot with the 200-400 on a D700 set at jpeg fine f5.6
400mm. 600 images to produce this one.
http://www.davidbergman.net/blog/2009/10/29/i-photographed-almost-every-single-person-at-yankee-stadium-last-night/

Edited on Oct 31, 2009 at 04:04 PM · View previous versions

Oct 31, 2009 at 02:23 AM

90 5.0
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #17 · 200-400 vs 400 2.8??

tomb18 wrote:
Millsart...+1

The quality of the picture is more important than sharpness!

This,

I won a photography contest themed "In Flight" that was by far the worst photo entered from a peepers perspective, iso noise, sharpness etc all of the other photos were better. Mine had color, content etc that was far more interesting.

Most people don't look at sharpness in photo's that critical, just what it is.

Oct 31, 2009 at 02:32 AM

cm0rris0n
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #18 · 200-400 vs 400 2.8??

gewall wrote:
Check out the photo pit down the firstbase line and you can see how many 200-400 are being used at the world series.
http://mlb.mlb.com/mlb/ps/y2009/gigapan.jsp

As far as I could tell, everyone in the 1st and 3rd base photo boxes that was shooing Nikon was shooting with a 200-400. It really is a nice lens for baseball.

Nov 01, 2009 at 09:46 AM

Creative Edge
Online
Upload & Sell: On

p.2 #19 · 200-400 vs 400 2.8??

had 2 copies of the 200-400 in the past...prefer the 400 2.8 any day...
IQ is that much better especially with tc's attached...
most of the time I was shooting at 400 or with a tc attached....
focus on the 400 2.8 is instantaneous and much more sure footed than the 200-400
....
Don, as much as you like IQ....you'll end up prefering the 400 2.8

Nov 01, 2009 at 07:19 PM

skyvan
Offline
Upload & Sell: On

p.2 #20 · 200-400 vs 400 2.8??

You can always try lensprotogo, borrowlenses or other comparable companies. I'm really close to buying one and am going to go to the camera store and just try it out and see how it feels, maybe you can do that, or buy it and return it if they have a generous return policy.

Nov 01, 2009 at 07:44 PM

Len Shepherd
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #21 · 200-400 vs 400 2.8??

The AF in the 200-400 moves the whole front element group. This combined with the faster aperture of the 300 and 400 f2.8 makes the zoom AF relatively slow, though still quite quick and fast compared to the 80-400.
The zoom has 38 air/glass surfaces and delivers a little less contrast than the primes.
The zoom has close to 400mm prime quality at 400mm, and zoom convenience.
Only you can make a final decision.

Nov 01, 2009 at 08:03 PM

millsart
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #22 · 200-400 vs 400 2.8??

After a bunch of post, as well as countless PM's with some folks, I think all that can be said about this subject is that to each his own.

Buy and use what you think works best and what gives you the images your clients demand.

I've personally never had a single sports info direction, art director, picture desk editor etc ever complain about the IQ from a 200-400. Actually I've never had a single one ever care in the least what I'm shooting with for that matter.

Seriously, has anyone ever had a client reject an image because they said it was lacking a little contrast ?

As long as the light level is there, if your shooting a D3 and a 400 2.8, or a D3 and a 200-400, the weak link isn't going to be the gear, its going to be the photographer.

If you can't get the job done with one of those fine lens, or heck, even a 300 for that matter, then its not going to matter if you switch to something different. Might as well just look for a new line or work, or pick a new hobby because this gear is as good as it gets.

If your lucky enough to have the ability to purchase one or more of these fine lenses just do it. Pick something and get out there and shoot with it.

Regardless of what you buy your going to have the potential at least to produce the finest images of your career because there have never been better tools.

Nov 02, 2009 at 03:16 AM

ishootsports3
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #23 · 200-400 vs 400 2.8??

millsart wrote:
After a bunch of post, as well as countless PM's with some folks, I think all that can be said about this subject is that to each his own.

Buy and use what you think works best and what gives you the images your clients demand.

I've personally never had a single sports info direction, art director, picture desk editor etc ever complain about the IQ from a 200-400. Actually I've never had a single one ever care in the least what I'm shooting with for that matter.

Seriously, has anyone ever had a client reject an image because they said it was lacking a little contrast ?

If you can't get the job done with one of those fine lens, or heck, even a 300 for that matter, then its not going to matter if you switch to something different. Might as well just look for a new line or work, or pick a new hobby because this gear is as good as it gets.

If your lucky enough to have the ability to purchase one or more of these fine lenses just do it. Pick something and get out there and shoot with it.

Regardless of what you buy your going to have the potential at least to produce the finest images of your career because there have never been better tools.

+1
shoot more talk less

Nov 02, 2009 at 03:21 AM

keoniahlo
Offline
Upload & Sell: On

p.2 #24 · 200-400 vs 400 2.8??

First of all, AWESOME shots, millsart! I only dream of images like yours!

In any case, here's my interpretation of these two amazing lenses:

The 200-400 seems to work better on my (former) D3 rather than my D700 or D300 for ACTION photos; however, I like the crop factor of the D300, so I use my 400 2.8 VR, which, to me, focuses faster than my 200-400 on that camera (could be my copy, but I doubt it). I also shoot a lot of surf, and the nano coating of the 400 VR seems to help somewhat with harsh lighting (marginal, but there IS a difference--something to consider as well).

I've tried the 200-400 on my D300S (sold the D300) and I haven't come to a conclusion as to which way I'd like to go. I'm tossing around the idea of a D3S to replace the D300S, but then I lose the crop factor.

Bottom line is that you really need to try both and see what you like. I have the 200-400, 300 VR and 400 VR and I, personally, use the 400 twice as much as both of the other two combined...but that's ME and for what *I* shoot.

Aloha,
Keoni

PS. If you shoot field sports, feel free to look at my gallery at www.keoniahlo.com and take a look at some of the soccer shots in the Sports gallery. All the EXIF info is there and you can compare both lenses. Also look at the camera as well, as that changes the way each lens "looks". Of course, the time of day and the quality of light vary from shoot to shoot, but you can get a general idea. Good luck!

Nov 02, 2009 at 07:52 AM

skyvan
Offline
Upload & Sell: On

p.2 #25 · 200-400 vs 400 2.8??

I see everyone comparing the 200-400VR versus the 400 2.8VR however they aren't at all similiar in price, shouldn't the comparison be between an older 400 F/2.8 AF-S and the current 200-400 F/4 VR?

Nov 02, 2009 at 08:56 AM


FM Forums \| Nikon-mount SLRs \| Join Upload & Sell 1 2 3 4 5 end