I'm in the market for a new super-tele and considering the 300 f2.8 VRII and the 200 - 400 f4 VRII. I have a TC 17E which I understand will work on the 300. so I'l have two lenses in one but the flexibility of the 200-400 is very appealing. My subject will be air-shows and some wildlife. I have no experience with either lens and would appreciate your thoughts.
The 300 f2.8 or the 200-400 f4?
(20 posts) (16 voices)-
Posted 2 years ago #
-
the 300mm will give you amazing sharpness at 2.8 and faster images. But the flexability of the 200-400 will be amazing + you can still use the 1.7x convertor and still have AF.
Which ever choice you make though, you will love. :)
Posted 2 years ago # -
Anonymous
Unregistered
Posts: 51offlinea-dobbins91 said:
the flexability of the 200-400 will be amazing + you can still use the 1.7x convertor and still have AF.Not according to the compatibility chart from Nikon. AF is not possible with the 200-400 + TC-17EII.
I debated getting the 200-400, but chose to stay with my 300mm/2.8 because there are just times when I need that extra stop (2.8 vs. 4.0). With the high ISO performance of FX bodies like the D3 & D700 this is perhaps less of a consideration, but I still prefer the versatility of my 300mm/2.8. At 4" shorter and over a pound lighter, I find that the 300mm/2.8 is more maneuverable and hand-holdable than the 200-400 as well.
Posted 2 years ago # -
n300/2.8 vr - look for the vr I version as there's really not much difference and You can save a lot of bucks; also another question is are You gonna use it handheld or mounted on triopod, if the first one than You shouldn't even thinking of getting the 200-400/f4 as it's simply to big to use it handheld for longer period of time.
as for TC - both will work with both of the lenses, TC17 is not officially supported on 200-400 but it will maintain AF in bright conditions; however if You will go for the 300/2.8 You have the ability to get the new TC20III which pairs nicely with this lens.one more thing - if You haven't shot super-teles before, I wouldn't recommend You any of the above lenses, as they are simply to big. instead, I would suggest You to go for either nikon 300/4 AF-S (excellent lens, especially with the kirk photo lens mount) or sigma 50-500 OS (that's the new bigma, released recently), as both of this lenses are much cheaper, and much easier to sell later than the big ones. sure the nikon is slower than the 2.8 version, but it's not a problem for Your kind of photography. as You gonna shot in very bright conditions most of the times - air-shows don't run during the rains (or at least the planes are grounded)
Posted 2 years ago # -
I photograph in the field with quite a few Nikon DSLRs. I still own the F5 (great camera but don't use it any longer as digital just plain works better). I have used almost every Nikkor lens made for long lenses. I have seen amazing results for the 200-400VR but greatly prefer the Nikkor 70-300VR. In fact i still own two 70-300 non VR lens (and my guys in my company still use them). We all prefer the VR version of the 70-300. Everyone refers to the bigger lens (like 200-400VR) as wrist breakers and my guys will not use the one we rarely use. I finally sold the one I owned back to B&H. I feel the 70-300VR is about the best field size. I would buy a 200-400 f 5.6 if the size could be made smaller and it came in a VR version. I prefer NOT to shoot with a tripod. I crank the ISO up to 1000 for wildlife shots and try to pad my lens on a tree (or rock or ledge). I have handheld eagle shots that prove this system works and am known for photos of Brown Bears in action. I have sold all of my 2.8 lenses. I do prefer more depth of field. I have had more book covers and full page book illustrations with the 70-300 than any other lens that I own.
Posted 2 years ago # -
dave has a good point in his post, I'll add just one more - it's freaking hard to nail the picture with 2.8 aperture (in terms of right AF point), and there's not too many points to get a fast 2.8 or 4 lens when You gonna close it to f8
Posted 2 years ago # -
Thanks for all the help folks.
I opted for the Nikkor 300mm f2.8. This is one of those lenses that makes you glad you chose Nikon. It's big, heavy and very difficult to hand hold.....but I have never seen anything like it fo IQ and sharpness. Remarkable!!!
Posted 2 years ago # -
Newfie said:
Thanks for all the help folks.I opted for the Nikkor 300mm f2.8. This is one of those lenses that makes you glad you chose Nikon. It's big, heavy and very difficult to hand hold.....but I have never seen anything like it fo IQ and sharpness. Remarkable!!!
It's a very excellent lens. After debating it for a year, this is the lens I decided on as well. The IQ really can't be beaten save maybe the other more expensive super tele primes.
Posted 2 years ago # -
Gentoo! Since Alpha's not around to say it, I guess I will. Gentoo for president!
Posted 2 years ago # -
300/2.8 + TC20 + D7000 = 900mm 5.6?! Doesn't that seem like an awesome wildlife combo?
Posted 1 year ago # -
Can't wait for the replacement for the D300s and D700! Of course, don't have the $$ for that OR the 300/2.8 :(
Posted 1 year ago # -
patrick
make sure that sucker has VR and a very good sturdy tripod, remote release too, it will be difficult to hold that monster steady with the weight and at 900mm, every shake wil be magnified.
++ on the $$, wish there was a fairy godmother around with a Nikon wand.
Posted 1 year ago # -
For me I prefer the zoom. I have shot both over the past few years and I really believe the 200-400mm Zoom is the best lens I have ever used it is simply amazing. Funds are always set aside for renting these two lenses for work, but I prefer the 200-400mm and maybe one day I can own it.
Posted 1 year ago # -
Well here have been my thoughts over the past year on this subject. As some of you know I ended up with the 400mm 2.8. I will list things in no particualar order because everyone has different needs.
Negatives:
Weight
The only lens heavier than the 400mm is the 600mm.Size
Only the 500mm and 600mm are longer, the 200-400mm is the same. Only the 600mm is bigger in diameter and not by much. This is based on the product catalog which does not include the lens hood. For me that adds another 5 inches to the lenght, I would assume all the other lenses are the same in this area.Price
I think only the 600mm is more costly.Fixed Focal length
Well this is obvious, only one lens in the group has the abiltiy for now at least.Postitives
Speed
Has a F2.8 for better low light resolution and the ablity to add every size teleconverter Nikon has and still autofocus (yes I know you can get away with a 1.7 TC on an F4 lens but it might have a problem in low light).Outstanding Image quality
Well in this group of lenses I doubt any would have any major or even minor flaws but if any of them would have a problem I would start with a zoom lens. Some people say the 200-400mm needs to be used at 360mm or less and other say it doesn't quite look like 400mm. Kinda reminds me of the 70-200mm VRII, people say at 200mm its more like 140mm up close (but then again some people have nothing better to do than complain, probably the same ones that reget not getting it).I already have a 70-200mm 2.8 and a 1.7 TC so if I can't haul my 400mm monster around I can "cheat" and I still have a 120-340mm F4.8. If I get the 2.0 TC I will have the 140-400mm F5.6. I would only lose a stop of light from the 200-400mm. I would imagine I would sacrific some image quality at this point but for the price difference I understand why.
I may sound weird but one of my main goals for this lens is to catch an eagle (I love eagles). I went with the "birding" point of view for my purpose. I will use the lens for other things, such as I got the last space shuttle and to catch white water rafters in sections of the river you can't get to but can see from a distance. I wanted the ablity to reach as far as I could and have a few options. Using teleconverters I can select how far I really need to reach, with the 600 I am limited. I only plan to buy one "super tele" so for me the 400mm 2.8 was it.
If your on the sidelines of a football game or something similar I can see the 200-400mm would be a much better and cheaper option. I usually just go to have fun and enjoy the game but at this point I might bring my DX camera Vs my FX camera to get that little extra reach.
I would really like to see what I can pull off at an airshow but so far I have not had one near me for a couple years so I might have to wait for this, of course I might wish I had the 200-400mm at that point.
Posted 1 year ago # -
I think that if you have any question at all in your mind about which to get, got for the 300 2.8 and while you're at it, pick up one of the TCs with the money you save. I picked up the TC 20eIII and use it on my 300 all the time.
I assume you already have a 70-200 2.8. Throw the TC 20eIII on it and you have a 140-400 5.6. That's pretty close to a 200-400 4. Having that in addition to a 300 2.8 or a 600 5.6 gives you a very flexible package of length and brightness.
On the other hand, get the 200-400 if you KNOW that's the one you need. Like they say, different strokes for different folks.Posted 1 year ago # -
I know the 70-200 + the TC-20E III AF-S has been discussed before, but in summery, it needs stopping down to f8 and the auto focus is a tad slow
looking at the results of a wild life competition, I could not help notice, most winners used primes or primes plus converters rather than zoomsPosted 1 year ago # -
Year ago I was sure that getting the 300/2.8 is a better option than getting 200-400/4, right now I'm leaning towards completely different setup.
N70-200 + [TC 1.7] - for convenient zooming opportunities
N200/2 + [TC 1.4 || TC 1.7 || TC 2.0] - for all the times You need travel light and doesn't need 400/2.8 - converts easily to 280/2.8 or even 400/4
N400/2.8 + [TC 1.7 || TC 2.0] - when You need reach, can be easily converted into 680/4.8 or 800/5.6
IMHO, a wildlife photographer doesn't need neither 300/2.8 or 200-400/4 as You can get "almost" - practically indistinguishable - results from the N200/2 with additional TC and You can travel light - not only the size of the lens is smaller but also instead using series 5 gitzo You can end up with series 3 (some cases 2).
If You can afford a long tele than IMHO 400/2.8 is a better option than 500/4 or 600/4 unless You go for extreme. I've learned than in most cases 400mm is more than enough for shooting big mammals and having one stop more is very often more important than having extra mm, even with d3s. Sure, the perfect combination will be to have all of the exotic lenses, but in real life, most of us have to stick only to one, maximum two lenses - not only because of price but also because of mobility.Posted 1 year ago # -
+1 for the 200mm f2. :]
Posted 1 year ago # -
adamz said:
n300/2.8 vr - look for the vr I version as there's really not much difference and You can save a lot of bucks; also another question is are You gonna use it handheld or mounted on triopod, if the first one than You shouldn't even thinking of getting the 200-400/f4 as it's simply to big to use it handheld for longer period of time.
as for TC - both will work with both of the lenses, TC17 is not officially supported on 200-400 but it will maintain AF in bright conditions; however if You will go for the 300/2.8 You have the ability to get the new TC20III which pairs nicely with this lens.one more thing - if You haven't shot super-teles before, I wouldn't recommend You any of the above lenses, as they are simply to big. instead, I would suggest You to go for either nikon 300/4 AF-S (excellent lens, especially with the kirk photo lens mount) or sigma 50-500 OS (that's the new bigma, released recently), as both of this lenses are much cheaper, and much easier to sell later than the big ones. sure the nikon is slower than the 2.8 version, but it's not a problem for Your kind of photography. as You gonna shot in very bright conditions most of the times - air-shows don't run during the rains (or at least the planes are grounded)
That is an excellent point. Most airshows are rather restrictive about what you can take in nowadays. I am not sure that there is an outright ban on tripods, but I have only seen monopods at the airshows the last few years except for the TV stations and so on.
Posted 1 year ago # -
I bought the 300 2.8 for field sports and it's small factor (it's easy enough to hand hold), and also because I could get a used G VRI at a good price in Japan, and that was about the most I could possibly convince my wife to spend.
Here is what I have to say about it vs the 200-400.
It may be obvious, but the 200-400 can zoom. Most of the time this isn't an issue, but for field sports, this is a big thing. I would much rather use the 200-400 on a DX body for field sports than the 300 2.8, especially when it's raining, as then I wouldn't take the 70-200 on a second FX body.
The extra reach of the 200-400 amounts to 600mm with DX compared to 450 with the 300. This also makes a big difference for field sports.
However, the 200-400 is said to have better sharpness at closer focusing distances.
Which leads me to my opinions of the 300 2.8 (G VRI and VRII and same in every way except the VR model).
The 300 2.8 is SHARP. Yes adamz, it would be lovely to have a 200 2 and a 400 2.8, but ..ahem, who can afford that? The 300 2.8 is a happy compromise.
The 300 is great for things that need to be sharp, that a zoom is just not good enough for. I am talking about fashion/beauty/portraits. I am going to do some fashion potraits with it on Friday and the sharpness and compression will be a major benefit.
The 300 is also 2.8. This is becoming less important in terms of ISO, but is still important in low light. I am also planning to use it in indoor swimming pools to get some great shots. The ability to go to 2.8 will be a major advantage in conserving flash power and improving recycle times.
And last, but not least, the 300 2.8 has amazing bokeh (by the way, if you are in japan, don't go around saying "boke" to everyone).
Hope this is helpful.
Posted 1 year ago #
Reply
You must log in to post.
