Nikon 200-400 f/4 vr or 300mm f/2.8 vrII

PatStrangPatStrang Registered Users Posts: 5 Beginner grinner
edited October 20, 2010 in Accessories
I am a college student who has found himself in need of some serious glass in order to obtain a job shooting sports. I have come to the point where I am going to either have to buy something used or get some help. well my parents are considering the possibility of helping me buy a new lens from Nikon if it will help improve my pictures and my chances of making money. So i have come to the dilemma of wheter to buy a 200-400 f/4 or a 300mm f/2.8....both are a little bit under $6k so price doesn't play a big role...i have heard great things about both lenses but i am leaning toward the 200-400 f/4 because I have a D700 so i have the high ISO capabilities to deal with the loss of an f-stop and I am at full frame so the extra length would come in real handy. I know the 200-400 is slightly less sharp so I am still considering the 300 as well, oh choices choices.

I know the 300 would be better for basketball but I think for baseball, football and any wildlife photography I do the 200-400 would be great.

Any thoughts, suggestions or feedback?

Thanks everyone,

Pat

Comments

  • cab.in.bostoncab.in.boston Registered Users Posts: 634 Major grins
    edited October 20, 2010
    I don't have either, but why not the 300 and 1.4 TC? That way you'll have the 2.8 when you want/need it, and a 420mm f/4 lens with the TC? It bumps the price up a bit, but seems like a good fit, IMO. And it would be (slightly) lighter to carry around than the 200-400.
    Father, husband, dog lover, engineer, Nikon shooter
    My site 365 Project
  • Manfr3dManfr3d Registered Users Posts: 2,008 Major grins
    edited October 20, 2010
    Did you take a look at the Sigma 120-300mm f/2.8? Also you might want to see if someone can give you advice at http://www.sportsshooter.com/ (see their board)
    “To consult the rules of composition before making a picture is a little like consulting the law of gravitation before going for a walk.”
    ― Edward Weston
  • MitchellMitchell Registered Users Posts: 3,503 Major grins
    edited October 20, 2010
    This has been the age old question: 300mm + TC vs the 200-400mm?

    I'll give you my take after I considered this conundrum. I wound up with the Nikkor 300mm, f2.8VR with assorted teleconvertors. The 300mm is one of Nikon's sharpest lenses. It takes the 1.4 and 1.7 TC very nicely without significant loss in sharpness. Most importantly, you go open to f2.8 if you need (which you cannot do with the 200-400mm).

    My style when shooting sports does not allow for zooming. I'm too busy following the action to consider zooming and would wind up leaving the zoom at 400mm in most applications.

    In the end, I was very pleased with the decision to go 300mmVR with the teleconvertors. The 200-400mm is a fine lens. One of the finest zooms ever made. I just think 300mm combo makes more sense for most.

    The sigma 120-300mm does not have a very good reputation. Several folks I know returned their copies which were quite soft at 300mm and needed to stop down at most other focal lengths.
    Mitch
    http://clearwaterphotography.smugmug.com/
Sign In or Register to comment.