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 … 5 6 end

Archive 2009 · 200-400 vs 400 2.8??

millsart
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #1 · 200-400 vs 400 2.8??

Chestnut wrote:

Any way you look at it, you're getting top tier optics. yeah, the 400mm 2.8 has better IQ than the 200-400... but can you REALLY tell the difference in normal use (not doing tests or pixel peeping)? you can't possibly go wrong with either choice, especially if you shoot with the latest sensors (D3, D700 or better). High ISO capabilities in recent/current bodies will more than make up for that one stop difference (unless it's bokeh and DOF you're after).

I'd wager no one could tell a 400 2.8 and 200-400 at 400 f4 shot apart in terms of bokeh/DOF even.

I know I can't as I go through my football games from this season. I should post a few from various games and see if anyone can tell which is a 400 and which is the zoom.

Oct 29, 2009 at 07:07 PM

Rodolfo Paiz
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: On

p.2 #2 · 200-400 vs 400 2.8??

Please do... it would be a fun test!

Oct 29, 2009 at 07:24 PM

DennisC
Offline
Upload & Sell: On

p.2 #3 · 200-400 vs 400 2.8??

Rodolfo Paiz wrote:
Please do... it would be a fun test!

+1

Oct 29, 2009 at 08:20 PM

millsart
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #4 · 200-400 vs 400 2.8??

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

Oct 29, 2009 at 08:29 PM

ScottSchupbach
Offline
Upload & Sell: On

p.2 #5 · 200-400 vs 400 2.8??

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.

Oct 30, 2009 at 12:31 AM

galenapass
Offline
Upload & Sell: On

p.2 #6 · 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 #7 · 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 #8 · 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 #9 · 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 #10 · 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 #11 · 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 #12 · 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 #13 · 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 #14 · 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 #15 · 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 #16 · 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 #17 · 200-400 vs 400 2.8??

:-)

Oct 30, 2009 at 05:45 PM

Andre Labonte
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #18 · 200-400 vs 400 2.8??

millsart

KUDOS!!!

Regards,
Andre

Oct 30, 2009 at 07:39 PM

stevekphotos
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #19 · 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 #20 · 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

1 2 3 … 5 6 end
FM Forums \| Nikon-mount SLRs \| Join Upload & Sell 1 2 3 … 5 6 end