| 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
Thoughts on Nikon 200-400?
Patrick Smith, Photographer
 |
Baltimore | MD | USA | Posted: 10:39 AM on 05.23.11 |
->> Let me preface, I don't usually seek gear advice or thoughts from others, but I am really trying to get a professional consensus on the Nikon 200-400mm f/4 lens (version I or II).
I have a 300 f/2.8 which I've somehow manged to use with great results with all sports on all levels for years. Down right love the lens and certainly is by far the sharpest lens I own.
But since I no longer have access to longer pool glass, I am looking for that extra reach. A 400mm would be ideal, but the 200-400mm is really tempting and seemly versatile, especially new, rather than someone's old, beat-up 400mm.
Of those I've talked to, half swear by the 200-400mm, while the latter seem to think it's simply alright, slower than the primes, only f/4, and not nearly as sharp.
Of those that own, have access to and/or used the lens, what are your thoughts? What are the pros and cons?
Thanks in advance (and sorry if I missed a previous thread on this, I searched with no avail). |
|
Robert Hanashiro, Photographer
 |
Los Angeles | CA | | Posted: 10:53 AM on 05.23.11 |
->> When we made "the switch" years ago, the 200-400 zoom was worth it all unto itself as far as I am concerned.
Fabulous lens. f/4? Doesn't matter since the D3 and D3s files at high ISO look fabulous.
I do not use my 300 2.8 very much (for that matter I don't use the 400 2.8 nearly as much either).
Great lens. No question.
If you can afford it. Get it. |
|
Bob Ford, Photographer
|
Lehighton | Pa | USA | Posted: 11:01 AM on 05.23.11 |
| ->> I have the original version, and have been using it for about a year. I don't think I've picked up my 400 f2.8 since. I think it might lock on a little slower than the 2.8, but this hasn't been a problem. I have also seen no problems with sharpness. |
|
Scott Rovak, Photographer
|
St. Louis | MO | USA | Posted: 11:09 AM on 05.23.11 |
| ->> I second both Robert & Bob. Ever since I got my 200-400 in December 2009, I have used my 400 f2.8 twice, and I really missed having the zoom. It's a great lens, I definitely get more images than before, I'm not missing shots while trying to switch to my 70-200 during a play. |
|
Eric Canha, Photographer
|
Brockton | MA | United States | Posted: 11:11 AM on 05.23.11 |
->> http://www.sportsshooter.com/gear_profile.html?id=97 5 out of 8 users rated the lens a 10. Pretty telling.
My most recent thoughts (as well as those of others) on the lens http://www.sportsshooter.com/message_display.html?tid=38255
It is exceedingly difficult to pair this lens to a particular shooter without knowing that person in depth. Not trying to be funny, it really does depend on what you shoot, where you shoot, and how you like to shoot. In professional venues where lighting is top notch and consistent (read that to be TV lighting) this thing is as we say in New England pissa!
F4 is not that much of an issue on the d3/d7xx bodies with usable iso ranges in the 6000's. If you are working for glossy mags or clients that want files shot at iso 400 this may not be for you.
AF speed is fantastic, even when putting a 1.7x TC I still had full AF under fading sun in a professional venue. Once the sun was gone I did remove the TC and shot football wide open without a single complaint. That was at Gillette NOT some high school with 4 streetlights illuminating a field. While I wouldn't ditch my 300 2.8 yet I have noticed that many MANY schools are putting in monstrous stadiums and lighting them damn close to NCAA D1/D2 levels. Again only you know what the light is like where you shoot.
The ONLY real way to know if this is for you is to get your hands on one for a week or two. If you are an NPS member why not wait until the horse races are finished and drop them a note for a 2 week eval loan. If you aren't a member then checkout BorrowLens.com (I think that is the URL) and get one for a few days. It really is the only real way to see if it fits into what YOU shoot.
E |
|
Corey Perrine, Photographer
|
Augusta | GA | USA | Posted: 11:15 AM on 05.23.11 |
->> We rent them each year for Masters week. The nano coat zoom series is just as fast as the primes in my opinion. My new 70-200 II is just as fast as any prime.
What you sacrifice is a stop of light for versatility. It's a manageable lens and you can handhold it like a 300mm.
What I don't like about my experience with the I series is the vignetting and 1.4x converter combo. It's still sharp but I found myself not liking the results of the two together, just looked a little dark despite opening the image up in curves in PS. Image quality colors and contrast fell flat.
If you really want that reach, I'd vouch still for a 400mm and 1.4x setup, but that's just me.
However, if you need a good baseball or golf lens the 200-400 II is the way to go.
My two cents. |
|
AAron Ontiveroz, Photographer
|
Denver | CO | U.S. | Posted: 11:42 AM on 05.23.11 |
->> when i started my job in early december, i was issued a 200-400. for a hoops assignment i was going to check out a pool 300, but an editor stopped me and said to give the 200-400 a shot. the f4 worried me a bit. after using it, he asked for my opinion on the lens and it was simply, "that lens is gangster."
i thought the f4 would affect shooting indoors, but like robert mentioned, the d3 and d3s make great files at high iso.
since then, i've used the lens to shoot the xgames, baseball, soccer and hockey. i have yet to check out a 300 or 400. to be fair, however, i will say that for some extra reach i still check out a 500 or 600, but that is not very often.
so if you're in the market for some really gangster glass, get a 200-400. |
|
Randy Abrams, Photographer
|
Bath | NY | US | Posted: 12:06 PM on 05.23.11 |
| ->> I had the 200-400 a few years back, but sold it to partly fund a new 400/2.8 (almost all of the fall games and even spring games around here are night games). While I had it I used it for baseball/softball/lacrosse/football and soccer. I used it wide open and with the 1.4tc. It never disappointed me. The versatility is the real strength. I did try it indoors for volleyball and basketball once and wasn't impressed. Now that I have a D3s I'd love to try it again. It is currently on my most desired lens list. |
|
Patrick Smith, Photographer
|
Baltimore | MD | USA | Posted: 2:42 PM on 05.23.11 |
| ->> Thanks all for the feedback thus far. |
|
Preston Mack, Photographer
|
Orlando | FL | | Posted: 3:21 PM on 05.23.11 |
| ->> I think that if you are a FULL TIME sports photographer shooting NFL football, the 400 2.8 is the way to go. However, most people are not. I think the 200-400 is a great lens for the all around versatility. |
|
Michael Fischer, Photographer
|
Spencer | Ia | USA | Posted: 4:43 PM on 05.23.11 |
->> I was one of the posters on the other thread and I'll repeat what I said : It's the best sports lens I've ever used. I sold the 400 f2.8. The 300mm f2.8, which was unquestionably my favorite lens, now sits most of the time. Preston, I shot NFL in the Metrodome for a lot of years with a 400mm f2.8. I'm not sure, but I'd be willing to bet I could do quite nicely with the 200-400 in there and that place is a cave imho lighting wise.
As for sharpness, I use it with a 1.4x converter ... it's fine.
Like you, I'm freelance. I have to get the very most out of my lens investments because I don't have a corporate checkbook backing me up. In my not so humble opinion this is the one lens you HAVE to own. It can replace a 300 and a 400mm unless you're shooting black cats in coal mines on a moonless night.
Hope this helps. |
|
Jeff Gammons, Student/Intern, Photographer
|
Niceville | Fl | USA | Posted: 9:39 PM on 05.23.11 |
| ->> I got to use one this weekend, and i must say it made my short list, but i was very happy when i was looking through my 300 again, defiantly can tell a difference in the finder, brightness wise. |
|
Patrick Smith, Photographer
|
Baltimore | MD | USA | Posted: 4:43 PM on 06.03.11 |
->> Thought I'd update this thread since I got my hands on a 200-400 f4 Version II for a couple days thanks to a friend. I can honestly say it's sharp; much sharper than I'd ever think it would be. Not quite my 300mm VR I, but very close. That said, I only got to use it in nice light.
Overall, I was impressed. It was light, hand holdable (if need be) and simply a fun lens. I'd love to own one, but it seems more of a day time sporting lens, despite the amazing files the Nikon D3S produces at low light. With that in mind, who the hell knows what is to come in the future. A couple stops better than a D3S may sway my decision.
Conversely, since using it, I'm now strongly considering a 400mm f2.8, but not sure why. Quicker IQ? Sharper? Compatible with 1.4x? The stops?
Obviously, as mentioned, the versatility of the 200-400 certainly outweighs the loss in stops. But while it's nice to have the zoom, I found myself at 400mm a majority of the time - it was spring loaded lens so to speak. At that point, it seems more logical to have the stops and just switch to a second body, if need be. Am I wrong?
Still boiling over it. It shouldn't be this hard. I've had some amazing advice from friends trying to help along the way.
If you have any last words of wisdom, I'd love to hear it. Once again, thanks for the advice thus far. |
|
Corey Perrine, Photographer
|
Augusta | GA | USA | Posted: 5:43 PM on 06.03.11 |
->> I think it really depends on your lens discipline.
When a moment happens some shooters will shoot it looser to give them a crop-option cushion in post processing. But, more often than not, wish it was shot tighter.
However, with a fixed lens you're stuck. So one one hand if the action was too close and you miss it you're not as worried because you wouldn't have gotten it anyway, that is if your second body shooting reaction fails you. With fixed, you're forced to shoot it tight and take a "tighter risk."
Personally for me, I'd stick with your 300 and use a 1.4x when the reach is needed. Save yourself the headache and the $$.
Although the D3s is nice at high ISOs I'm still always not wanting to go above 1600 if I can avoid it. I suppose it's old habit of film days, I want it captured at the tightest grain I can get possible.
FWIW |
|
Josh Merwin, Photographer
|
New York | NY | | Posted: 11:31 PM on 06.03.11 |
->> I'm not shooting sports action any more, but when I was, the 200-400 was the lens I used. I switched from Canon back to Nikon mainly because of this lens. I think Michael might have even bought my old one, can't remember exactly. With high iso being so clean now, there's almost no reason to use a 400 2.8. The only thing you gain is a little more out of focus in background. The additional stop of light is pretty much irrelevant at this point. I used it day and night. It is an amazing lens. The main benefit of this lens is the number of images it will allow you to make with zooming out to 200 when the action comes near you. Yes, most of the time you will be at 400, but you've already said that the high iso files are amazing. So that one stop difference, isn't what it used to be.
If you are still unsure, buy a used one, so if you decide to sell it a few months down the road, you shouldn't loose much money. I hope that helps.
Josh |
|
Michael Fischer, Photographer
|
Spencer | Ia | USA | Posted: 10:25 AM on 06.06.11 |
| ->> Josh, I did. I'll feed it a NY Bagel for you next time I have an extra one (wink). |
|
Return to --> Message Board Main Index
|