The quality of the picture is more important than sharpness!
This,
I won a photography contest themed "In Flight" that was by far the worst photo entered from a peepers perspective, iso noise, sharpness etc all of the other photos were better. Mine had color, content etc that was far more interesting.
Most people don't look at sharpness in photo's that critical, just what it is.
gewall wrote:
Check out the photo pit down the firstbase line and you can see how many 200-400 are being used at the world series. http://mlb.mlb.com/mlb/ps/y2009/gigapan.jsp
As far as I could tell, everyone in the 1st and 3rd base photo boxes that was shooing Nikon was shooting with a 200-400. It really is a nice lens for baseball.
had 2 copies of the 200-400 in the past...prefer the 400 2.8 any day...
IQ is that much better especially with tc's attached...
most of the time I was shooting at 400 or with a tc attached....
focus on the 400 2.8 is instantaneous and much more sure footed than the 200-400
....
Don, as much as you like IQ....you'll end up prefering the 400 2.8
You can always try lensprotogo, borrowlenses or other comparable companies. I'm really close to buying one and am going to go to the camera store and just try it out and see how it feels, maybe you can do that, or buy it and return it if they have a generous return policy.
The AF in the 200-400 moves the whole front element group. This combined with the faster aperture of the 300 and 400 f2.8 makes the zoom AF relatively slow, though still quite quick and fast compared to the 80-400.
The zoom has 38 air/glass surfaces and delivers a little less contrast than the primes.
The zoom has close to 400mm prime quality at 400mm, and zoom convenience.
Only you can make a final decision.
After a bunch of post, as well as countless PM's with some folks, I think all that can be said about this subject is that to each his own.
Buy and use what you think works best and what gives you the images your clients demand.
I've personally never had a single sports info direction, art director, picture desk editor etc ever complain about the IQ from a 200-400. Actually I've never had a single one ever care in the least what I'm shooting with for that matter.
Seriously, has anyone ever had a client reject an image because they said it was lacking a little contrast ?
As long as the light level is there, if your shooting a D3 and a 400 2.8, or a D3 and a 200-400, the weak link isn't going to be the gear, its going to be the photographer.
If you can't get the job done with one of those fine lens, or heck, even a 300 for that matter, then its not going to matter if you switch to something different. Might as well just look for a new line or work, or pick a new hobby because this gear is as good as it gets.
If your lucky enough to have the ability to purchase one or more of these fine lenses just do it. Pick something and get out there and shoot with it.
Regardless of what you buy your going to have the potential at least to produce the finest images of your career because there have never been better tools.
millsart wrote:
After a bunch of post, as well as countless PM's with some folks, I think all that can be said about this subject is that to each his own.
Buy and use what you think works best and what gives you the images your clients demand.
I've personally never had a single sports info direction, art director, picture desk editor etc ever complain about the IQ from a 200-400. Actually I've never had a single one ever care in the least what I'm shooting with for that matter.
Seriously, has anyone ever had a client reject an image because they said it was lacking a little contrast ?
If you can't get the job done with one of those fine lens, or heck, even a 300 for that matter, then its not going to matter if you switch to something different. Might as well just look for a new line or work, or pick a new hobby because this gear is as good as it gets.
If your lucky enough to have the ability to purchase one or more of these fine lenses just do it. Pick something and get out there and shoot with it.
Regardless of what you buy your going to have the potential at least to produce the finest images of your career because there have never been better tools....Show more →
First of all, AWESOME shots, millsart! I only dream of images like yours!
In any case, here's my interpretation of these two amazing lenses:
The 200-400 seems to work better on my (former) D3 rather than my D700 or D300 for ACTION photos; however, I like the crop factor of the D300, so I use my 400 2.8 VR, which, to me, focuses faster than my 200-400 on that camera (could be my copy, but I doubt it). I also shoot a lot of surf, and the nano coating of the 400 VR seems to help somewhat with harsh lighting (marginal, but there IS a difference--something to consider as well).
I've tried the 200-400 on my D300S (sold the D300) and I haven't come to a conclusion as to which way I'd like to go. I'm tossing around the idea of a D3S to replace the D300S, but then I lose the crop factor.
Bottom line is that you really need to try both and see what you like. I have the 200-400, 300 VR and 400 VR and I, personally, use the 400 twice as much as both of the other two combined...but that's ME and for what *I* shoot.
Aloha,
Keoni
PS. If you shoot field sports, feel free to look at my gallery at www.keoniahlo.com and take a look at some of the soccer shots in the Sports gallery. All the EXIF info is there and you can compare both lenses. Also look at the camera as well, as that changes the way each lens "looks". Of course, the time of day and the quality of light vary from shoot to shoot, but you can get a general idea. Good luck!
I see everyone comparing the 200-400VR versus the 400 2.8VR however they aren't at all similiar in price, shouldn't the comparison be between an older 400 F/2.8 AF-S and the current 200-400 F/4 VR?
People keep talking about the "400/2.8" and I'm not at all convinced that everyone is talking about the VR model. Some posts mention VR, some don't. If you compare the 200-400 to an older lens, the 200-400 will get a competitive advantage in the image quality department while becoming less competitive in price. Still, I think that the conclusions are pretty much the same: you can take images for Sports Illustrated or National Geographic with the 200-400 without batting an eye, so the IQ advantage of the primes is real, but pretty marginal. Where you really must move to the primes is when you truly need instantaneous focus and/or the extra stop of light. If those aren't true, then it's your choice as to what you feel is best, or what you like best.
skyvan wrote:
I see everyone comparing the 200-400VR versus the 400 2.8VR however they aren't at all similiar in price, shouldn't the comparison be between an older 400 F/2.8 AF-S and the current 200-400 F/4 VR?
400 AF-S ver II and the 400 VR are pretty much the same lens as far as I could tell. 400 2.8 sold for about $7000, new VR version for closer to $9000. I tried both and went for the ver II to save some money as I never use VR for field sports.
In all honesty though I think when your talking about a $6300 lens verses a $9000 lens its really not about money because when your at the point in your career, or hobby where you feel you truly need such tools, then you've likely got so much invested overall that the difference between them is pretty minor and price really isn't a factor because its expensive any way you cut it.
Frankly if the difference in price between them is that much of a factor then probably buying either of them would be a bad financial choice for someone and could result in them getting themselves a bit over extended which is very easy to do in this hobby/industry. I've been seeing too many people lately invest in some gear that they think is going to generate revenue over the next couple of years come up quite short because the market keeps changing and the money they were counting on just isn't there.
Its actually more like 5000 to 8000, and I don't want to spend 8k if there is no significant advantage. if money was really no object I'd get both. For me it isn't necessarily about generating revenue as I don't even try to marekt my images widely, I just license them to the paper I shoot for and figure that it is a better idea to pick up a big lens rather than renting one every time I need one. If I was to purchase one I'd be able to utilize it whenever I need to instead of having rent it constantly, which is a big advantage. I think I'm going to end up getting a 400 AF-S (non-vr) though so it doesn't really matter that much...the 200-400 doesn't work as well with TCs which I find myself using a lot for outdoor sports like soccer.
skyvan wrote:
the 200-400 doesn't work as well with TCs which I find myself using a lot for outdoor sports like soccer.
It doesn't ? Not my experience as I shoot it about 90% of the time with a TC on mine.
Actually I'm using a TC far more often now because I can zoom out if its too tight so theres less risk of being stuck with too long of lens on a big play
skyvan wrote:
...the 200-400 doesn't work as well with TCs which I find myself using a lot for outdoor sports like soccer.
My 200-400 lenses (all three of them) would be very surprised to hear that, since they've all loved the TC's. I have a whole bunch of images from Africa that are handheld at 550mm f/5.6 with the 1.4x, and I cannot tell the difference between them and the 400/4 images without the TC. As long as I don't need f/4, I usually start out with the TC attached and only remove it when there's a good reason to do so.
You might want to have your TC checked. Or, if you've gotten that impression from other sources, have them checked.
Here are a few more shots with the 200-400 with 1.4x TC from this past weekends game. No issues with AF being slow, no issues with lack of sharpness with the TC
1 560mm
2 This is where the zoom becomes really nice as I had the TC on since they were around their own 30 yard line but Herron broke through for a 70 some yard TD run and I was able to keep shooting him down the field, this one is around 390 for example.
Or they might hit the receiver around the 40 and you'll want to be at 560mm
But then hit that same receiver later in the game around the opposing teams 35 where being able to back off to 360mm is handy
5
6 290mm
7 560mm
8 480mm
9 This is actually from a 70-200 but I just thought it was cool so included it
Oh, and while I hardly suggest this as a good idea, you can actually shoot HS night games natural light with a F4 lens if you don't mind shooting at around ISO8000 or whatever H.03 is lol
Very handy range that I feel is more valuable than an extra stop of light and being able to shoot at lower ISO's. Going into newsprint your not going to see a difference in quality but the versatility is great, especially in HS where you can move up and down the sidelines with the play
Heck, I've done 20x30 prints of my 10MP files from the D200/200-400/1.4x combo that looked fantastic. Not seeing a difference in quality there, either.
Great images... great way to make the point. Appreciate the inclusion of the 70-200 as well.
You've all assuaged my concerns about 200-400 with tc that I had got from other sources. How does it work with a 1.7 though since I really like the 1.7 with the 400 2.8 for soccer, it let me reach 2/3 of the field and the other 1/3rd I got with a 70-200 on a crop body. I'm really on the fence and I need to hopefully decide before next week as the mens soccer tournament is being hosted by DU for our league
