| 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
Which would you choose: 200 f/2 with a 1.4 TC or 300 f/2.8?
Jeff Brehm, Photographer, Photo Editor
 |
Salisbury | NC | USA | Posted: 11:06 AM on 01.06.11 |
->> I thought there was a thread on this a while back but I couldn't find it.
I'm looking to upgrade from my current, older 300 f/2.8 and I read reviews that say both the Canon and Nikon 200 f/2s are crazy sharp. I can see where having the super-fast 200 could come in handy even now with the higher ISOs out there, but I can't really justify having a 200 AND 300 in the arsenal.
In your opinion, would it be better to have the 200 and slap a 1.4 TC on to make it a 280, or just get a newer 300? Does the extra sharpness of the 200 make up for what you lose by attaching the TC? |
|
Joe Cavaretta, Photographer
|
Ft Lauderdale | FL | USA | Posted: 11:39 AM on 01.06.11 |
| ->> I shoot Nikon (d3) and I use the 200-400 f/4. You should consider. |
|
Robert Hanashiro, Photographer
 |
Los Angeles | CA | | Posted: 12:36 PM on 01.06.11 |
| ->> Definitely the 200-400mm. |
|
Brian Blanco, Photographer
|
Tampa / Sarasota | FL | USA | Posted: 12:46 PM on 01.06.11 |
| ->> 200-400mm f/4 .... granted I've only been using it for 2 weeks (thanks Rod Mar for the help at the game the other day with my first ever shoot with Nikon) but I'm wondering where this lens has been my whole career. It's also so light that I've improved my time running from one side of the field to the other without the weight of a 400 on my shoulder. |
|
Brian Blanco, Photographer
|
Tampa / Sarasota | FL | USA | Posted: 12:54 PM on 01.06.11 |
| ->> ...oh and the best part is that with just a little readjusting it fits in the same slot in my Airport Security roller that my Canon 300mm f/2.8 previously did, which means that now I don't have to lug a second long-lens bag with a 400mm in addition to the 300mm in the roller. For games with decent light (which includes pretty much all pro venues... minus the Yankees spring training cave) I can travel light. |
|
Robert O'Rourk, Photographer
 |
Setauket | NY | USA | Posted: 1:03 PM on 01.06.11 |
| ->> I have a 200 f2 plus the 1.4TC. I find it more versatile than the 300 f2.8 alone. I get to use the 200 in some bad lighting situations while keeping shutter speed up. |
|
Israel Shirk, Photographer, Assistant
|
Boise | ID | US | Posted: 1:21 PM on 01.06.11 |
| ->> Why not try it through CPS? |
|
Mike Huffstatler, Photographer, Assistant
|
Rancho Cucamonga | Ca | United States | Posted: 2:05 PM on 01.06.11 |
->> @Israel...I don't think CPS would be too keen on loaning a 200-400. :) hehehe... might try NPS though.
All kidding aside, that 200-400 is one of the biggest things calling my name in consideration of moving to Nikon. I had a chance to shoot one for a limited time and it was very nice indeed. |
|
Jeff Brehm, Photographer, Photo Editor
|
Salisbury | NC | USA | Posted: 2:08 PM on 01.06.11 |
| ->> As a Canon user, I wish there was a 200-400 for me to consider. And I might still make the jump back eventually. But I looked at the change last fall and it was just too large of a financial hurdle with all the gear I already have. |
|
Mike Anzaldi, Photographer
|
Oak Park | IL | USA | Posted: 2:44 PM on 01.06.11 |
| ->> funny. 8 responses, 1 answer. i'd say 200 and add the 1.4x. the canon 200f2 is awesome. absolutely awesome. you'll probably look for situations...like taking 50 steps backward...to use it. it depends on what body you're using it on too. full frame, 300. cropped body, i'd vote 200. |
|
Jeff Lewis, Photographer
|
Los Angeles | CA | USA | Posted: 3:01 PM on 01.06.11 |
| ->> New 300 2.8L |
|
Chuck Liddy, Photographer
|
Durham | NC | USA | Posted: 4:20 PM on 01.06.11 |
| ->> jeff, to be honest this is one of those questions that no one can answer but yourself. you have to look at what you shoot day in and day out....although a 200 f2 might be "crazy" sharp is it really sharper than a new 300 2.8? that's a pretty damn sharp lens in itself. now, back to what I was saying....say for instance in my case...would I trade a 300 2.8 for a converter and 200? no. mainly because since I already have a converter I have a considerable throw with it on the 300....yeah it makes it an f4 I guess but with the new cameras...what's the difference. I'd much rather have the option to reach out farther than trade it for one stop which I really rarely have use for....lemme know what you decide and good luck. and yeah, I think some of the posters saying to buy the 200-400 didn't realize you shot canon....or else they were just trying to rub it in....wait....NO ONE on SS would do such a thing...would they? 8) |
|
Jeff Brehm, Photographer, Photo Editor
|
Salisbury | NC | USA | Posted: 4:50 PM on 01.06.11 |
| ->> Shocked, SHOCKED I am, Chuck, that you would think Nikon users would rub it in on us! :) |
|
Chris Hunt, Photographer
|
Seattle | WA | USA | Posted: 5:27 PM on 01.06.11 |
->> Definitely the 300 f/2.8. Even if it's not as sharp as a 200 f/2, it's still SHARP. I much prefer the option of a handholdable 420 f/4 than the option of a relatively heavy 200 f/2.
We Canon shooters don't have the Nikon 200-400 f/4, but we do have the excellent Sigma 120-300 f/2.8 which is just getting a refresh. I know you didn't ask about zooms and I'd rather take the Canon 300 f/2.8 any day, but wanted to throw this in there with all the talk of the Nikon 200-400. |
|
Jeff Brehm, Photographer, Photo Editor
|
Salisbury | NC | USA | Posted: 5:35 PM on 01.06.11 |
| ->> I had the older 120-300 once and was frustrated by its inability to track moving subjects and underwhelmed by the image quality. I like the range a lot. |
|
Scott Serio, Photo Editor, Photographer
|
Colora | MD | USA | Posted: 7:12 PM on 01.06.11 |
->> Umm....just my two cents. I thought it was bad luck when the poorly designed lens collar popped open and totaled my Sigma 120-300/2.8. Luckily it was insured. I decided to take the insurance money and get an older 300/2.8 AFSII Nikon lens. Not the VR.
Having shot tons of frames with the Sigma, a brand new one from 2008, and now many frames with this older Nikon (circa 2003-4), the Sigma should not be an option for anyone. Trust me, it might be 85% as sharp as true Nikon glass - might be. And in low light, it can be like trying to maneuver a three-point turn in a Ford.
I think that Canon and Nikon put a ton of attention to detail into those 300/2.8 lenses. They are the flagship/workhorse lenses of their pro lines. The 300 with the converter is definitely the top choice. If you happen to have an FX and DX body in Canon you extend your reach from 300 out to what, a 600/4? That is a good mix to have.
Not sure on the Canon, but for Nikon that 300/2.8 in many incarnations is the sharpest lens on the planet. |
|
Tim Casey, Photographer
|
Gainesville | FL | USA | Posted: 7:39 PM on 01.06.11 |
->> I hate using teleconverters because of the loss in sharpness. I have both the 300mm 2.8 and 400mm 2.8 and rarely use a TC.
As Israel posted, I would try it through CPS first. |
|
Angus Mordant, Student/Intern
|
Sydney | NSW Australia | Australia | Posted: 3:35 AM on 01.07.11 |
->> Have you considered the older 300 f2.8 IS MkI? I use that and i find it sharp, (I have shot with a 200 f2 and yes that is sharper, but the 300 f2.8 IS mkI is good)
That way you get a great lens and save a bucket of cash. |
|
Steve Ueckert, Photographer
|
Houston | TX | | Posted: 7:55 AM on 01.07.11 |
->> I'd decide based on what you mainly shoot.
If you do a lot of wrestling, gymnastics, volleyball and basketball, go with the 200 and a 1.4x.
If you do a lot of basketball, baseball and football, go with a 300 and a 1.4x and maybe also a 1.7x.
The 200-400 is a single nice lens, but I like the idea a faster prime such as a 300/2.8 and faster 500 such as a 300 & 1.7x. |
|
Randy Abrams, Photographer
|
Bath | NY | US | Posted: 8:39 AM on 01.07.11 |
->> I've owned and used the 200/2, 300/2.8, Sigma 120-300/2.8 and 200-400/4 so I'll throw my 2-cents worth in. I started with the 200/2 and 1.4tc. It is a nice combo, but for me at least the 300/2.8 was a better choice in terms of quality of picture (granted not by a huge level). You have to remember that f/2 is extremely narrow on a FX body (if that is what you use) so unless you shoot a lot of portraits and want to use it for that I think you'll find yourself shooting at f/2.5 to f/2.8 anyways so the long end of the 70-200 and the 300/2.8 is a nice combo. The Sigma while a nice range I never had good luck with quality wise (the 300/2.8 blows it away), but YMMV.
Now in terms of the 200-400/4 I loved that lens. I sold it a year ago to fund the purchase of my D3S, but it is very high on my list to reattain. It is a fabulous lens! |
|
Shane Psaltis, Photographer
|
Aquebogue | NY | USA | Posted: 9:04 AM on 01.07.11 |
->> Jeff,
I to am in the same situation as you and have been up in the air with this same question. Again it depends on what you shoot. If you want to shoot basketball and then shoot outdoor sports the 300 is the clear way to go. But if you are in my situation and shoot basketball but also need a lens for gymnastics or volleyball and already have a lens like a 400 or 600 for outdoor sports than the 200 is the way to go.
Either way you really can not lose, but like like Chuck said the 300 would be more more versatile with a tele outdoors giving you that reach you need.
Let us know what you decide.
Shane |
|
Doug Holleman, Photographer
|
Temple | TX | USA | Posted: 7:13 PM on 01.07.11 |
| ->> I've never met a TC that I really liked. I've had really mixed results. I used them from time to time, but only when I feel I really have to. |
|
Chris Wilson, Student/Intern, Photographer
|
Bowling Green | Ky. | US | Posted: 12:01 AM on 01.08.11 |
->> Prime it up. I wouldn't choose the 200-400 zoom if it we're my decision.
I really love using the 300 2.8 IS version 1, so I can imagine the version 2 will be twice as awesome.
It seems like it would be handy to have a 200 and a 300 when needed, but I agree, TC's aren't always as sharp. If you have a 70-200, I'd just go with a 300.
My preferred setup would involve a 135/2 and a 300/2.8 on the telephoto end. |
|
Steven E. Frischling, Photographer
 |
| | | Posted: 12:36 AM on 01.08.11 |
->> I use a Sigma 120-300f2.8 and find the lens to be both sharp as well as extremely fast to auto focus (having used pretty much all the Canon long fast prime from 200f1.8 to 600f4 for comparison)
The Canon 1.4x is sharper than the Sigma 1.4x ... but the actual Sigma 120-300f2.8 is a fantastic lens. |
|
Jeff Brehm, Photographer, Photo Editor
|
Salisbury | NC | USA | Posted: 12:44 PM on 01.08.11 |
| ->> I have heard Sigma is bringing out an improved 120-300. I think I might wait until it arrives and read some reviews. As much as I love the 300 2.8, there have been many times when having the 120-300's range and speed would have gotten me a great shot that the 300 was just too tight to capture (such as a TD bomb from midfield into my corner of the end zone). |
|
Scott Serio, Photo Editor, Photographer
|
Colora | MD | USA | Posted: 4:24 PM on 01.08.11 |
->> @Jeff - We keep mentioning the Sigma 120-300. I switched from Canon to Nikon so I can assess the glass both of those companies have. Here is my honest opinion of the Sigma...
1. I never felt the Sigma was critically sharp at 2.8. I always felt I had to be at 3.2 or above. Maybe not a huge deal, but if you are shooting indoors in a dungeon and you need 2.8, it is.
2. In low light I never felt it acquired and locked on images well.
3. By comparison to my recent purchase, yet much older, Nikon 300/2.8, the Sigma is not even close is sharpness.
4. I sent the lens back to Sigma 2x in the 2 years I owned it to have major repairs. Once for the AF motor and once because the inner workings of the zoom barrel just plain weirded out. I don't know the technical term for the repair, but it was bad.
5. The lens hood is just plain crap. Because it is for a zoom lens it is very short and you bet no benefit from the thing for flare reduction. Additionally, the locking bolt was replaced twice when the lens was sent back.
6. Check out internet threads, the lens is marketed as a 120-300, but it is short. It is more like a 120-285. I tested lens for lens, Nikon vs Sigma and the Sigma was definitely looser shooting under the exact same parameters. When I complained to Sigma, they didn't care.
7. The aforementioned lens collar is horribly designed. I was in a hurry to get to an assignment and I guess the collar pin didn't quite seat properly. Maybe I should have been more careful, but if you have a big shoulder strap, who hasn't tossed a camera and body over their shoulder. Well, I did, the collar popped open and slam, wham, crack, pop, slide, pop, crack. The lens was totaled. Blessing in disguise. I have a Nikon now. But, if that lens had not been insured, the poor design would caused me a huge loss.
8. Sigma customer service is abysmal. If you send them a 120-300 for a repair, they DO NOT have loaners. They take forever to make repairs. You better have an up-to-date CPS or NPS account to get a loaner for when the Sigma goes down. Either that or get on good terms with Borrowlenses.com.
9. Yes, I loved the versatility of the lens, the 120-300 is a great range, but it is not a 100% sharpness (or contrast, clarity or saturation for that matter) comparison to Nikon glass. Not even in the same league. There is a POP you get with that 300 that you will never, ever see in a Sigma.
If you are investing in big glass like that, go for the best. The 300/2.8 is the lens to own. |
|
Butch Miller, Photographer
|
Lock Haven | PA | USA | Posted: 4:57 PM on 01.08.11 |
| ->> To offer a point on Jeff's original question ...how often in the course of your shooting do you NEED to shoot at f/2? ... while both lenses are superb glass and I would never discourage anyone from buying a good 300 f/2.8 ... it can't do f/2 ... So if you need f/2 to any great degree ... that is likely your decision factor ... though I would think with the current level of high ISO performance ... that need isn't as high as it once was. |
|
Andrew Carpenean, Photographer
|
Laramie | WY | USA | Posted: 5:04 PM on 01.08.11 |
->> B&H Photo shows the Sigma 120-300 discontinued, however this looks like it will be the new version yet to be released: http://www.sigmaphoto.com/shop/120-300mm-f28-ex-dg-os-apo-hsm-sigma1
There have been way too many times in shooting that I've cut off a part of a player/scene in which the image was unusable. I would rather have a zoom even if at slower aperture to get a usable frame vs. missing a great shot. The more usable frames the better success of my outtake. In low light situations I am relying more on the latest advancements of improved camera ISO.
I also like the way of thinking of changing my photography through the versatility of a 120-300 or 200-400 zoom instead of always using a fixed focal length. |
|
Butch Miller, Photographer
|
Lock Haven | PA | USA | Posted: 11:54 AM on 01.09.11 |
->> While I would never discourage anyone from buying a Nikon 300 f/2.8 ... I must disagree about the Sigma 120-300 f/2.8 ... I have had mine since 2003 ... it is the original iteration with an actual aperture ring (remember those?) ... it has given me great service and I have pounded the pi$$ out of it ... while it may not be as sharp as the the Nikon's of similar focal length ... I wouldn't call it a dog either ... I've been very pleased and the advantage of the zoom has sure lessened the load of carrying several bodies with various length lenses, or trying to change lenses on the fly ... not to mention that when I bought mine, it was considerably less than the cost of most any other option ...
In fact my plan was to only use the Sigma until I could generate the income to make a move up ... however, the lens has done so well ... I've been saving my cash and will continue to do so until the Sigma dies ...
In the past seven years it has been in for repair once to replace/repair a jammed aperture lever ... it was gone for only 10 calendar days (that includes shipping time both ways) and the very nice folks at Sigma Repair were very helpful when I called and queried them about the turnaround time ...
I do understand that some folks were not as fortunate as I was and Sigma doesn't seem to have the same level of consistent QC as others do ... but one instance, good or bad, should not paint with a broad brush as to the probable outcome for all. So take what I offer for what it is worth. |
|
Willis Glassgow, Photo Editor, Photographer
|
Florence | SC | USA | Posted: 8:45 AM on 01.10.11 |
->> jeff,
Consider buyng a used 200 f1.8. I have one and use it for basketball with a 1.4x with excellent results. I also use as a second lens on night football games and again the reslts are incredible at that short of depth of field. The 1.8 will be cheaper though heavier than the f2.0. |
|
Steven E. Frischling, Photographer
|
| | | Posted: 9:35 AM on 01.10.11 |
->> Willis
While the 200f1.8 is an incredible lens, I loved using it while I had access to it, from what I understand, the big issue with the 200f1.8 is that Canon will no longer service it.
That said ... I know Midstate Camera Repair in Warwick, RI, will, and I have chosen them over Canon OEM service for all my repairs for the past 8-10 years. |
|
Willis Glassgow, Photo Editor, Photographer
|
Florence | SC | USA | Posted: 3:49 PM on 01.10.11 |
->> Steven,
You are absolutely right and a factor I forgot to mention. Canon will NOT service the older lenses like the 200mm f1.8, but Midwest Camera will. I use them regularly and they are great. But how much longer will they be able to service those lenses? |
|
Steven E. Frischling, Photographer
|
| | | Posted: 6:35 PM on 01.10.11 |
->> Willis
The guys at MidState Camera Repair has rigged repairs for me when parts were not available ... so they can certainly extend the service life of gear.
About 4 years ago they found me a NEW shutter for my Nikon FA the repaired it. Try getting that repair done by Nikon! |
|
Luke Trottier, Photographer
|
Shane Psaltis, Photographer
|
Aquebogue | NY | USA | Posted: 11:52 PM on 01.13.11 |
->> Luke,
That is one expensive elbow pod. |
|
David Seelig, Photographer
|
Hailey | ID | USA | Posted: 2:13 AM on 01.14.11 |
| ->> I had the Sigma 120-300 it took three copies to get one that worked two were off axis that is the top of the frame was on a different focus point then the bottom. After getting one that worked after a year I realized I never got those wow shots of critical sharpness. So I sold it and got a canon 300 2.8 Lis and I get the wow factor . One other thing it is a little shy of really being 300 mm. I would avoid it.It also just was not as fast as a canon af lens in terms of autofocus speed. Good lens for high school sports for a newspaper if doing serious work for magazines avoid. |
|
Steven E. Frischling, Photographer
|
| | | Posted: 8:09 AM on 01.14.11 |
->> David
I have used the Sigma 120-300f2.8 for critical corporate work. The copy of the lens I have is just fine. |
|
Kevin Batchelor, Photographer
|
Southampton | Hampshire | England | Posted: 6:25 AM on 01.15.11 |
| ->> Personally wouldn't get eithe I would get the 400 2.8 and the 70-200 2.8 if shooting full frame gives all the coverage you will need |
|
Steve King, Photographer
|
Ann Arbor | MI | USA | Posted: 3:04 PM on 01.17.11 |
->> One more vote for the Nikon 200-400 f/4. With that on one D3 body and the 70-200 f/2.8 on the other you have a great combo for baseball, football, soccer, etc. Thanks to John SooHoo for letting me try his out 2 years ago when the Dodgers visited Detroit, but he made me give it right back. I've been very happy with my 200-400 ever since.
Prior to that I had a very good copy of the Sigma 120-300 f/2.8 and I was happy with it, except the TC wasn't as sharp as the Nikon, the lens worked well even though the zoom direction (counter-clockwise) was the opposite of Nikon lenses. |
|
Return to --> Message Board Main Index
|