The most exotic you will ever hope to get is a 300f2, as at least it has been done before by Nikon. But judging that it was discontinued a long time ago with no successor does not give much hope it will ever be done again. These things just get too unwieldy and too niche. Better high ISO is a much more realistic hope.
Realistically, a 200f2GM and a 300f2.8GM will surely show up in the not too distant future.
TopPixel wrote:
Have you ever shot at night on a dimly lit football field? F2.8 is barely enough in those situations and you still have to use sky high ISO where the lights are not directly pointing. And forget about doing 1/1600 shutter.
You ready to lay down $16,000 for that beast? If not...stop dreaming.
According to SAR LAST YEAR, yes, yes, I know...SAR 100% correct 30% of the time! Tamron was rumored to be working on a 200-400 f4. Haven't heard a thing since that time on that lens.
Jman13 wrote:
Could always pick up a used FD 300mm f/2.8L and manually focus....a bit of a challenge, but the optical quality on that lens is still stellar, and you can usually get it for under $1,000.
I can attest to that! I have one and get some amazing photos! I bought mine for a mere 600 EUR too!
Definitely my go-to for photographing planes at night for example
A Sony 200-400/2.8 GM would obviously be way more expensive than Canon 200-400/4 + 1.4 TC and Nikon 180-400/4 + 1.4 TC lenses, is my guess. No free lunch here.
Sigma is rumored to have a 200F2 in the works, this is supposedly as "exotic" as you can get in a relatively short timeframe and supposedly for a still affordable (for such a lens) price, in line with other Sigma top lenses.
On the existing available lenses, if fast action/BIFs are not the priority and you don't want to spend a fortune, an used Canon 300 F2.8 L IS first version adapted via MB or MC-11 is still a phenomenal lens in terms of sheer IQ, and can take both 1.4X and 2X TCs pretty well.
Unfortunately with today's tech there are still some physics barriers to deal with, ergo the monster that Sigma made to get around them 13 years ago. Now a 400mm ƒ2.0 version (who's price would be well north of the $12k Sony 400 2.8) is most likely plausible but I doubt Sony will go there as it would not make a good business case, ie lots of internal expense and not enough revenue to offset it.
A more reasonable thought would be for Sigma to provide a native E-mount version of their existing 120-300 ƒ2.8. Couple that to the A1 in APS-C mode and.... maybe?
200/2, 300/2.8, or 200-400/4 are all more realistic physics-wise and price-wise than a 200-400/2.8.
I'm a huge fan of my Canon 200-400/4 and used it daily for newspaper work for years. It replaced my 70-200/2.8, 300/2.8, and 400/2.8 for nearly all jobs. With that said, a good 300/2.8 is far more versatile and compact than any of these other 400mm options.
TopPixel wrote:
Have you ever shot at night on a dimly lit football field? F2.8 is barely enough in those situations and you still have to use sky high ISO where the lights are not directly pointing. And forget about doing 1/1600 shutter.
If it's too difficult for you, it's best to leave this stuff to more experienced photographers... maybe you can buy some prints from them.
