Jump to content


Photo

200-400 or 400 2.8


  • Please log in to reply
2 replies to this topic

#1 C.L.Extreme

C.L.Extreme

    Planet Newbie Member

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 8 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Liberal, KS

Posted 02 January 2010 - 08:57 PM

I have used both lens, I wish I could afford both. I love the 400mm 2.8 for late football and action in evening you can't get much better. But I also like the 200-400 f4 just for it range of use. I don't really use the 500mm+ area much, but would like to have the option. I seen some shot with the 2-4 with a 1.7 and 2.0 TC on them and they are a little soft. and the 400 with the 2X seems the same. I never got to try either lens with a TC on it. I like to know what your thoughts are here and if the new tc2x III might be a sharper than the old one. I have to get something soon, I miss a great shot today, due to I only had my 70-200 with me. There was 4 bald eagles all sitting together across the river and here I am kicking myself for having a short lens. I'm really looking for more a personal thoughts instead of like reviews. Thanks
Chris

www.CLEXTREMEPHOTOGRAPHY.com

Nikon D3, D80
14-24, 24-70, 70-200, 60 macro

#2 justshootit

justshootit

    Deep Space Hero Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4260 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Southern California
  • Interests:Event photography, candids, getting photos of people at their best.

Posted 02 January 2010 - 09:57 PM

Well I've shot quite a few airshows with the following glass: 400/4 Tamron Adaptall with 1.4x & 2x converters - 35mm 300/2.8 Nikkor AFS with TC14E II on DX & 35mm 75-300/4.5-5.6 Nikkor on DX & 35mm I would dearly have loved the flexibility of a 200-400 zoom with a couple of converters. The 75-300 doesn't do well with converters and it's a bit short on FX for thiis kind of shooting. The primes make superb shots when I can frame them as I'd like, but without rhe zoom, that's more difficult. You know this already but the prime would be better in low light.
Don
==========================================================
Digital: D610 backed up by a D1x.  Quoted from an unknown source by a fellow planeteer, "Never get rid of a working D1x." I've got to agree.

Film: N90s, F3, F100, F4s, C330s. A few lenses.

Why film photography? I like shooting with the equipment. 6x6 Velvia slides from a C330 have an appeal all their own.

Why automated 35mm/Digital cameras? Event photography is about capturing moments. It often requires quick response. Well done automaton can be your friend or your enemy. It all depends on knowing what it can and can't do. "A man's got to know his (camera's) limitations." paraphrasing Dirty Harry...

#3 Black Pearl

Black Pearl

    Deep Space Master Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5340 posts
  • Gender:Not Telling
  • Location:Whitburn UK

Posted 03 January 2010 - 04:09 AM

Out of my reach but a mate has had both and recons the 200-400 was the one he got the most use from. It is only a stop down from the 400/2.8 but gives you a more flexable alround range.
God is dead. God remains dead. And we have killed him.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users