| Sign in: |
| Members log in here with your user name and password to access the your admin page and other special features. |
|
|
|
|
|| SportsShooter.com: Member Message Board
The right Lens 600 or 400
Shane Psaltis, Photographer
 |
Aquebogue | NY | USA | Posted: 11:21 AM on 10.07.10 |
->> I have a little question that I thought could definitely be answered on this forum. I used to shoot Canon and Always loved my 400 2.8 with my MK2n or MK3 with the 1.3x crop factor. I have recently switched from Canon to Nikon for reasons that have been mentioned by many others photographers that we will not go into on this topic.
I purchased a 600f/4 because I figured with the great noise on the D3 series cameras that F4 wasn't a big deal, and for most things it is not. I would love to have the 600 and 400 but realistically not a option and who the hell wants to carry both of those around.
Here is the questions - For shooting most outdoor field events such as soccer, pro football, and lacrosse which is the better lens attached to the FX camera the 600 or the 400, and why?
I am looking for reach, portability, and just overall.
If you are a NFL shooter which lens do you use and why?
Thanks for your responses in advance,
Shane
I guess I could buy both and try this for my self but I figured this would be cheaper and more informative. |
|
Nick Doan, Photographer, Assistant
|
Scottsdale | AZ | USA | Posted: 11:29 AM on 10.07.10 |
| ->> why make it complicated? 400/2.8 and a 1.4x TC |
|
Chris Parent, Student/Intern, Photographer
|
Baton Rouge | LA | United States | Posted: 11:36 AM on 10.07.10 |
->> If your going to spend that much money, it would be better to get the 400. The Nikon 1.4x teleconverters don't hurt image quality much (if any that is visible). The 400 gives you that extra stop for when you need it, plus 600 is kind of long if you shoot high school or even some college and pro events.
I shoot a lot of sports (I work for a college.) and 600 would be too long for a lot of sports. I would like to have one maybe for baseball and football, but only if I get to keep a 400 also. 600 is just too long to shoot entire games with. |
|
Eric Canha, Photographer
|
Brockton | MA | United States | Posted: 11:41 AM on 10.07.10 |
->> Shane I'd go with the 400 and throw on a 1.4TC or 1.7tc when I wanted to get to the 600mm mark.
Rationale being that the TC's will get you the reach you want as the field stretches. The gap between 200 and 600 is pretty large and there is a lot of action that happens in that 'zone'. Another option when shooting with the 400 is to run the D3 in dx mode and just crop to the FOV of the 600.
Personally I picked up a 300/2.8 VR and a 1.7 TC. That lets me cover football with 3 bodies and 5 ranges. 28-70, 70-200, 300, 450(dx mode), and 510 (tc on). Under the worst lighting conditions the 300 2.8 can be used wide open and I can also run it wide open and cropped for a 400-esque FOV. Better light lets me jump to the F4.8 that the converter brings about.
So if I were facing the choice of a 600 or a 400 and I knew that the 600 wasn't going to be a regular "go to" lens I'd opt for the 400 and gain versatility.
YMMV |
|
Nic Coury, Photographer
|
Monterey | CA | | Posted: 11:57 AM on 10.07.10 |
->> The newest 2.0 TC is stupid nice, then, you'll have an 800 f/5.6.
It's just as good as the 1.4 TC. |
|
Thomas E. Witte, Photographer, Photo Editor
|
Cincinnati | OH | USA | Posted: 12:05 PM on 10.07.10 |
| ->> Aye, but a 600 and 1.4 combo is still my favorite for football. |
|
Eric Canha, Photographer
|
Brockton | MA | United States | Posted: 12:18 PM on 10.07.10 |
| ->> Nick got any samples of it @ 5.6???? |
|
Randy Abrams, Photographer
|
Bath | NY | US | Posted: 2:49 PM on 10.07.10 |
| ->> I use on a regular basis the 400 with 1.7tc for baseball, lacrosse, football and soccer. Of course when the lights go down I take off the 1.7tc and go naked (-:). Depending on the stadium you might have a hard time getting back far enough with the 600 in the endzone (unless of course you are carrying another body). |
|
Nic Coury, Photographer
|
Monterey | CA | | Posted: 2:53 PM on 10.07.10 |
->> Not personally, mine should be on the way soon... Just ordered.
But the reviews are super nice and I'll have it on a 300 f/2.8. |
|
Michael McNamara, Photographer, Photo Editor
|
Phoenix | AZ | USA | Posted: 2:57 PM on 10.07.10 |
->> I think this is something that, in the end, boils down to personal preference.
I'd suggest renting each one for a week, and see which you like more. Find a camera shop/rental house will credit your rental fees towards a purchase if you end up buying what you rent, and get what fits your style the best. |
|
David Manning, Photographer
|
Athens | GA | | Posted: 2:58 PM on 10.07.10 |
->> I like things a little wider then most so I like the 400 + t/c as most places i shoot allow me to move up and down the sidelines.
However after last week's experience at Colorado, a 600 would have been nice as I was pretty much confined to the end zone. Still made good jube the length of the field. |
|
Tim Cowie, Photographer
|
Davidson | NC | USA | Posted: 3:26 PM on 10.07.10 |
->> You mentioned you had a D3. You could of course, go to DX crop mode turning your 400 into a 600, yet still shooting at f2.8. Another step is shooting in DX crop and adding a 1.4x.
I am sure others may argue about going to crop mode, but the D3/400 2.8 gives you a lot of combinations, especially if you have a 1.4 or 1.7 tele.
Just my $.02. |
|
Chris Parent, Student/Intern, Photographer
|
Baton Rouge | LA | United States | Posted: 3:38 PM on 10.07.10 |
->> Eric,
I shot most of the LSU game this weekend with a 300 and the 2x converter. It looks great.
Here are some shots from it. Sorry they are web size, but that's all I can put up. Most of these are about half the original frame, image quality with it is amazing.
http://tiny.cc/teleconverter |
|
Samuel Lewis, Photographer
|
Miami | FL | USA | Posted: 5:40 PM on 10.07.10 |
->> I use the 400 under low light situations and occasionally during the day (in certain baseball stadiums, it's just the right length for batters), but during the day and even at night in stadiums with enough light, I prefer the 600.
Sure, you can use the 400 with a 1.4--and I used that combination for a number of years--but I found that it didn't focus as quickly as the 600 without an extender. Put the 1.7 on the 400 and it focuses even slower. |
|
Robin Loznak, Photographer, Photo Editor
|
Roseburg | OR | USA | Posted: 6:18 PM on 10.07.10 |
| ->> I love my 600, but I mostly use it for wildlife. I've never used it at a football game. It's huge and heavy. The newer version is lighter, but it's $10,249 at B and H. |
|
Steve Ueckert, Photographer
|
Houston | TX | | Posted: 6:33 PM on 10.07.10 |
->> The Canon with the 400mm is functionally a 520mm look.
D3 with 500/4.0 is my preference and essentially the same as your 520mm.
The D3 is so good at elevated ISO's that many have gone with F-4.0 lenses in lieu of 2.8's such as the 200-400/4.0. The 500/4.0 is also quite good with the 1.4x extender when a longer reach is needed. |
|
Jeff Mills, Photographer, Photo Editor
|
Columbus | OH | USA | Posted: 7:18 PM on 10.07.10 |
->> I wouldn't buy either, I'd get a 200-400 F4 unless you have to shoot a lot of night games.
After buying my 200-400 my 400 2.8 just sat gathering dust unless it was a HS night game where f4 simply couldn't cut then.
Anytime I had the light I wanted the versatility of the zoom.
I quickly realized as well that having a $7000 400 2.8 lens for shooting just HS football certainly made no sense either but there just wasn't near enough money in HS sports to make that have any financial sense, so I just shoot with the 200-400 and a flash.
In a perfect world I'd love to have a 400 2.8 and a 200-400, and why not a 600 f4, plus an assistant, but with limited choices I'd suggest you give some thought to the 200-400.
Being able to shoot sports like soccer and not have to worry about cutting off the players heads or feet because I back back off the zoom a little is just awesome.
Shooting football and being able to back off the zoom and perfectly frame a deep pass rather than having to try to switch to a second body is just awesome.
I didn't switch for the 200-400 from Canon but it easily would of made the switch worthwhile for that reason alone. |
|
John Cheng, Photographer
|
New Milford | CT | USA | Posted: 7:54 PM on 10.07.10 |
->> 600 is almost a necessity for NFL slidelines due to the crowdedness. I now spend most of my time near the endzones and let the action come to me, and switch to the 400 as the action gets closer. Yes I'm one of those dummies carrying a 600, 400 and 70-200 without an assistant. It's really a form of exercise, and a bit awkward at first, but you really get used to it after a while.
I shot a few NFL games last season with D3/400+1.4TC and D3/200-400. The images from the 400+1.4TC were surprisingly crisp but as someone mentioned earlier the focus was a tad slower. The 200-400 was really nice because I didn't have to move as much but as you zoom out the images just don't look the same as the ones shot with 400/2.8 wide open. So early this year I decided to keep the 400/2.8, sell the 200-400 and get a 600. D3s+600 is a great combo for night games too!
I should try the 600 with the 1.4TC sometime! :)
For youth sports the 400 should be sufficient because you have more freedom to roam the sidelines. |
|
Shane Psaltis, Photographer
|
Aquebogue | NY | USA | Posted: 9:56 PM on 10.07.10 |
->> Thanks to all for your replies and suggestions. Like was said by McNamara said it comes down to personnel preference. I currently have the 600 and the 200-400 which are both f4, I really miss that flexibility with the 2.8. I love my 600 but man it is a big lens and I feel unless I am in the end zone I am missing some shoots.
Thanks for all of your input
Shane
PS John Cheng you are an animal, do you have a photo that someone took of you carrying all that gear, I would love to see a video tutorial of how you change lenses. |
|
Patrick Murphy-Racey, Photographer
|
Powell | TN | USA | Posted: 12:41 AM on 10.08.10 |
->> FWIW, adding teleconverters, no matter how sharp they are, will not change the optics of the lens. You are simply looking through less of the optic when using a 1.4/1.7, etc... If you shoot field sports with a 1.4x all the time with a 4, then you should shoot longer!!! The DOF change of even 100mm's is huge when you factor in how the image looks popping out of the background. I'm using a 5 and a 6 this season for football.. when I use the 5, I get more action because my field of view is a little larger, but I give up the background being stupid out of focus. When I use the 6, I LOVE the way the image pops but then I "lose" the action sometimes because I'm too tight on some stuff.
My rule of thumb is to be using lenses that are doubling and halving... ????
If I shoot a 6/1.4x combo, then I shoot the 400 as a second lens. If I shoot the 6 straight then I use a 300 as a second lens. If I use the 400 f/2.8 (for super dark places like Auburn/Vandy), I use a 200mm as my second lens...
Last, I LOVE the 7D with the 35mm f/2 around my neck. I'm getting old and so that combo has saved my bacon more than once in the last few years...
Remember, Obewan said, "Optics rule, not teleconverters..." |
|
Chris Wanamaker, Photographer
|
Dingmans Ferry | PA | USA | Posted: 8:38 AM on 10.08.10 |
| ->> I recently had the same problem deciding between a 300 and 400. As some of the other posts suggested, I rented both lenses until I felt completely comfortable with one of them. While the 400 was nice, at times it was too much. In the end, I went with a 300/2.8 and 1.4x which gave me 420/4 or 300/2.8 and I couldn't be happier. Now, I just keep a second body with me with either a 70-200 or 24-70 attached for the stuff that's too close |
|
Shane Psaltis, Photographer
|
Aquebogue | NY | USA | Posted: 8:45 AM on 10.08.10 |
->> PJ,
That might be him I can't see him with all that gear, oh wait John shoots nikon.
Patrick,
I understand what you are saying and it makes sense. What about shooting with the 200-400 no tele, gives you more flexibility but you will not get that great background.
I look at it this way backgrounds are nice but getting the shot is so much more important. |
|
Patrick Murphy-Racey, Photographer
|
Powell | TN | USA | Posted: 5:32 PM on 10.08.10 |
->> since I'm a Canon guy, I have no way to choose the 200-400mm f/4 which is a way cool focal length. It's one of the few lenses that Nikon has and Canon doesn't. I know it's really expensive...
Once you shoot for SI (hate to play that card as they never call me anymore and maybe this post is evidence why), you get a new pressure that wells up from deep within. You forget about shooting against the photogs at your particular game. You shoot against the other guys at SI, even though you might be covering your game alone. You are also shooting for an editor who will blast through your take in record time. You know as you shoot the game that your images will be seen days after everyone else has seen the game's best images... then the magazine comes out. If your stuff isn't amazingly different, Tony Saprano says, "forget about it..."
After a time, you hopefully begin to shoot for yourself first, then SI... This is where I'm at now. I'm not saying I'm better than anyone else out there, but I take huge risks with long and short glass every game. I lose all the time by missing focus or not following the ball every play. A big part of my success through the years at shooting football is using the longest lenses I can afford and staying with them when often everyone else has a zoom in their hands. To be honest, I'm the only one really seeing my take, so it's easier for me to stay out on the edge like that. Guys working for the wires or papers can't do this. This freedom that I enjoy is awesome and I never take it for granted.
To get back on topic, what good is getting "the shot" if it looks like everyone else's version? Taking risks with lenses, angle, and location can really pay off. |
|
Ed Wolfstein, Photographer, Assistant
 |
Burlington | VT | USA | Posted: 9:04 AM on 10.09.10 |
| ->> Well said, Patrick. One comment I have about this thread is the notion that shooting DX mode on an FX camera magically gives you an increase in focal length. It doesn't. It's just an in-camera crop. You can always crop a 400 image to what a 600 would give you (FOV) in Photoshop or Photo Mechanic, but the perspective, compression, and background will not be the same as a 600. But if you need that 2.8 lens, go with the 400 and crop post, not in-camera. Shooting a bit looser with a 400 offers a bit more scene to work with, for you, or an editor. Using DX mode doesn't offer that flexibility, I just can't see why anyone would use it. (Don't tell me smaller file size or an extra fps or two - that doesn't nearly outweigh the advantages of having a nice big FX file to work with). Cheers! |
|
Andrew Carpenean, Photographer
|
Laramie | WY | USA | Posted: 5:11 PM on 10.09.10 |
| ->> What about splitting the difference with Nikon's 500 f4 instead of a 600? Is anyone using this lens instead of a 400 or 600? |
|
Eric Canha, Photographer
|
Brockton | MA | United States | Posted: 10:05 PM on 10.09.10 |
->> Ed I crop in-camera because many times the files are going from my camera straight to a bunch of viewing stations. Makes it easier for parents to spot their child and make the purchase when all those 'extra' pixels aren't there ;)
File size DOES play into it too, for me anyway. Smaller files ingest quicker and are up and ready at the viewing stations sooner. I'm usually fighting to get the photos up in front of a kid before mom can find her keys.... it's a speed bump thing.... If I win the race mom hangs out and maybe spends some cash. Even when speed isn't a driving factor there's no reason to make the server scale and prep all those 'extra' pixels if they are just going to get cropped away.
Just 'splaining |
|
Return to --> Message Board Main Index
|