la puffin Offline Upload & Sell: Off
|
gnjphotography wrote:
You have to look at supply and demand. For Nikon and Canon, the Olympics is a big deal and having this type of lens for it's NPS members and those who shoot Nikon is necessary. Is it needed for the parent shooting their child playing soccer or t-ball? No, that is why the 70-300, 80-400 and 200-500 exist.
That's a good point.
gnjphotography wrote:
Sports illustrated is not the only publication or people that pay for sports photography. Though the other lenses are capable of being used, the 180-400mm has significant advantages over these lenses for capturing fast action in low light in all weather conditions. There have been plenty of time I have shot sporting events where it is not supposed to rain and it pours down. Could the 200-500mm handle being drenched in rain? The 180-400mm should be able too.
More good points. There may be less print publications, but now there are a to more media outlets online and they don't all buy from Getty or AP. Go to a NFL game and there's a lot of photographers in the media room and on the sidelines.
gnjphotography wrote:
Overall it is a lens for those who need it, like the 400mm, 500mm, 600mm and 800mm. None of these telephotos are under $10,000. So, yes, it seems expensive, but is inline with other exotic telephoto lenses in the line.
I agree with this too. There's also the previous G series lenses available if one can't afford the latest and greatest.
90 5.0 wrote:
Think about it like this. Say we have the same shot, in a sports illustrated magazine on the shelf.
At that print size, when does the current 200-500 vr or the 200-400 on a d5 need a d6 and a 180-400?
Now the focus speed issue makes sense, if the others focus to slow to get good shots that’s understandable but the resolution really isn’t, or macro sharpness.
People aren’t buying mags and looking at the pics with jewelry loops to see fine detail.
A creamy background will practically always look better than a busy one. Two identical shots, one at 2.8 and one at 5.6, ask people which looks better? With the competition being so fierce, any edge is better for having a shot used. Go to ESPN.com or USAToday.com. For field sports, you'll see those blurred bf's. Basketball is tougher because of the size of the court, but the principle is the same or even stronger.
Also, there's big difference in light between 2.8 and 5.6. Shooting MLB at night, my D5 will occasionally hit 12,800 at 1/2000 and f2.8. Two stops slower?
|