Wow lots of answers. I'm renting a 400 AF-S 2.8 this weekend as it is the only 400 that the rental house here has, unfortunately they do not carry any Nikon Super Telephoto VR glass. I think I'm interested in the 300 2.8 as that is more affordable and with a TC1.4 it is a about a 420 f/4 which should be good for outdoor sports. For hockey I'm not sure 300 is long enough though as at DU most shooters shoot from the press box as there are no good glass cutouts.
DJ Dunzie it looks like you had penalty box access for those hockey shots, unfortunately University of Denver does not allow access to the penalty box as I believe it is either an NCAA or WCHA rule.
BTW if anyone has any of these lenses mentioned and is looking to sell I have a thread in Buy/Sell or just pm me.
My 300 2.8 is an amazing lense, and its mighty nice with the 1.4 but i still have 2.8 when i want/need it (which is a lot) still i keep thinking about finding a trade for a 400...
I understand your pain with Camren. I wish they had some updated Nikon lenses. The big advantage of them vs the online guys though is I can rent for one day for a reasonable price where as everyone else is per week.
From what I have heard you will be lucky to get a 300mm through the cutouts at DU. I have seen several guys at the Pepsi center going just above the glass with a 400mm to get shots. While it is a good way to avoid shooting through the glass if your lens doesn't fit I think the perspective of the shot sucks.
I really like the 200 2.0 and recently sold the 300 2.8 for lack of use. 200 2.0 is fantastic for hockey or any low light event such as nite soccer or football. Its still an exceptional lens with the 1.4x on it; nearly 300mm and still f2.8. Even more versatile with both ff and crop bodies. Last lens I will sell.
I understand your pain with Camren. I wish they had some updated Nikon lenses. The big advantage of them vs the online guys though is I can rent for one day for a reasonable price where as everyone else is per week.
From what I have heard you will be lucky to get a 300mm through the cutouts at DU. I have seen several guys at the Pepsi center going just above the glass with a 400mm to get shots. While it is a good way to avoid shooting through the glass if your lens doesn't fit I think the perspective of the shot sucks. ...Show more →
Yeah, and their insurance is a scam to but that's a whole different issue. I'm renting the 400 now and other than the fact that the EXIF reports 950mm when I have a 1.7tc on it is good. I got some shots at hockey though I think it was a little too powerful, I also used my d90 at 300 that I thought was a little too short for the far end. What I really want is 200 for close end (we always are on the DU shoots once side of the rink in the press box) and 400 for the other side, that is why I'm really liking the idea of a 200-400, add that to the fact that i usually end up shooting around f/4 or f/5 to get more stuff in focus It may be a good choice. And yes, the best part about Camren is one day rentals, and I hear that ProPhoto Rental in Boulder will do that too if you go and pick it up, but they don't do the one days cost for the whole weekend thing like Camren does.
rjk55425 wrote:
I really like the 200 2.0 and recently sold the 300 2.8 for lack of use. 200 2.0 is fantastic for hockey or any low light event such as nite soccer or football. Its still an exceptional lens with the 1.4x on it; nearly 300mm and still f2.8. Even more versatile with both ff and crop bodies. Last lens I will sell.
I've heard a lot of good things about the 200 f/2 but for me I think it would be more of a luxury lens. I have my 70-200 that goes to 2.8 and for most things I don't need 2.0, especially since I'm primarily shooting Division 1 Athletics with most of them having at least adequate lighting (and hopefully in a month or two built in strobes). I'm not sure if I'd use a 300 2.8 enough to justify it but I think the 400 is too much for indoor sports and too little for outdoor (without a TC). I'm really leaning towards a 200-400 if I can find one for a good deal.
skyvan wrote:
I've heard a lot of good things about the 200 f/2 but for me I think it would be more of a luxury lens. I have my 70-200 that goes to 2.8 and for most things I don't need 2.0, especially since I'm primarily shooting Division 1 Athletics with most of them having at least adequate lighting (and hopefully in a month or two built in strobes). I'm not sure if I'd use a 300 2.8 enough to justify it but I think the 400 is too much for indoor sports and too little for outdoor (without a TC). I'm really leaning towards a 200-400 if I can find one for a good deal....Show more →
I would love to have the 200-400 but view it strictly as an outdoor lens. Maybe different if I had a D3S body. Keep in mind with 200 you have 3 and maybe 4 options:
I know that with 200 there are three options so I don't think I'd ever actually use it at 200 and I only have a 1.7tc (and would not use a 2.0 TC as image quality sucks). For me it is either a 200-400 or 400. I shot tonight with a 400 and was very happy with the images. I did however see someone shooting with a 200-400 and he said that he just needs to shoot at 1000 ISO which is not a big deal for what I'm shooting for (newspaper and online publication).
Ok, don't take my word for it, but goto and/or watch many of the professional MAJOR sporting events throughout the country and I guaranee you the 400 2.8 VR will out number the 200-400 10-1 and that is being modest. The 400 2.8 is a 24/7 lens while the 200-400 is a very limited lens at best in comparision. I can certainly say that I have a good grasp of this because I shoot at most major college and pro sporting events and I personally see wht the others shoot with. There is a reason why Nikon charges you twice as much for the MONEY lens, its not a coincidence or rocket science. The NIKON 400 2.8 VR is the ULTIMATE SPORTING LENS Period!!!
For those who disagree are in denial and want to believe or justify the cost difference for varous reasons.
I know that the 400 is seen more places. I shoot at Divison 1 college sports and I see the 400s but i also have started to see 200-400 turn up. I don't shoot at f/2.8 often, usually 4 or 5.6 as I find myself shooting high iso (1600 or so) since the shots I am taking are for newspaper. Also i can get a good deal on a 200-400 with VR and accessoreis and such, but can't find a good deal on a 400. If I could find a 400 VR for 1000 more than a 200-400 i'd get it but I doubt I can find a 400 VR for 6k
