Even though we ARE Nikon lovers,we are NOT affiliated with Nikon Corp. in any way.

English German French

Sign up Login
Home Forums Articles Galleries Recent Photos Contest Help Search News Workshops Shop Upgrade Membership Recommended
members
All members Wiki Contests Vouchers Apps Newsletter THE NIKONIAN™ Magazines Podcasts Fundraising

200-400/F4 vs. 400/F2.8 for sports

Ferguson

Cape Coral, US
5757 posts

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this author
Ferguson Silver Member Fellow Ribbon awarded for the generous sharing of his high level expertise in the spirit of Nikonians Nikonian since 19th Aug 2004
Wed 19-Jun-13 06:23 PM | edited Wed 19-Jun-13 06:24 PM by Ferguson

I have a 200-400/F4 VR-I. It's a sharp, versatile lens and I love it.

I also have a 70-200/F2.8, and recently bought a 200/F2.

The 200/F2 is a whole different category lens. At 200 it's very noticeably sharper than either the 200/F4 or the 70-200/F2.8. It's brighter, focuses faster. If I zoom in at 1:1 it's really hard to explain/see why it is so different, but it really is different. My poor 70-200 hardly comes out of the bag any more at night, if I need to zoom I'd rather back up.

And shooting sports (night) I'm always chasing that one more stop.

I'm thinking about the 400/F2.8, but it's a huge chunk of change, and it's a lot less flexible than the 200-400. But...

Am I going to see that same kind of quantum leap as I did with the 200/F2? Because if so, combined with the extra stop, it's worth it. And maybe even sell the 200-400 (later, if I really do stop using it).

Note especially when used with a 1.4x?

Linwood

PS. Here's an example - ISO 4000 from about 3rd base to the batter, with the 1.4x converter. You can see the DOF in the dirt, and look how sharp the shoe is in this 1:1 example.

Click on image to view larger version


Here's one, brighter light, ISO560 so should be cleaner, same 1.4x TC but on the 200-400. Also 1:1. It's really not bad if you see the full frame, but it just gives an overall "softer" IQ in comparison. Before I got the 200/F2, I thought these were sharp. Now I have a whole different comparison.

Click on image to view larger version




Comments welcomed on pictures: Http://captivephotons.com



Attachment#1 (jpg file)
Attachment#2 (jpg file)

Subject
ID
Reply message RE: 200-400/F4 vs. 400/F2.8 for sports
1
Reply message RE: 200-400/F4 vs. 400/F2.8 for sports
2
Reply message RE: 200-400/F4 vs. 400/F2.8 for sports
3
Reply message RE: 200-400/F4 vs. 400/F2.8 for sports
4
Reply message RE: 200-400/F4 vs. 400/F2.8 for sports
5
Reply message RE: 200-400/F4 vs. 400/F2.8 for sports
6
     Reply message RE: 200-400/F4 vs. 400/F2.8 for sports
7
     Reply message RE: 200-400/F4 vs. 400/F2.8 for sports
8
     Reply message RE: 200-400/F4 vs. 400/F2.8 for sports
9
     Reply message RE: 200-400/F4 vs. 400/F2.8 for sports
15
     Reply message RE: 200-400/F4 vs. 400/F2.8 for sports
10
Reply message RE: 200-400/F4 vs. 400/F2.8 for sports
17
     Reply message RE: 200-400/F4 vs. 400/F2.8 for sports
18
Reply message RE: 200-400/F4 vs. 400/F2.8 for sports
11
Reply message RE: 200-400/F4 vs. 400/F2.8 for sports
12
     Reply message RE: 200-400/F4 vs. 400/F2.8 for sports
13
          Reply message RE: 200-400/F4 vs. 400/F2.8 for sports
14
               Reply message RE: 200-400/F4 vs. 400/F2.8 for sports
16
                    Reply message RE: 200-400/F4 vs. 400/F2.8 for sports
19
Reply message RE: 200-400/F4 vs. 400/F2.8 for sports
20

G