SportsShooter.com - 300 2.8 or 200-400 f4

	Lehighton \| Pa \| USA \| Posted: 10:40 PM on 08.15.07
	->> The 200-400 is a super sharp lens. For soccer, baseball and motorsports you'll probably find this more useful than the 300. You will probably miss 2.8 for basketball, but with the 18-70 and 80-200 you should be set for basketball anyway. You'll just be limited to the near side of the court for most of your shots. I'd recommend the 200-400.

Patrick Fallon, Student/Intern, Photographer

	Torrance \| CA \| USA \| Posted: 10:40 PM on 08.15.07
	->> Nikon 300 f2.8 Thats it. You already have an 80-200, and you will find the 300 to be MUCH more useful than the 200-400 f/4 cause of the extra light. Plus, you can always add a TC..

Yamil Sued, Photographer, Photo Editor

	Peoria \| AZ \| USA \| Posted: 11:47 PM on 08.15.07
	->> 300/2.8!!! I have shot both and I agree with Greg, it is more versatile than the 200-400, and with your money savings (about $1500) you can get more gear, like the TC-14 and maybe sell the 18-70 and get a 28-70/2.8 and a 17-55/2.8 or a 17-35/2.8. Y

David Meyer, Photographer

	Orlando \| FL \| USA \| Posted: 12:02 AM on 08.16.07
	->> Jack, Your question reminded me of this post by David Hobby of Strobist fame: http://tinyurl.com/26elpc Doesn't answer your question directly, but it may give you a different angle from which to view your current situation. Good luck at school! Signed, Jealous Pitt/Steelers/Pirates/Penguins fan "stuck" down here in sunny Florida ;-)

Anantachai Brown, Photographer

	Jacksonville \| FL \| \| Posted: 12:15 AM on 08.16.07
	->> 300 2.8.........I shoot Canon so I have the 300 2.8 NON IS.....stick with the prime lens, have shot beside a guy before using a 200-400mm.....can't compare the image quality and auto focusing speed... my opinion of course.

Michael Brown, Photographer

	Roxburgh Park \| Victoria \| Australia \| Posted: 5:48 AM on 08.16.07
	->> I shoot with the 200-400 and find it to be very fast focus, and it's pin sharp. Coupled with the flexibility of zoom on the sidelines, it superb. Just one small setback is the loss of one stop, which is an issue for some night venues. I remember reading that Dave Black uses this lens quite a bit.

Michael Brown, Photographer

	Roxburgh Park \| Victoria \| Australia \| Posted: 5:51 AM on 08.16.07
	->> Actually if you go to this website, you will see some of the shots from the 200-400. Go to the superbike shots. http://www.flickr.com/photos/mbrown3064/ I find this lens invaluable for soccer as well, due to the speed.

Walter Calahan, Photographer

	Westminster \| MD \| USA \| Posted: 7:31 AM on 08.16.07
	->> Gee, when I went off to college I had a Pentax Spotmatic II with a 50 f/1.4 and 135mm f/4.0, and thought I had it made. I finally got a beater car my junior year, sold the Pentax, and got a Nikkormat with a 28mm f/3.5, 55mm micro, 105mm f/2.5, and a 200mm f/4.0. I was in hog heaven. Good luck with whatever you get.

Derrick den Hollander, Photographer

Melbourne | VIC | AUSTRALIA | Posted: 9:27 AM on 08.16.07

->> I've used both lenses recently, both are impressive in terms of quality, focus speed, and comparable in weight and handling. The 300 is possibly easier to hand hold, but neither are for any extended period of time.

Given a choice, the 300 wins for low light capability, the 200-400 is a winner in good light. If Nikon do eventually come up with a body that performs as well as the Mark III Canon body in low light (minus the bugs), I'd choose the 200-400.

As it is, failing any announcement from Nikon, the 300 wins a close race - it's more versatile with greater ability and quality in low light. With better high ISO performance, the range and zoom capability of the 200-400 wins.

So, over to you Mr Nikon......

Jim Metzendorf, Photographer, Assistant

	Columbus \| OH \| United States \| Posted: 10:19 AM on 08.16.07
	->> A 300 2.8 and/or 400 2.8 are the bread and butter of a sports photojournalist. I would only consider the 200-400 f/4 AFTER I already owned one or both of the afforementioned lenses.

Bryan Hulse, Photographer

Highlands Ranch | Co | USA | Posted: 12:06 PM on 08.16.07

->> Man! Welcome to the standard Nikon long lens dilemma.

I went through this almost 2 years ago. I finally settled on the 200-400. But I often rented a 300mm f2.8 for low light shooting last year. The 200-400 just isn’t fast enough for low light.
But I am still happy with my decision. I LOVE the flexibility of the zoom.
The truth is, for versatile shooting, you can easily use both. But it really depends on what you are primarily going to shoot, and your style of shooting.

The 200-400 is great for daylight. But even if it starts getting cloudy and gloomy, you have to start cranking up the iso. I’ve shot at iso 1600 in the evening when cloudy.

My copy is super sharp wide open at f4.0 from 200mm to about 350mm. At 400mm, it needs to be stopped down 2/3 of a stop to f5.0 to maintain that super crisp shooting.

My latest dilemma was if I should get the 200mm f2.0 or the 300mm f2.8 to compliment my 200-400 for night shooting. I settled on the 200mm f2.0 since with a 1.4 tc can shoot at 280mm and f2.8.

Obviously, the 400mm f2.8 is an amazing lens. But after renting it, and the 300mm f2.8 all last year to be used with my 200-400, it was put at the very end of my priority list based on my needs.

Brian Cripe, Student/Intern, Photographer

East Lansing | MI | USA | Posted: 12:32 PM on 08.16.07

->> If you only have one camera body, I would be tempted towards the 200-400. I don't shoot Nikon, so I can't speak to the flexibility of the lens, but I've seen shooters with only one camera body trying to juggle lenses during a sporting event and they end up missing shots.

Ont the flip side, a 300/2.8 is a great lens for a lot of things. You said you expect to shoot basketball - unless you have strobes, you'll want the extra stop you get with a 300 (well lit pro and some D1 arenas will get you 1/500, 2.8 @ ISO 800; most are darker than that).

John Blankfort, Photographer

Monterey | CA | USA | Posted: 12:57 PM on 08.16.07

->> I’ve owned both these lenses. Both are great, however as others have said... F4 is very limiting for sports.

What are you going to do if you NEED to get images at a night game?

Get a used AF-S II for about 2500 bucks. VR is nice, but the AF-S II is just as sharp and a lot less dough.

If you’re going to buy new, consider the 200 F2. It’s sharp, and works great as a 300 replacement with the 1.4TC.

Nigel Kinrade, Photographer

	Alpharetta \| GA \| USA \| Posted: 2:14 PM on 08.16.07
	->> 300 2.8 over the 200-400 anyday, the 200-400 would not track racecars head on at Lowes Motor Speedway (190 mph) but was fine at the slower tracks. The 200-400 sometimes had diffuculty focussing in a cloudy or overcast condition. I'd go with the 300 2.8 and if you get an extender you end up with a 420 4.0.

David Seelig, Photographer

	Hailey \| ID \| USA \| Posted: 2:18 PM on 08.16.07
	->> I shoot Canon but agree with those that say get the 300 2.8 .I f canon has such a lens I would own it but I already have the 300 2.8 and the 400 2.8 . You need to be able to produce images in all kinds of light.

Erik Anderson, Photographer

	Kansas City \| MO \| \| Posted: 1:05 PM on 08.18.07
	->> Another vote for the 300 2.8 as your first lens. Add a 1.4x TC then start looking at the 200-400 for your good light stuff. Looks like Adorama has a used AF-S 300 f2.8 for $1900. Pretty good deal, IMHO. http://www.adorama.com/US%20%20%20%20269235.html

Rodrigo Pena, Photographer

Palm Desert | CA | USA | Posted: 3:29 PM on 08.18.07

->> If you ever shoot night football, either high school or college, you'll want a 300 f/2.8.

If you ever want to pursue photography at a newspaper, the 300 2.8 will be used quite often with low light situations, like court rooms, gymnastics, volleyball, basketball for the other side of the court, indoor speakers etc. Many times the extra f-stop is the difference between coming back with a quality image or not.

So my vote would be for the 300 2.8 based on my daily assignment load. I'd echo what everyone else recommends in getting a teleconverter.

I must admit that I've never used a 200-400 but when I first started shooting, I used a 300 f/4. That was a frustrating experience. Often I wished I had the 300 2.8., so I would shoot with my 80-200mm zoom instead of the 300 4. Instead of getting frustrated like I did, I'd recommend the 300 2.8. You might as well get a jump on your competition and get the lens now. Learn to use it well and you'll be ahead of the game.

Good luck and sorry to hear about your jeep. What a bummer!!!

Steven E. Frischling, Photographer

Live HVN : Work SFO-NYC | | | Posted: 4:46 PM on 08.18.07

->> I am with Walter, you really don't need a 300f2.8 or a 200-400f4 for your freshman year at school.

You need to fine tune your eyes and your instinctual skills. Alex Majoli, of Magnum , did all his work in Iraq with an Olympus point and shoot. His images are incredible. Check out his work here: http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/multi_page.asp?cid=7-6468-7844

I am going to sound like a really old fart (as I often seen to, although I am only 32) , but young photographers need to stop focusing on equipment and start focusing on their skills. Having lead workshops for the NPPA on subjects as varied as Sports Photography to Executive Portraiture and spoken to photo classes as a few colleges, I seem to often gear execuses based on equipment limitations.

Is gear important? Yes, it sure it. Is gear the be all end all? Nope. Knowing your gear is the most important element. Yes times change and technology changes, but there is still room to learn with what you have. You can shoot with a 70-200f2.8. You want longer get a 1.4x and learn to use it.

I don't mean to sound harsh, but I just got an e-mail from a student who is going into his sophomore year, who is switching to photography after working at his college paper for only 3 months last year and he wanted to know if there was a problem with selling one of his two Canon EOS 1D MkIIN bodies to get a MkIII body considering that they use different batteries....or should he use some of his college loan money to upgrade the 300f2.8 he got this summer to a 500f4. This student seemed to think a 500f4 was an upgrade to a 300f2.8 when they are completely different and unrelated lenses.

This stuns me. Seriously, this is my job, this is how I support my family of five. I have a few Fortune 100 and Fortune 500 companies as clients and in the past two weeks for work I have shot assignments in five countries and on three continents.........you know what I took on this venture for work? A Canon 1D MkI and Canon 1Ds MkI. My 70-200f2.8 isn't an IS and most of my favourite images were shot with a modified Holga lens that is fitted to work on my 1D body.....the cost was $45. My images shot with the original 1D and original 1Ds are being used by an international airline as they kick off a multi-national marketing campaign.

If my gear can do this, and all my bodies have over 1,000,000 shutter clicks, why is it that that students feel the need to rack up more loans and put themselves further in debit to have the newest and greatest gear on the market? Any students look at the average starting pay for newspaper photographers these days? It's around $20k before taxes. Work six months and you need to start paying all your college loans back. Do you really want to be paying off two $4k bodies as well and your $6k lens to work at a $20k per year job that supplies no gear ?

Just some thoughts.

Steven E. Frischling, Photographer

Live HVN : Work SFO-NYC | | | Posted: 10:27 PM on 08.18.07

->> Jack

To follow up on my posting I'd suggest you get the following looking over your kit

Add a 2nd body to your kit, possibly an older used D2h that should work just fine for a few more years (I am saying this as a full-time photog who uses bodies from 2002 all with over 1mil clicks on them)

Replace the 18-70f3.5-4.5 with a faster wide angle zoom, it will be more versatile and serve you better on day to day shoots. Look at possibly a used 17-55f2.8 or the older tank-built 20-35f2.8. Heck, even look at the Sigma or Tokina wide fast zooms. They will work just fine for you as you are starting out.

Look at a good portrait lens, like the 85f1.8, this will help you build a style.

If you want versatile and long the Sigma 120-300f2.8 is a fast piece of glass that I know many pros use (and few often admit to using because it doesn't have the Nikon name plate on it).

Think about learning your craft rather than centering a long piece of glass on a player, getting it nailed in AF then rattling off a sequence of shots. That is the easy part of being a good well rounded photographer who gets hired to shoot jobs.

Michael Fischer, Photographer

Spencer | Ia | USA | Posted: 6:24 PM on 08.19.07

->> Steve and Walter are SO on target. You'll never get another chance to just experiment and learn like you do now.

I own both a 300mm f2.8 AND a 400mm f2.8. I bought both USED. EVERY lens I currently own I bought used.

Are there people happy to lend you money on your student loan? Of course - because they will make lots and lots of money on the interest you're charged. Those interest dollars are YOUR money - money that could have bought you equipment down the road, a house - or all the other things you'll want and need - or - even better - helped you pay off your student loan SOONER.

I'm going to start another thread on this because I want students to understand there's no such thing as a free lunch.

Michael Fischer, Photographer

	Spencer \| Ia \| USA \| Posted: 8:13 PM on 08.19.07
	->> Go here for the SportsShooter crash course in photo finance and why you shouldn't buy expensive equipment with student loan dollars: http://www.sportsshooter.com/message_display.html?tid=26071

Joseph Brymer, Photographer

	Lincolnton \| NC \| usa \| Posted: 9:25 PM on 08.19.07
	->> Go for the 300 2.8 with a 1.4 or 1.7 converter,it's a faster lens and if your shooting sports your going to need that from time to time. You may want to look at the used market. I bought a used 300 2.8 AF-S and a 400mm 2.8 AF-I from KEH in Atlanta for about the same price you can by one new 200-400. I've had both for about three years with no problems.

Johnny Vy, Photographer, Assistant

San Gabriel | CA | USA | Posted: 10:41 PM on 08.19.07

->> One thing I'd consider is if you plan on using your lenses in conjunction with strobes. I've shot on strobes at Staples Center on 2.8 glass, and find it hard to get a good exposure wide open. In my opinion, if I know I'm going to be strobing often, I'll opt for the less expensive f/4 because I know I'll end up shooting at 5.6 or smaller to get my exposure the way I want it to look. On the other hand, if you're not shooting strobes, that 2.8 really does go a long way. Just something to consider.

Return to --> Message Board Main Index