The 400/5.6 is roughly $1400. The 400/4 DO is roughly $6000. What you are wanting, it sounds like, is an f/4 version of the f/5.6 lens at less than 50% more money. I really don't see that as a realistic expectation.

Originally Posted by jmphotocraft I guess $1800-2000.

30 years ago the 400's cost more than that. Come on man.

Originally Posted by mercphoto The 400/5.6 is roughly $1400. The 400/4 DO is roughly $6000. What you are wanting, it sounds like, is an f/4 version of the f/5.6 lens at less than 50% more money. I really don't see that as a realistic expectation.

You're probably right. Oh well, I can dream. What about for 100% more money? I might stretch to $2800.

Originally Posted by perroneford 30 years ago the 400's cost more than that. Come on man.

Please forgive me.

Originally Posted by jmphotocraft and the f/4 doesn't offer any value over a $475 1.4x TC.

Just saw this. Sorry, but it offers a BIG advantage. As posted, converters, and zooms do not work well together. Not my opinion, just fact. A 300 f4 will give you sharp photos at 4.5, but a 70-200 with a 1.4 at f4.5 will not. Not even close.

Not flaming, just trying to help.

Originally Posted by nipprdog Just saw this. Sorry, but it offers a BIG advantage. As posted, converters, and zooms do not work well together. Not my opinion, just fact. A 300 f4 will give you sharp photos at 4.5, but a 70-200 with a 1.4 at f4.5 will not. Not even close. Not flaming, just trying to help.

Samples please. Because this page disagrees:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/R...mp=0&APIComp=1

For sports I am mostly concerned about center sharpness. I'll trade a little softness mid-frame for the ability to zoom, and $900 in savings. Now, if AF suffers, then all bets are off, but I thought the latest "Mark III" TCs addressed that.

Originally Posted by perroneford I agree with everything you just said except this: "Even with a 1.4 converter you won't be able to shoot at f4, because the photos won't be sharp. When using a converter, you'll be lucky if they're sharp at f5.6." I shoot soccer at 2.8 all the time and my images are sharp enough for magazine publication. Having been a soccer coach for 19 years, I tend to have an advantage over most others because more often than not I know where the ball is going before some of the players do. But to toss that out as an absolute is just wrong. Sorry.

I can't speak to the TC issues because I never use them. However, I occasionally shoot soccer games with just a 70-200/2.8, and I get a fair number of keepers. I stick close to the goal, and move around a good bit--something that is much harder to do while lugging both a 400/2.8 and a 70-200/2.8. My take is not as good as with both lenses, but it is not bad.

The other issue with a 400/2.8 when covering the whole field is the very high rate of player interference. More often than not, an interesting play across the field is blocked by other players, not because I lack the reach. I certainly do get shots with this reach that I couldn't get otherwise. But I have shot several pro soccer and MLB games with just a 70-200/2.8 and the photo editors at my media outlets did not comment negatively on my take. Just something to think about when trying to justify the cost of new glass...

Originally Posted by nipprdog Just saw this. Sorry, but it offers a BIG advantage. As posted, converters, and zooms do not work well together. Not my opinion, just fact. A 300 f4 will give you sharp photos at 4.5, but a 70-200 with a 1.4 at f4.5 will not. Not even close. Not flaming, just trying to help.

I guess you have to answer what you are willing to accept. These were taken with a D700, Sigma 120-300/1.4 TC at f5. If you pixel peep, a prime and TC is the best option. On a budget, a zoom and TC is a good option.

Originally Posted by jhefti I can't speak to the TC issues because I never use them. However, I occasionally shoot soccer games with just a 70-200/2.8, and I get a fair number of keepers. I stick close to the goal, and move around a good bit--something that is much harder to do while lugging both a 400/2.8 and a 70-200/2.8. My take is not as good as with both lenses, but it is not bad. The other issue with a 400/2.8 when covering the whole field is the very high rate of player interference. More often than not, an interesting play across the field is blocked by other players, not because I lack the reach. I certainly do get shots with this reach that I couldn't get otherwise. But I have shot several pro soccer and MLB games with just a 70-200/2.8 and the photo editors at my media outlets did not comment negatively on my take. Just something to think about when trying to justify the cost of new glass...

I find the same problem with using long glass and field sports too. My keeper rate isn't really that much different using long glass because players, refs get in the way. Usually, my strongest pictures take place 30 yds and in, which is useful for a 70-200 or my Sigma 120-300.

in my experience if you use the latest TC and latest 70-200 (nikon or canon), the results are actually quite good. There really is not much a drop off in quality anymore. older combos might be an issue.

The phrase: "You gotta pay to play", comes to mind.

Sigma makes a 300mm f2.8 and a 120-300 f2.8 with OS, but you won't like the prices of new versions of them either. You might find a used Sigma 300 f2.8, or even the non IS Sigma 120-300 f2.8, somewhere near your price range ~ $1800 - $2200 if you look around a bit.

Fast long glass is not cheap, whether made by Canon, Nikon, Sigma, Tamron, Zeiss. Hey, maybe there is a reason.

Tamron does make a non-IS 200-500 ( I do like mine quite a bit ), but it is not fast at the long end.

Large apertures require big lenses, and big lenses just cost more.

Well... you can always rent them. ;)

At least you can try them out and see what works best for you and meets your budget range. Then hope to find what you like best used someday.

FWIW... I had the same thoughts and ended up getting a Nikon 200-400 f4 VR when it first came out. Yeah.. it is pricey and above your budget, but it does cover the gap nicely and quite versatile. I wish at times I had the 400mm 2.8 for some shots, but F4 isn't too bad and the lens is amazingly sharp for being some $3000 cheaper!.

I also went for a replacement RRS foot as it makes an awesome handle when hefting it around as well as the MH-01 Hi-Capacity Monopod Head with a clamp. I love how sturdy it all is and the added tilt adjustment is pretty handy as I shoot motorsports and find myself up on mounds etc and can pre-dial in the angle.

Originally Posted by jww Well... you can always rent them. ;)

I've done that, it's great fun.



I will do it again someday when my kids are older and playing in "important" games.

Originally Posted by jmphotocraft Of course you're right. I'm just dreaming. Thanks for the compliment.

He just quoted post #7 word for word.

Originally Posted by perroneford He just quoted post #7 word for word.

Weird. Must be a spammer.

Edit - yep! Haha, all his posts are gone.

Originally Posted by jmphotocraft I've done that, it's great fun. I will do it again someday when my kids are older and playing in "important" games.

Nice! ..well, except for the white sign in the background. :p