Chestnut wrote:
Any way you look at it, you're getting top tier optics. yeah, the 400mm 2.8 has better IQ than the 200-400... but can you REALLY tell the difference in normal use (not doing tests or pixel peeping)? you can't possibly go wrong with either choice, especially if you shoot with the latest sensors (D3, D700 or better). High ISO capabilities in recent/current bodies will more than make up for that one stop difference (unless it's bokeh and DOF you're after).
I'd wager no one could tell a 400 2.8 and 200-400 at 400 f4 shot apart in terms of bokeh/DOF even.
I know I can't as I go through my football games from this season. I should post a few from various games and see if anyone can tell which is a 400 and which is the zoom.
Alright, I'll do some when I get home this evening. Really won't prove that much between the lenses I don't think, but then again, that is actually sort of the point I guess lol
millsart wrote:
Alright, I'll do some when I get home this evening. Really won't prove that much between the lenses I don't think, but then again, that is actually sort of the point I guess lol
I would really appreciate a few from each. I would like to try the 200-400/4, but I don't have anywhere near me that rents glass like this.
ScottSchupbach wrote:
I would really appreciate a few from each. I would like to try the 200-400/4, but I don't have anywhere near me that rents glass like this.
Alright, since there is rumored to be a big difference between the 200-400 and the 400 2.8 in terms of optical quality, bokeh and isolation, I thought I'd upload some images and we can see if there is any truth to that. These aren't 100% crops obviously and I don't think we need to get into a pixel peeping debate but even at web size I think we should be able to judge bokeh and general "purdy-ness"
I can't really see a difference, but then again, I didn't expect to. The only imagine that gets my attention is #9 because it has such shallow DOF, and that might indicate the wider aperture of the prime... but that's really a very wild-assed guess.
Well, what might surprise some, and hopefully illustrate one of the points I was making earlier in this thread, is that isolation and shallow DOF aren't the exclusive domain of a fast supertelephoto
Image 1 was actually shot at 280mm, F6.3 200-400 with a 1.4x TC that was zoomed out all the way. The zoom proved very invaluable for shooting that play as Coleman brought that interception all the way back for a touchdown, 89 yards I believe it was
Image 8 was shot at 300mm, f4, and then the resulting image 9, part of that same sequence was backed off to 260mm as they drove the ball returned back into his own territory further before Storm Klein apparently tried to twist the guys head off.
This isn't supposed to be any definitive end all evidence or anything along those lines, but simply to hopefully show that you don't need to shoot at 400mm, wide open for every image.
For some a 400 still would be a better choice as well, its not a black and white issue but a highly subjective one based upon each persons unique needs.
What you loose with a 200-400 is a stop of light. No argument there but as far as losing any sharpness, quality of bokeh or subject isolation I don't think its an issue.
And then the framing versatility from the zoom is just a huge advantage that you just don't know how you lived without.
Daytime sports I would think the 200-400mm would have an advantage because of zoom. The big question to me comes when the sun goes down. Can the 200-400mm produce sharp (non-blury) images under the lights? I know that this varies field to field but when it comes down to it you still have to be able to stop motion.
dionysis wrote:
Daytime sports I would think the 200-400mm would have an advantage because of zoom. The big question to me comes when the sun goes down. Can the 200-400mm produce sharp (non-blury) images under the lights? I know that this varies field to field but when it comes down to it you still have to be able to stop motion.
This has a simple answer. If you're using a 300/2.8 or a 400/2.8, and you're using it wide open during night games, simply look at the shutter speeds you're getting. Could you live with either half the shutter speed, or one stop higher ISO, or some combination of the above? If so, then yes. If not, then no.
It's not about the lens producing or not producing sharp images... it's simply a question of having (or not) sufficient light to get the shot.
