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.
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.
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’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.
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.
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.
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...
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.
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.
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.
LABRIEDL wrote:
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.
Actually, if you have the 200-400 and the 600 and a 1.4 TC, you have all the range covered. The only reason to go with the 200, 300, 400, or 500 primes is if you need the speed. Where you have the 200 f/2 and a 1.4 TC, there is no need for the 300 f/2.8. The 400 and 500 are needed only if you need the speed over 200-400 and the 200-400 with a 1.4 TC respectively.
On a more important note: this Memorial Day week, thank you for serving.
Humanoid wrote:
I would like to see some images 100% crops or have access to some of these images (fullsize) with and without TC's for comparisons from the 200-400.
Thats totally missing the point of the thread though. As 4 pages have shown, IQ is not something that should really be a factor in the decision process between the two.
No client or publication is going to complain that the files aren't sharp enough from either of these lens, with or without a tc.
300 w/ 1.4x, 200-400, 400 2.8...... Any of those represent the best possible image quality availible and differences between them are meaningless in the real world.
Humanoid wrote:
I would like to see some images 100% crops or have access to some of these images (fullsize) with and without TC's for comparisons from the 200-400.
Friends don't let friends pixel peep.
Nov 12, 2009 at 10:05 PM
Andre Labonte Offline • • • • • • Upload & Sell: Off
Humanoid wrote:
I would like to see some images 100% crops or have access to some of these images (fullsize) with and without TC's for comparisons from the 200-400.
Then I sold my 1.7x and don't have one right now.
