200-400 vs 400 2.8??

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??

Rodolfo Paiz
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: On

p.3 #1 · 200-400 vs 400 2.8??

People keep talking about the "400/2.8" and I'm not at all convinced that everyone is talking about the VR model. Some posts mention VR, some don't. If you compare the 200-400 to an older lens, the 200-400 will get a competitive advantage in the image quality department while becoming less competitive in price. Still, I think that the conclusions are pretty much the same: you can take images for Sports Illustrated or National Geographic with the 200-400 without batting an eye, so the IQ advantage of the primes is real, but pretty marginal. Where you really must move to the primes is when you truly need instantaneous focus and/or the extra stop of light. If those aren't true, then it's your choice as to what you feel is best, or what you like best.

Nov 02, 2009 at 01:30 PM

millsart
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.3 #2 · 200-400 vs 400 2.8??

skyvan wrote:
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?

400 AF-S ver II and the 400 VR are pretty much the same lens as far as I could tell. 400 2.8 sold for about $7000, new VR version for closer to $9000. I tried both and went for the ver II to save some money as I never use VR for field sports.

In all honesty though I think when your talking about a $6300 lens verses a $9000 lens its really not about money because when your at the point in your career, or hobby where you feel you truly need such tools, then you've likely got so much invested overall that the difference between them is pretty minor and price really isn't a factor because its expensive any way you cut it.

Frankly if the difference in price between them is that much of a factor then probably buying either of them would be a bad financial choice for someone and could result in them getting themselves a bit over extended which is very easy to do in this hobby/industry. I've been seeing too many people lately invest in some gear that they think is going to generate revenue over the next couple of years come up quite short because the market keeps changing and the money they were counting on just isn't there.

Nov 02, 2009 at 05:14 PM

skyvan
Offline
Upload & Sell: On

p.3 #3 · 200-400 vs 400 2.8??

Its actually more like 5000 to 8000, and I don't want to spend 8k if there is no significant advantage. if money was really no object I'd get both. For me it isn't necessarily about generating revenue as I don't even try to marekt my images widely, I just license them to the paper I shoot for and figure that it is a better idea to pick up a big lens rather than renting one every time I need one. If I was to purchase one I'd be able to utilize it whenever I need to instead of having rent it constantly, which is a big advantage. I think I'm going to end up getting a 400 AF-S (non-vr) though so it doesn't really matter that much...the 200-400 doesn't work as well with TCs which I find myself using a lot for outdoor sports like soccer.

Nov 02, 2009 at 08:03 PM

millsart
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.3 #4 · 200-400 vs 400 2.8??

skyvan wrote:

the 200-400 doesn't work as well with TCs which I find myself using a lot for outdoor sports like soccer.

It doesn't ? Not my experience as I shoot it about 90% of the time with a TC on mine.

Actually I'm using a TC far more often now because I can zoom out if its too tight so theres less risk of being stuck with too long of lens on a big play

Nov 02, 2009 at 08:27 PM

Rodolfo Paiz
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: On

p.3 #5 · 200-400 vs 400 2.8??

skyvan wrote:
...the 200-400 doesn't work as well with TCs which I find myself using a lot for outdoor sports like soccer.

My 200-400 lenses (all three of them) would be very surprised to hear that, since they've all loved the TC's. I have a whole bunch of images from Africa that are handheld at 550mm f/5.6 with the 1.4x, and I cannot tell the difference between them and the 400/4 images without the TC. As long as I don't need f/4, I usually start out with the TC attached and only remove it when there's a good reason to do so.

You might want to have your TC checked. Or, if you've gotten that impression from other sources, have them checked.

Nov 02, 2009 at 10:08 PM

millsart
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.3 #6 · 200-400 vs 400 2.8??

Here are a few more shots with the 200-400 with 1.4x TC from this past weekends game. No issues with AF being slow, no issues with lack of sharpness with the TC

1 560mm

2 This is where the zoom becomes really nice as I had the TC on since they were around their own 30 yard line but Herron broke through for a 70 some yard TD run and I was able to keep shooting him down the field, this one is around 390 for example.

Or they might hit the receiver around the 40 and you'll want to be at 560mm

But then hit that same receiver later in the game around the opposing teams 35 where being able to back off to 360mm is handy

6 290mm

7 560mm

8 480mm

9 This is actually from a 70-200 but I just thought it was cool so included it

Nov 02, 2009 at 10:15 PM

millsart
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.3 #7 · 200-400 vs 400 2.8??

Oh, and while I hardly suggest this as a good idea, you can actually shoot HS night games natural light with a F4 lens if you don't mind shooting at around ISO8000 or whatever H.03 is lol

Very handy range that I feel is more valuable than an extra stop of light and being able to shoot at lower ISO's. Going into newsprint your not going to see a difference in quality but the versatility is great, especially in HS where you can move up and down the sidelines with the play

Nov 02, 2009 at 10:19 PM

Rodolfo Paiz
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: On

p.3 #8 · 200-400 vs 400 2.8??

Heck, I've done 20x30 prints of my 10MP files from the D200/200-400/1.4x combo that looked fantastic. Not seeing a difference in quality there, either.

Great images... great way to make the point. Appreciate the inclusion of the 70-200 as well.

Nov 02, 2009 at 11:07 PM

Rags Hef
Offline
Upload & Sell: On

p.3 #9 · 200-400 vs 400 2.8??

Beautiful images Millsart. They're real "crispy"....

Rags

Nov 02, 2009 at 11:27 PM

skyvan
Offline
Upload & Sell: On

p.3 #10 · 200-400 vs 400 2.8??

You've all assuaged my concerns about 200-400 with tc that I had got from other sources. How does it work with a 1.7 though since I really like the 1.7 with the 400 2.8 for soccer, it let me reach 2/3 of the field and the other 1/3rd I got with a 70-200 on a crop body. I'm really on the fence and I need to hopefully decide before next week as the mens soccer tournament is being hosted by DU for our league

Nov 02, 2009 at 11:35 PM

Rodolfo Paiz
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: On

p.3 #11 · 200-400 vs 400 2.8??

I have not used it with a 1.7x almost ever. I used it on my D200 once or twice, but the AF at f/6.3 was considerably slower... no surprise there, and the D200 AF was not in D3 territory, either.

Then I sold my 1.7x and don't have one right now.

I'd say the lens sharpness and IQ would take a minor hit, but still would be completely usable and publishable material. That's not what I'd worry about... it's whether the body behind it could AF quickly and accurately enough at f/6.3.

Nov 03, 2009 at 01:13 AM

jeff5897
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.3 #12 · 200-400 vs 400 2.8??

Here are some photos took by the 2 lens, you can download their original size to review their image quality.

200-400mm
http://english.sellpower.net/modules/flickrorg/dlsr_index.php?id=2&dc_model=0&iso1=0&iso2=0&len_id=287&exposure1=0&exposure2=0&shutter1=0&shutter2=0&num_focal_mm=0&num_focal_mm2=&B1=Query

400mm F2.8
http://english.sellpower.net/modules/flickrorg/dlsr_index.php?id=2&dc_model=0&iso1=0&iso2=0&len_id=259&exposure1=0&exposure2=0&shutter1=0&shutter2=0&num_focal_mm=0&num_focal_mm2=&B1=Query

Nov 03, 2009 at 02:04 AM

GeorgeR
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.3 #13 · 200-400 vs 400 2.8??

Careful asking “which one” questions; the answer is usually both and the money pit grabs you.

I bought a 400 f2.8 AFS II used 6 or so years ago so I imagine it is well over 10 years old if the II has been made that long. A real bargain compared to lens prices today. I don’t use it as much since I picked up a 600 VR but still find enough reasons to justify keeping it.

After numerous suggestions from fellow sports photographers I broke down and ordered a 200-400 that is scheduled for delivery Wednesday, November 4th. It has become a favorite of a large number of the top sports shooters. I plan on using it for soccer and football to capture near field action and continue to use a 600 VR for down field action. I need to hand hold it since I don’t think I can manage two mono pods and don’t have the luxury of an assistant to hold the extra bodies like many photographers have at the bigger events. Unfortunately now I will have a wide angle gap and need to consider a third body. Ouch.

There are still stadiums where a 400 f2.8 and 80/70-200 f2.8 will give better results and are more likely to make it into a magazine. I also like a 400 f2.8 for down court basketball but I plan on giving the 200-400 a try.

I’ll also be interested to see if the reported extra stop advantage of the D3s makes f4 a moot point for venues that have marginal lighting and suggest use of f2.8 with a D3 today.

Nov 03, 2009 at 02:50 AM

Rodolfo Paiz
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: On

p.3 #14 · 200-400 vs 400 2.8??

And for Pete's sake, let us know what you find out! I'd love to hear your opinions on this.

Nov 03, 2009 at 02:56 AM

LABRIEDL
Offline
Upload & Sell: On

p.3 #15 · 200-400 vs 400 2.8??

Well now that I have the 200 f2, 200-400 and waiting on the 500 vr to come in. I might just consider the 300 & 400 f/2.8 and maybe the 600 vr. I think I'll have to stay in Afghanistan another year or two to pay for all of them.

Nov 03, 2009 at 03:04 PM

90 5.0
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.3 #16 · 200-400 vs 400 2.8??

George,

I’ll also be interested to see if the reported extra stop advantage of the D3s makes f4 a moot point for venues that have marginal lighting and suggest use of f2.8 with a D3 today.

From the high iso samples I have seen I think this is vary likely and we will see even more 200-400's used as D3s's get out there.

Well now that I have the 200 f2, 200-400 and waiting on the 500 vr to come in. I might just consider the 300 & 400 f/2.8 and maybe the 600 vr. I think I'll have to stay in Afghanistan another year or two to pay for all of them.

I could easily afford those this year,

If I lived in a cardboard box and ate catfood

Nov 03, 2009 at 03:14 PM

Rodolfo Paiz
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: On

p.3 #17 · 200-400 vs 400 2.8??

LABRIEDL wrote:
Well now that I have the 200 f2, 200-400 and waiting on the 500 vr to come in.

When you get a chance, please let me know how much additional "reach" you feel the 500VR provides. I've been wondering if either the 500 or 600 would combine well enough with the 200-400 for airshows and (handheld) wildlife for me to spend that kind of money. The 600 (of course) provides significantly more reach, but then it's also 2.6 pounds heavier (30%) and slightly longer, so it might prove to be a lot more difficult to handhold.

Adding a TC to either one would certainly make them more attractive (both 700/5.6 and 840/5.6 sound very good), but the TC makes them even longer and thus slightly harder to balance steadily, an effect I've already noted on the 200-400. Maybe I just need a tougher workout.

Nov 03, 2009 at 03:57 PM

LABRIEDL
Offline
Upload & Sell: On

p.3 #18 · 200-400 vs 400 2.8??

Rodolfo,

This link led me to go with the 500 vice the 600 http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/820968/0#7618545

I'm taking my 200-400 home on leave and will leave it there so I won't be able to do a direct comparison until May or June. Hopefully my 500 will have arrived since like every other good lens it's on backorder. So pleas remind me to do a comparison for you.

Cheers,

David

Nov 03, 2009 at 05:57 PM

Creative Edge
Online
Upload & Sell: On

p.3 #19 · 200-400 vs 400 2.8??

Rodolfo,
You're in Weston...which is very close to me..
I have a 600 afsII which you can try to see how the lens handles and the differnce in reach between your 200-400 and the 600...
the 600 afsII is about .5 lb lighter than the vr version...and of course..no vr...

Michael

Nov 03, 2009 at 06:12 PM

Rodolfo Paiz
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: On

p.3 #20 · 200-400 vs 400 2.8??

Hey, thanks Michael! Very cool of you to offer.

Since I wouldn't presume to borrow an item so near and dear to your heart, and since it'd also be great to hang out for a while, let's get together and go shooting sometime soon. I'd love to try out your 600, and I'll show you the other side of the prime/zoom coin with the 200-400.

Nov 04, 2009 at 05:39 PM

Creative Edge
Online
Upload & Sell: On

p.3 #21 · 200-400 vs 400 2.8??

let's do it...I'm located in Palm Springs North which is about 15 minutes south of you on I-75

Nov 04, 2009 at 05:40 PM

Rodolfo Paiz
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: On

p.3 #22 · 200-400 vs 400 2.8??

Moving this to PM so we don't bug everyone else... but I'd welcome any other locals who want to join us!

Nov 04, 2009 at 05:45 PM

GeorgeR
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.3 #23 · 200-400 vs 400 2.8??

I took the 200-400 out for the first time Sunday and was surprised with how often I found myself using it. When I would shoot with an 80-200 AFS with TC14E and a 600, 75% or more of my shots seemed to come from the 600. With the 200-400 and 600 pairing it seemed to be about 50/50. Those are rough estimates by the way; I haven’t actually counted.

I also had planned on switching from the 600 to an 80-200 AFS for action close to the end zone but never took it off my belt. I don’t know if that was due to the hassle with the Aqua Tech rain gear or not but didn’t find too many situations where 200mm was too long.

The 200-400 seems to take slightly longer, very slightly longer, to acquire focus than my 600 f4 but is more manageable and I found I was able to shoot the quarterback while he threw the ball and at times, find the receiver and get the reception in focus as well, as the example below demonstrates.
Pretty easy to hand hold too.

I’m looking forward to a little better day for my next outing and also anxious to see how it works indoors for down court basketball.

1/800s f/4.0 at 400.0mm iso2000

This image is copyrighted by the owner

1/1600s f/4.0 at 200.0mm iso800

This image is copyrighted by the owner

Nov 10, 2009 at 01:41 AM

rbranan
Offline
Upload & Sell: On

p.3 #24 · 200-400 vs 400 2.8??

yeah, you should really be able to tell the difference with some good web images...

the 200-400 is used by many of the top pro shooters because it produces images adequate for publication and is way more flexible as millsart pointed out. you see it being used in all major sporting events now. however, i shot next to a guy from si a few weeks ago and he had his assistant (they all have one) carrying a fixed length 600, 400, 200-400 and smaller zooms. if you have an assistant and limitless budget then go with all of the lenses and you will never be wrong. well, while he was fiddling around between bodies and lenses, i just zoomed mine.

Nov 11, 2009 at 11:22 AM

Randy Roy
Offline
Upload & Sell: On

p.3 #25 · 200-400 vs 400 2.8??

Great thread - very informative.

Nov 12, 2009 at 02:23 PM


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