Sports Togs: 300 2.8 or 400 2.8 for Swimming/Diving

rogan200

rogan200

Messages
405
Name
Rogan
Edit My Images
Yes
I'm flying out to Budapest next Sunday to shoot the LEN European Swimming Championships. I am massively fortunate to be going to this big event at the very start of my attempts to make it in sports photography and I got lucky with some contacts, but i fully intend to make the most of the event.... sure it will be a massive learning curve but I am relishing the challenge of a week shooting sports professionally!

I am needing to rent a NIKON Super Telephoto, but am struggling big time to decide whether to go for the 400 2.8 or 300 2.8 (with a 1.7TC if needed)

I think i will need at least 400mm on my full frame D3 for the swimming, but for the diving that beast of a lens could prove just to heavy to handle. My concern with the 300 is how much sharpness and focusing accuracy I will lose with the 1.4 or 1.7 TC attached. Other concern is I cannot find out where photographers will be allowed relative to the pools which makes deciding even harder!

I was hoping some of the Sports Shooters on here might have some words of wisdom! How does the 400 2.8 handle, and how does the 300 2.8 perform with TC's??

(my other worry is lack of a second body! Cant afford to rent one and certainly not buy yet either. Gonna be hard work switching lenses for close up work / wide angle stuff)

Help would be hugely appreciated!!
 
well i would go for the 400, as the difference between 300 and 400mm is minimal in terms of framing really, i would suggest taking a 70-200 also, then if you find your are to close from the shooting positions you can swap lenses. I have used the 400mm with 1.7TC on D3S and was very impressed, if you look on my flickr page all of the England cricket shots were with that setup.

Lastly good luck with it Rogan, i hope things go well for you out there.

Who are you working for? (can PM if you dont want it public)
 
Cheers for the advice. I'll try go down that route then.... Unfortunately not working for a UK agency but instead going as a freelancer providing newsworthy images to the Expat newspapers and magazines in Hungary. Bit of an odd route in and they aren't going to be paying great rates because their distribution isn't exactly massive, but its all about the invaluable experience and portfolio images for me. I'm also still in the process (late I know!) of sorting a little bit of work with the GB team.

Tried writing to loads of UK agencies offering images as a contributor trying to get some images in print in the UK but not one even responded. Thought some of the smaller ones may have been interested seen as I am accredited, there already and therefore covering my own transport and living costs for the week. Thought it was zero risk for them. Guess I'm not getting through to the right people!

Local papers also seemed uninterested. Targeted those who have swimmers/divers in the region likely to medal/win, but most said they had deals with the big agencies for images. :bang:
 
Surely the 300 will give you more flexibility. Looking at what Gary produces at rugby matches with a D3s and 300 2.8 + 1.4x It is a very good setup. The difference in weight between a 300 and 400 is also vast. 300's being possible to hand hold, 400's really getting too heavy.

Also a 70-200 would be a must i would think, on a 2nd body. Give you some variety.

Congratulations on the break, no harm in renting, You need to be doing alot of sales to justify a 400 2.8. Very Jealous, i would love to shoot some different sports like swimming/diving.
 
dunganick said:
Surely the 300 will give you more flexibility.
Click to expand...

that was my main concern with the 400. It is super heavy and could be a pain trying to capture a diver coming down from the 10m board. I reckon I'm going to be about 25metres from the platform divers so trying to work out how much reach i would need for them to fill the frame!

dunganick said:
You need to be doing alot of sales to justify a 400 2.8. Very Jealous, i would love to shoot some different sports like swimming/diving.
Click to expand...

You would think so wouldn't you! At the moment there is no way i will be selling enough to pay for the flights and lens rental!! Im kinda seeing it as an investment for the future! Fortunately accom is free as my Mum lives in Budapest.
 
I wouldn't use a TC indoors! f2.8 or better all the way or you'll be in trouble. f4 just doesn't cut it indoors unless you are flukey lucky!

I've never shot diving, but can't imagine its too different to normal swimming stuff, my advice would be 70-200 and the 300 2.8. I honestly can't imagine using the 400 at all. Its quite a beast, excellent for motorsport but can't see you'd want it for this. Then again, I could be talking out my backside as I've never done diving!

Kinda surprised at the reaction from the outlets you tried, but then again most regional news is only in there because the participants punt in a press release. You might do better talking to the participants and seeing if they want some PR stuff done - but thats not much use unless you plan on chasing them around the world.... it just doesn't add up financially unfortunately and thats even when you start looking at the better funded more popular sports!
 
desantnik said:
I wouldn't use a TC indoors! f2.8 or better all the way or you'll be in trouble. f4 just doesn't cut it indoors unless you are flukey lucky!
Click to expand...

Fortunately it is all outdoors! I know what you mean... on first thought the 400 seems a lot for swimming/diving but when Nikon sponsored the World Champs which was outdoors in Rome last year, they produced an image gallery of the best shots.... most were with a 400 2.8 diving or swimming! Thats what first got me pondering.
 
Well, fairly obviously the best subject seperation will be achieved with the longest glass.

The 400 is a fantastic bit of kit but its probably not the best time to be playing with new kit on something as critical as that sounds.

My advice, if you get the chance get both lenses for a day or so and have a play, see what you can do.

You will need a (decent) monopod btw... (just in case you don't know!)
 
rogan200 said:
Fortunately it is all outdoors! I know what you mean... on first thought the 400 seems a lot for swimming/diving but when Nikon sponsored the World Champs which was outdoors in Rome last year, they produced an image gallery of the best shots.... most were with a 400 2.8 diving or swimming! Thats what first got me pondering.
Click to expand...


Light should be good, so consider the 200-400 VR as a possibility (y)
 
gpa said:
Light should be good, so consider the 200-400 VR as a possibility (y)
Click to expand...

Only if you can get close, that bloody thing falls apart at any distance.
 
I'd also suggest the 200-400 as an excellent option. It gives you a nice bit of flexibility, and if it's all outdoors you should be fine. If you couldn't get one of those, a 300 with a 1.4 would give you the best compromise in lightness and flexibility, especially if you're going to handhold as someone comes down from a diving board.

I doubt you'd need the 400 for the normal lane swiming either - just wait until the swim closer to you.

Take a wide lens or two as well - it's always good to get the "big picture". And dont forget to look for interesting angles. Sneak about a bit and see if you can find somewhere with an excellent background that nobody else has found.

And good luck!
 
300... the 400 will be too long IMHO and also limits you to pointing one way most of time.. or at least one direction... 300 you can swing about more

I did swimming when shooting a triathlon a couple of weeks ago.. in a pool and all a bit boring just swiming up and down.. no urgency.. but 300 was perfect..

swimming
http://othersports.fotopic.net/c1858992.html
 
Tobers said:
I'd also suggest the 200-400 as an excellent option.
Click to expand...

It would *seem* that way, but its not.

Have you ever used one?
 
I would say the 300.

Sounds like you're in for an enjoyable experience.
 
desantnik said:
Only if you can get close, that bloody thing falls apart at any distance.
Click to expand...


So enlighten me, what distance does the 200-400 VR "fall apart" as this is not my findings at all.

If the OP gets access to the diving pit area then he has several options, assuming the pit is separate from the main pool he can use the walk way between the two for taking pictures of the divers coming off either the spring boards or any of the high boards, he may wish to come to the side for taking pictures of either the 1m or 3m springboards or 5m/7.5m/10m platform, this is where the 200-400 will come into its own. Taking from the side will give him some great shot of divers performing twisting somersaults, reverse or inward dives. If the op wants to see what the 200-400 can do then a quick look at my website should answer his questions. Finally if he is forced to take from a distance I can categorically say the 400mm bare will give a cleaner picture than a 300 with converter.
 
Last edited:
Some very good advice. Its decision time today (need to confirm with rental people first thing tomorrow). I'm actually swaying towards the 300mm a bit more now. I know if I am forced to use the TC i will lose some IC but i think that may be better than getting there to find 400mm is too much reach. Then I will really be stuck!

gpa said:
Light should be good, so consider the 200-400 VR as a possibility (y)
Click to expand...

Looked into it briefly but never had the opportunity to consider it because 1) It is even more expensive to rent than the 300 2.8 or surprisingly the 400 2.8! and 2) The better priced rental providers don't have it in stock when I need it

desantnik said:
You will need a (decent) monopod btw... (just in case you don't know!)
Click to expand...

Check! (y)

Tobers said:
I doubt you'd need the 400 for the normal lane swiming either - just wait until the swim closer to you.

Take a wide lens or two as well - it's always good to get the "big picture". And dont forget to look for interesting angles. Sneak about a bit and see if you can find somewhere with an excellent background that nobody else has found.
Click to expand...

Was thinking the 400mm reach will be needed to get the classic (& saleable) shots of winners celebrating whilst still in the pool. Dont forget too i'm on Nikon Full Frame so my 400mm is only the same as 310mm for a canon man like yourself. Since I'll be shooting from the other end of the pool they will be 55meters away! (But obv I can achieve that reach for that particular shot with the 300 + 1.4.

Got wide covered. Borrowed a 14mm 2.8 and also have my 24-70 2.8 for close up work of podiums, medallists, preparations etc poolside. Planning on getting in very early on the opening morning to scout locations

gpa said:
assuming the pit is separate from the main pool he can use the walk way between the two for taking pictures of the divers coming off either the spring boards or any of the high boards, he may wish to come to the side for taking pictures of either the 1m or 3m springboards or 5m/7.5m/10m platform, this is where the 200-400 will come into its own. Taking from the side will give him some great shot of divers performing twisting somersaults, reverse or inward dives. If the op wants to see what the 200-400 can do then a quick look at my website should answer his questions. Finally if he is forced to take from a distance I can categorically say the 400mm bare will give a cleaner picture than a 300 with converter.
Click to expand...

No 'walkway' because the diving pit is alongside the main pool..... Still can get all around the pit though (only in a slightly raised up position). From what I can work out I will always be around 20-25metres from the divers. For side on shots from the 10m platform, i will use the stands to gain height and bring me level with them
 
Last edited:
Based on that then your best bet as you have worked out would be a 300mm and converter, you have all the other bases covered. Look forward to seeing the results (y)
 
Just found out that the greedy sods at LEN are to charge 105 Euros for internet access in the Media Centre at the event. Its already costing me an arm and a leg but this takes is a joke. I've seen from articles on the SJA website that this isn't that uncommon for big championships now but still seems like madness to me.

In more positive news I have finally had a couple of UK picture agencies offer to promote my work from the event, so I just need to decide which one I decide which one to go with. Quite hard to work out though which of the two will do the better job for me as a freelancer!
 
rogan200 said:
Just found out that the greedy sods at LEN are to charge 105 Euros for internet access in the Media Centre at the event. Its already costing me an arm and a leg but this takes is a joke. I've seen from articles on the SJA website that this isn't that uncommon for big championships now but still seems like madness to me.

In more positive news I have finally had a couple of UK picture agencies offer to promote my work from the event, so I just need to decide which one I decide which one to go with. Quite hard to work out though which of the two will do the better job for me as a freelancer!
Click to expand...

Yep, when there's a large contingent of foreign media, organisers are charging a fortune for wifi access...because they know the yanks will have to pay it as they won't have USB modems.

The Ryder Cup is £175 for wifi...I'm considering hiring out my spare USB modems to US togs for £150 instead :nuts:

Who are the two agencies (PM me if you like). I might be able to help you out.
 
I would agree with the 300mm + TC

I would also try really hard to find a 2nd body, not only for covering 2 different views (telephoto and wide) but most importantly for backup.

You are doing this to earn money, sell photos. What happens if your body dies on you on the morning of the first day ???

IMHO you should either rent or borrow a 2nd body, even a budget one.
 
my 300 and 1.4x loses no quality or speed, stunning, i leave it on all the time even at night shooting at ISO 6400
 
PickleB said:
I too would be interested to hear more, please (especially given this review.

Cheers ...
Click to expand...

its very well documented that many examples of this lens suffer horribly at 350-400mm, ive personal experience of working with another tog who sent me some and they were rubbish
 
Well I must have one of the "good" ones then because this lens still impresses me every time i use it. I've used it for Bikes, Planes, Wild Life close up and at distance and am a sucker for sharpness, if this lens fell over horribly at 350-400mm which is the end I tend to use, it would be gone by now I assure you. It does not like the use of VR on a tripod and does not take converters that well, 1.4 is just usable but 1.7 is pants.
 
I had two of them, one for a fortnight and another from a well known dealer to try side by side.

They both passed the dealer's technical test (focus charts) but both performed terribly on subjects approaching and on infinity focus.

Well known dealer agreed with me 100% on my criticism but was surprised he'd never seen it before.

Its not to do with zoom either - a 400mm shot at close distances is as well defined as a 200mm one.

If thats the price of a zoom vs a prime, I'll take the prime every time. My 300f4 even with a 1.4x TC utterly craps on the 200-400 for what I do and thats a sub 1000 quid solution - the 200-400 is massively over priced for its performance.
 
desantnik said:
I had two of them, one for a fortnight and another from a well known dealer to try side by side.

They both passed the dealer's technical test (focus charts) but both performed terribly on subjects approaching and on infinity focus.

Well known dealer agreed with me 100% on my criticism but was surprised he'd never seen it before.

Its not to do with zoom either - a 400mm shot at close distances is as well defined as a 200mm one.

If thats the price of a zoom vs a prime, I'll take the prime every time. My 300f4 even with a 1.4x TC utterly craps on the 200-400 for what I do and thats a sub 1000 quid solution - the 200-400 is massively over priced for its performance.
Click to expand...

OK so now we are getting to the nuts and bolts of the argument, at infinity and at 400mm that is some distance my friend certainly more than the length of a football pitch or for that matter an Olympic swimming pool and certainly far more than the OP is lightly to be shooting at. So you see why I question such flippant comments as "fall apart" or "suffers Horribly". If you are trying to zoom in on a gnat's todger at 200 ft then yes it may Fall Apart and yes the ultimate resolution of say a 400 2.8 or 500 f4 may be a little better, but for close to medium work there is no better Zoom out there bar none.
Sharp as my 70-200 @ 200 Yes
Sharp as my old 300F4 @300mm yes
Sharper than my old 300 F4 with 1.4 converter @ 400mm Yes
Sharper than my old Sigma 120-300/300 2.8 LOL not even going to answer that one LOL

In summary if you need/want the flexibility from 200-400 and want a single solution lens to cover many bases with the exception of very long distance then the 200-400 cannot be bettered, at home taking pictures of motor racing/ air shows and wildlife both very close ie marco type to water voles on a river to Crested Grebes in the middle of a large lake.

If non of the above.............. buy a fast prime, in the mean time I'll have got the shot you missed because you couldn't change ya lens quick enough :D

Just out of interest what subject do you shoot that the sub £1000.00 can do better, I am intrigued.

PS If I had a pound for every time someone said wow they are sharp, what lens are you using i would be a rich man.

Cheers


Grant
 
Last edited:
What am I trying to shoot? Errrm cars so they are quite big in the frame at 400mm?

I'm not asking to read the small print of a contract pasted onto the surface of the moon.

In fact, closer than that, I was trying to shoot motorbikes so they are reasonably sized in the frame...

These are not "far" distances, these are medium distances. Probably talking somewhere between 30m-50m (depending on if its a car or a bike).

Its obviously not a complete waste of space but its not good enough for the price tag, not by a long way. Certainly I could and did find a load of other stuff far more worthy of the hefty price tag.
 
gpa said:
If you are trying to zoom in on a gnat's todger at 200 ft then yes it may Fall Apart
Click to expand...

Flippent comments all-round...

Infinity isn't actually that far on a lot of lenses, and personally if a lens is no use at infinity (or for that matter anywhere or under any reasonable conditions) I wouldn't be too impressed. Particularly at the price this lens sells at.

I can entirely believe that GPA may have a sharp copy of this lens. But that doesn't mean every copy is the same, or that every copy is as poor as desantnik's experiences suggest.

I doubt the OP is about to run off and hire one now anyway....
 
desantnik said:
What am I trying to shoot? Errrm cars so they are quite big in the frame at 400mm?

I'm not asking to read the small print of a contract pasted onto the surface of the moon.

In fact, closer than that, I was trying to shoot motorbikes so they are reasonably sized in the frame...

These are not "far" distances, these are medium distances. Probably talking somewhere between 30m-50m (depending on if its a car or a bike).

Its obviously not a complete waste of space but its not good enough for the price tag, not by a long way. Certainly I could and did find a load of other stuff far more worthy of the hefty price tag.
Click to expand...



Hang on a minuet, the OP posts a question about whether he should use a 300 0r 400mm lens for his project and then followed various discussions about the appropriate lengths. I suggest thew 200-400 and two wild claims that it is sh-t and falls apart at distance. I challenge you and you quote "They both passed the dealer's technical test (focus charts) but both performed terribly on subjects approaching and on infinity focus.

Then when I push a little harder you change tack completely and start talking about your main subjects being big targets at 30-40m away, sorry I am lost :thinking:

So here are a couple of examples I have just taken over cast,wide open and at infinity so then lens is at its worst, I am not suggesting 400 2.8 could not resolve slightly more detail, but come on they hardly show signs of "falling apart or performed terribly" do they lets be honest. I have included a shot with my 50mm for scale. I can tell you that had I shot the same thing with the 300 F4 and a 1.4 converter the 200-400 would have been sharper no doubt in my mind as I have owned and tested both. I guess what you should have said is don't bother with any of them a 300 f4 is as good with or without a converter.

Anyway pics

50mm


400mm F4 uncropped



400mm F4 cropped in NX 50%

 
Last edited:
dunganick said:
Flippent comments all-round...

Infinity isn't actually that far on a lot of lenses, and personally if a lens is no use at infinity (or for that matter anywhere or under any reasonable conditions) I wouldn't be too impressed. Particularly at the price this lens sells at.

I can entirely believe that GPA may have a sharp copy of this lens. But that doesn't mean every copy is the same, or that every copy is as poor as desantnik's experiences suggest.

I doubt the OP is about to run off and hire one now anyway....
Click to expand...

Yes I was being flippant and again I do not believe that the Nikon is crap at infinity, it may not have the resolution of a 400 2.8 but it is not far behind and far from the "crap" others suggest, one of which has not owned one and one of which has for a very short period of time and admits that he shoots at 30m meters odd and NOT at distance which was his original argument for then lens being a duffer. To be fair desantnik also posted this on another thread where I dared to suggest the 200-400 "use it point blank at small wildlife and you'll love it... just don't try and shoot any distance is my suggestion."

I'm not trying to be an arse here just gets my goat when people make such sweeping statements when clearly the lens is a corker, unless you are trying to photograph a gnats todger that is :D

The picture at 50mm shows the distance I shot at the 200-400mm at to achieve on or very close to infinity......was some distance EH ?
 
Last edited:
Yes, it may frustrate you when others make sweeping statements. However it probably frustrates others when you insist that this lens is 'a corker'. Nobody is right or wrong, but with this lens in particular you have to say there are alot of reports regarding issues at longer focal lengths, so it is fair that people highlight this.

I dont care how good the lens is personally, i'm a good person so i shoot Canon ;) (so all my lenses are like this :LOL: )
 
dunganick said:
Infinity isn't actually that far on a lot of lenses, and personally if a lens is no use at infinity (or for that matter anywhere or under any reasonable conditions) I wouldn't be too impressed. Particularly at the price this lens sells at.
Click to expand...

Exactly Nick.

I stand very much behind my experience on this one - it sucks at "distance".

If the thing was maybe half the price it is this might be acceptable - for shooting sparrows in the face.

If the two copies I tried passed the manufacturers test then what does that say about the design of the item? Its clearly performing according to spec.

That spec is no use to me. Sorry Nikon I'm not gonna kiss your butt on a 4.6k bit of glass.

Anywaaaaaaaaaaaaaay, back to my original point, don't consider the 200-400 unless you are confident about its performance over the distances you are shooting at.

My "experience" was at the cost of a similar jaunt as you are describing and it almost trashed the entire gig.

So the advice that even my 200-400 loving friend would agree with (I hope), try it out before its critical and check out your distances.
 
desantnik said:
So the advice that even my 200-400 loving friend would agree with (I hope), try it out before its critical and check out your distances.
Click to expand...


I do and enjoy :D

No hard feelings I hope (y)
 
Last edited:
dunganick said:
I dont care how good the lens is personally, i'm a good person so i shoot Canon ;) (so all my lenses are like this :LOL: )
Click to expand...

Yep having noticed some softness in your pics when I checked out you web site I assumed as much :LOL:

Only kidding and point taken (y)

Perhaps if and when someone else suffers this disappointment I can get hold of some of the examples, would love to see the originals and the exif data.
 
PickleB said:
↑↑↑↑↑

Well; I did ask ... :ty:
Click to expand...


Not sure if that was Aimed at me, i have given up on this one...... but a short review according to this thread is: crap at distance, never really got to the "what distance" bit though.
Crap at motor sport, rugby, diving in fact unless your into taking pictures of sparrows at 10ft it's better off as a lamp shade :D
 
ive personal experience of this lens and the images shot with it on a rugby field at f/4, 400mm and approx 40-50mt distance are absolute rubbish, yes i agree there are good and bad copies but the images i saw were deffo from a rubbish copy, anything from 30mt in were superb though.
 
Gary Coyle said:
ive personal experience of this lens and the images shot with it on a rugby field at f/4, 400mm and approx 40-50mt distance are absolute rubbish, yes i agree there are good and bad copies but the images i saw were deffo from a rubbish copy, anything from 30mt in were superb though.
Click to expand...



I think the advice then to try before you buy is solid and clearly dependent of the subjects shot. If you get a chance and come across this again, can you see if you can get actual pictures of the problem.

Would just like to see these issues for myself.

Cheers

Grant
 
I have some 5h1te shots from it here, when i get a spare few minutes I'll stick them up - I'll also show you what it can do up close (which is pretty impressive actually)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top