Which one? Nikon 300mm f/2.8 or 200-400mm f/4

300mm f/2.8 or 200-400mm f/4

  • 300mm f/2.8

    Votes: 11 61.1%

  • 200-400mm f/4

    Votes: 7 38.9%
  • Total voters
    18
Joeturner11

Joeturner11

Messages
6,426
Name
Joe
Edit My Images
No
Iam in a dilemma at the moment between these two lenses the Nikon 300mm f/2.8 VR II & Nikon 200-400mm f/4 VR II. I have been pondering over which one to get for a few months now. I'am getting one of the two soon in a few months, But want to be certain on which one to go for first, I mainly do Sport Photography and Wildlife Photography, for the sport the 300mm f/2.8 would be great and having f/2.8 there for low light would also be a bonus, But the 200-400mm will have alot more versatility. ( Both using along side with my 70-200mm f/2.8VRII ). The wildlife photography I would use the 300mm with my TC-20EIII giving me 600mm on the D800 which is a great reach but I keep thinking using the 200-400mm without a converter will be better than the 300mm with a 2x on? Anyone's thoughts on this topic would be much appraised :) , I have added a pole also so you can share your views for which one you would choice!
 
Joe, I had the 300 2.8 VR11...............stonking lens! Pin sharp & hand-holdable. I used it frequently with the 1.7TC

I now have the 200-400 VR!. It's an excellent lens, but not quite as fast as the 300 & heavier to lug around, but obviously better for it's zoom range. (I don't have a 1.4TC but lots of decent images with the combo)

If you want just 1 lens to use, for versatility on multiple subject matter (sports & wildlife) the 200-400 is great, but if you need the F2.8 for low light, the 300 is your choice.

TBH, for birding & wildlife at a distance, you would be better with the 500 F4, but they aint cheap.

Bottom line, there really isn't a perfect all-rounder, it's deciding where to compromise really & your specific needs.

Sorry I can't be of more help.
 
I had the 300 f2.8 (originally Carl's) and it is a sharp beauty ... it's great with a 1.4x and very good with a 2.0x
However, for wildlife, it just didn't have the length without a TC so I sold it and got the 200-400 (another story there but now repaired) and the 200-400 gives much more flexibility thanks to the zoom and it too works well with the 1.4x and 2.0x ... but obviously with the latter you may well need to up the ISO a bit.
I don't find the lens too heavy to carry around, it's always on a monopod or tripod over my shoulder ... wouldn't want to hand-hold for too long though with either.
I agree that a 500 or 600 would be ideal but quite costly, even used!
 
I'm in exactly the same position... But have decided on the 300 2.8. (& teles).
Dont forget you can also look at the 80-400 G that is surposed to be a good lens too.
 
It's a lot of money Joe, and both lenses have their subjective virtues. Only you will know which one is best for your use, so if you're uncertain, hire them first.
 
markyboy.1967 said:
Defo the 300 f2.8. Lovely sharp lens which takes the tc very very well. The 200-400 is a great lens with a useful zoom but although good it doesnt take the tc quite as well as the 300 does.
Click to expand...

I had the same dilemma when I was switching. I had owned the Canon 300mm f2.8 IS and had the choice with Nikon for a direct replacement or the 200-400mm zoom. After a while I went for the prime on the basis that it should be better with TCs than the zoom. But I shot mainly sport with it and then wildlife - and in my ignorant bliss had never had a problem using the Canon prime....

HoppyUK said:
It's a lot of money Joe, and both lenses have their subjective virtues. Only you will know which one is best for your use, so if you're uncertain, hire them first.
Click to expand...

^^This really. In an ideal world you would have both as they are strongest in very specific situations. Both are great lenses though and neither purchase would be a wasted one.
 
Thanks for all the comments everyone, I guess at the end of the day it comes down to personal preference, and I think for me the 200-400mm is the way to go as it is alot more versatile which I think will suit me better, and certainly for the wildlife. :)
 
Bit off-topic but the Sigma 120-300 f2.8 Sport gives the advantages of both ? Just a thought.
 
Joe
I had the same dilemma 3 months ago and went for the 300 f2.8…………and very happy with what I got………………
I am now saving for the 500mm f4 and hope to get that in June as the 300mm just doesn’t get it for the birds and i find the TC slow the 300mm down to where it is aggravating
 
Last edited:
ndwgolf said:
i find the TC slow the 300mm down to where it is aggravating
Click to expand...

Thats whats pushing me to go for the 200-400mm as I won't need to use a converter which damages the performance of the lens alot, I feel that there is no point buying the 300mm when I'am going to stick a 2x on it all the time when birding, where as I can get the 200-400mm and shoot without a TC which will be a great finally not using a TC for birding!
 
Which ever you choose you won't be disappointed Joe, they are both quality lenses.
 
What about a second hand (or new) 400mm f2.8? Better lens for football than a 300mm and still very good with a modest 1.4TC for birding. It's a bit heavier but you could easily pair down kit (less food/water/lighter boots etc etc) to save the weight over the 200-400.
 
Dr_O said:
What about a second hand (or new) 400mm f2.8? Better lens for football than a 300mm and still very good with a modest 1.4TC for birding. It's a bit heavier but you could easily pair down kit (less food/water/lighter boots etc etc) to save the weight over the 200-400.
Click to expand...

The 400mm is out my price bracket at £6500ish new, I'am not considering a second hand lens tbh, for the money I'am paying out I want a brand new lens, as it comes with warranty etc and peace of mind.
 
I have the 200-400 and it is 'wow!' especially when compared to the sigma 150-500. Not used the 300 but despite its reputation the 200-400 will give greater flexibility, especially for sport. Also imo with a d800 you cab crop hard where necessary and still get a good image.
 
sorry you didn't mention birding in the first post.....

500 f4
 
I've only skim read this so a apols if its been mentioned, but have you not considered hiring one first to see?

I was in the same position two years ago, but I only needed it for sport (Polo) and when I tried the the 200-400 it was just too slow, plus I didn't like being stuck on f4.

I ended up with the 400 f2.8, which I love :)
 
I had exactly the same dilemma a few month ago. I was looking at either a 300 f2.8 vr1 or the 200-400 f4 vr1. After reading many many reviews I decided on the 300mm f2.8 vr1, this was mainly due to 1/ benefit of f2.8 when light get low and I need to keep ISO down (I use dx cameras so no extra ISO benefits of fx), 2/ use with a 1.4 TC and 2x TC giving the ranges of 300 f2.8, 420 f4 and 600 f5.6, all very useful as I could not afford another lens at this price range.3/ 300 f2.8 was cheaper (it was £2300 compared to £3000-3500 for 200-400).

I find the lens has pretty good AF speed with both the 1.4 and 2x tc's, IQ is pretty good too. The is a noticeable difference with the 2x but the bare 300 is like lightning. I was able to get quite sharp barn images with the 2x TC on a d7100 so your d800 should give better results.

The only down side of the 300 f2.8 is having no zoom but to me having a stop more light was of greater benefit. What put me off the 200-400 was reviews saying about soft focus on further away subjects, it was hard to pin down a distance too as no reviews were clear. Thom hogans review mentions this as do several others, his 200-400 review is here. This said many don't find it a problem as the way that shoot they don't encounter it.

I think the biggest difference is the zoom and whether that is more important to you than f2.8. I would say renting to test your choice would be best, especially at this cost. I didn't do this a friend already had a 300 f2.8 so I knew it would be ok for me. That said you probably can't go too far wrong with either of them.
 
Joeturner11 said:
Nikon 300mm f/2.8 VR II & Nikon 200-400mm f/4 VR II. -------------- I mainly do Sport Photography and Wildlife Photography!
Click to expand...

If you are doing field sports such as football or rugby then the choice is really simple.. the f2.8 ....as the f4 at any range will be far too limiting in poor winter light or floodlights...
 
Joeturner11 said:
The 400mm is out my price bracket at £6500ish new, I'am not considering a second hand lens tbh, for the money I'am paying out I want a brand new lens, as it comes with warranty etc and peace of mind.
Click to expand...

Fair enough- had a look and it doesn't seem to be any cheaper from likes of digital rev and that's before any import tax etc. You could try Jessops and see if you could get it interest free for a year.
If you make more money from wildlife then maybe the 200-400 is ok- don't know much about wildlife shooting other than longer seems better but for sport I would chose the 300mm if all else was out. I do think it's too short though but there's always compromises to be made so possibly the 200-400 for both and you'll just need to hope that high ISO will get you enough shutter speed for winter games.
 
Dr_O said:
Fair enough- had a look and it doesn't seem to be any cheaper from likes of digital rev and that's before any import tax etc. You could try Jessops and see if you could get it interest free for a year.
If you make more money from wildlife then maybe the 200-400 is ok- don't know much about wildlife shooting other than longer seems better but for sport I would chose the 300mm if all else was out. I do think it's too short though but there's always compromises to be made so possibly the 200-400 for both and you'll just need to hope that high ISO will get you enough shutter speed for winter games.
Click to expand...

Overall I think the 200-400mm is the way for me, I will probably end up getting it from WEX or Calumet, I won't need 1 year interest free as I can get the money for it, It may struggle in the winters we have with the poor lighting but I always have my 70-200mm f/2.8VR II I can use along side for when light gets bad. Overall the versatility of the lens really appeals to me and not using a converter would be heaven!
 
just picked up my 300 vr2 - damm its fast focusing...... Hoping to play tomorrow with a 1.4 tele on it.
 
Its been an very expensive week - I bought a brand new 80-400G for the wife as well. :( That arrives monday
 
Hopefully - if the rain stays away - I'll be Heron shooting tomorrow
 
I really think you have to make a choice on which subject you want to specialise in, and at what level you intend to work. I know there is a lot of guesswork involved, but when you're about to drop this amount of money you have to know - I've been there with the trembling hand signing the big cheque.

You have a D800 and a D3 which are quality cameras but serve different purposes - the D3 is fast but lacks the brilliant high ISO of the D3s whilst the D800 is perfect for pre set-up shots rather than the modern style of shooting action. However, as good as they are, they both lack a little for your intended subjects with British light.

If you decide to go down the wildlife route then waiting and buying a longer super tele may be best (although the 200-400 is great for bigger subjects), but if you want to go down the sports route, you'll really want f2.8 unless you're shooting with the latest modern body - 1dx / D4 - at a ground with premiership level lighting, at which the high ISO may allow the use of an f4 lens.

For me, and I know you want to buy new, I'd really reccommend buying a used lens that you won't lost much, if any, money on whilst you save up more money for the gear you'll really need to compete at pro level
 
pooley said:
I really think you have to make a choice on which subject you want to specialise in
Click to expand...

As said in my original post its Sport and Wildlife I'am buying the lens for, Overall I would say slightly edging towards more sport.

pooley said:
the D3 is fast but lacks the brilliant high ISO of the D3s
Click to expand...

The D3 doesn't have the ISO of the D3s but still is good upto 6400 for sports.

pooley said:
D800 is perfect for pre set-up shots rather than the modern style of shooting action
Click to expand...

D800 is a good camera in my opinion for wildlife photography, Doesn't have the FPS but makes up for it in quality.

pooley said:
both lack a little for your intended subjects with British light.
Click to expand...

Don't agree with this to be honest with you. Many pros from Getty Images, PA etc. still use D700's currently for example so using D3 for sport wouldn't be a problem from what I can see its a more than capable camera for the Job. As you were saying I would struggle with lighting with a f/4 but I also have the 70-200mm.

pooley said:
For me, and I know you want to buy new, I'd really reccommend buying a used lens that you won't lost much, if any, money on whilst you save up more money for the gear you'll really need to compete at pro level
Click to expand...

Personally as I have said, I'am going to buy a new lens not used, Used isn't a opinion for me. The amount of Money I'am going to spend on it just to safe £500ish isn't worth it in my opinion when I can get warranty and piece of mind that I know the history of the lens, Also I think a D3 with a 300mm f/2.8VR II or 200-400mm f/4VR II & 70-200mm f/2.8VR II is good enough to 'compete at pro level' personally.
 
This easy is Joe. I learned the hard way. I had both for a while. I soon found myself using the 200-400mm. Hardly ever picked up the 300mm. So, because I loved primes, I sold the 200-400mm. To force myself to use the 300mm.
That didn't work. I missed the 200-400mm so much. I bought it back from the person that I sold it to. So back to square one. I used it all of the time again. But, I felt guilty, having that 300mm 2.8 sat there, not being used. I kept telling myself that I should be giving it some love. So I sold the 200-400mm again! To someone on here, who made it clear to me that he wouldn't sell it back to me, if I changed my mind. Sorted!!
Erm, not quite. I missed it...:banghead:
So I went out and bought a new 200-400mm vrII. :runaway: Sold the 300mm shortly afterwards and never missed it. I do have an itch for the 600mm, but resisting it. Because I have that with the 200-400mm and converter..

So, in short, the 200-400mm is so good, I bought it 3 times... :ROFLMAO:

Don't make the same expensive mistake that I made Joe. If having the flexibility of being able to zoom in and out of your subject appeals to you, get it bought. you wont regret it.


Kev.
 
Last edited:
And Kev's hit it on the head.
All of this is debateable but.......
A prime will give you ultimate quality.
A prime with a tc will add some flexibility to the detriment of quality.
A zoom will give you more opportunity.

So, IMVO the 200-400 is the way to go - let's face it, it's not exactly a bad lens!!

I spend most of my time with a 600 or an 80-400.

My guilty secret is that I keep an old 400 2.8 non-vr for early morning ospreys - it's quite a bit better than the 80-400 but considerably less versatile (and fairly heavy!).
If I didn't have that plus the 80-400 I'd have the 200-400.
A good shot is better than a missed great shot.

cheers, cw
 
kevshore said:
This easy is Joe. I learned the hard way. I had both for a while. I soon found myself using the 200-400mm. Hardly ever picked up the 300mm. So, because I loved primes, I sold the 200-400mm. To force myself to use the 300mm.
That didn't work. I missed the 200-400mm so much. I bought it back from the person that I sold it to. So back to square one. I used it all of the time again. But, I felt guilty, having that 300mm 2.8 sat there, not being used. I kept telling myself that I should be giving it some love. So I sold the 200-400mm again! To someone on here, who made it clear to me that he wouldn't sell it back to me, if I changed my mind. Sorted!!
Erm, not quite. I missed it...:banghead:
So I went out and bought a new 200-400mm vrII. :runaway: Sold the 300mm shortly afterwards and never missed it. I do have an itch for the 600mm, but resisting it. Because I have that with the 200-400mm and converter..

So, in short, the 200-400mm is so good, I bought it 3 times... :ROFLMAO:

Don't make the same expensive mistake that I made Joe. If having the flexibility of being able to zoom in and out of your subject appeals to you, get it bought. you wont regret it.


Kev.
Click to expand...

Must have love it to buy it 3 times over ;) How do you find the 200-400mm with converters? I currently have the TC-20EIII but that will stop the lens down to f/8 and 800mm not sure if it will be quick enough or not, so mite end up swapping for the TC-14EII
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top