Final call - nikon 300/f2.8 or 200-400

merv

merv

Messages
1,118
Name
Mervyn
Edit My Images
Yes
I have opted to get one of these lenses and one only and need a final push as to which one to get. Mainly for motorsport or planes. Will have to offload about 4 lesser used lenses to help finance the deal. Obviously the 300 is cheaper by about £700. Thanks in anticipation. merv:thinking:
 
Helluva nice quandry.......:lol:

For flexibility, I would plump for the 2-400.....:thumbs:
 
I had the 200-400mm and changed to the 300mm 2.8. I miss the 200-400mm zoom but the 300mm is just superb. I found the 200-400mm hard work hand held for aircraft. I definitely get a lot more keepers with the 300mm and it's just so sharp!
The 200-400mm may be coming back to me. But I'll keep it for my wildlife shots on a tripod and stick with the 300 for aircraft and motorsport. Its just such a workable lens. Brilliant with converters too.


Kev.
 
I've used both a fair few times now and although the 200-400 is indeed versatile and by no means shoddy, the image quality from the 300mm 2.8 is IMO, far superior.

It's essentially a compromise of quality for versatility.

200-400 f4
4011126657_8e7fd13121_o.jpg


300 2.8
3231268291_934fd8223a_o.jpg
 
fracster said:
Helluva nice quandry.......:lol:

For flexibility, I would plump for the 2-400.....:thumbs:
Click to expand...

That's going to have one big front element Ade :D nice range, although some one will want to go a bit wider. :p

Merv you already have the 300 f4 AF-S so are fully aware of it's reach, and know if the focal length serves your purpose, if it does go for the extra speed of the 300 f2.8, you already have TC's that will work with it.

Merv in motor sport f2.8 beats f4, plus the 300 f2.8 will focus like lightning, not that the 200 - 400 is slow, but the 300 f 2.8 will be quicker.
 
Good to hear your first hand experiences of both Kev. Martyn, I've valued your opinions before and will probably run with the 300/2.8. It is a bit more limiting but you obviously get away with it for aircraft although we only have one airshow a year here with hoardes of bike and motorsport events. Also it seems to be a general opinion that lugging the 2-400 about is a bit of a nightmare and also it does not seem to be 'aircraft friendly' when trying to point it up to the sky handheld. Also its dearer again. Tomas you can see the difference in the skaters costume detail between the two lenses - good examples.
Was looking at trading in some lesser used lenses to help finance the deal and keep me out of the divorce court but this may not be the best way to maximise their value. Any suggestions? Thanks guys - merv :thumbs:
 
Its an interesting quandry... I have the 300 f4 and use it with a 1.7x TC... I too have thought long and hard about this dilema...

The issues as I see them are:

1) Do I really need a zoom? Its not like I can't find places to shoot from currently at 300/510mm.

2) The 300 2.8 is, well, f2.8 at 300mm and that obviously is better.

3) I can get 420mm at f4 with a 1.4x on a 300 2.8. The 1.4x TC is a lot less money than the extra for the 200-400.

4) The 200-400 is bigger and heavier than the already heavy 300 2.8. Will I actually lug it around all day?

5) The 300 f4 I have currently shows what sort of IQ I can expect from the 200-400 and I do know the 300 2.8 trumps it.

6) From what I have seen its largely lossless 200-400mm, I could add a 1.4x or 1.7x TC to the long end and get some really, really long shots. My gut unproven feel is that the 200-400 with a 1.4x TC would yield better results than a 300 2.8 with a 2x TC.

7) I have doubts in my mind about the 200-400 and TC's because of my current experience with the 70-200 VR and TC's - zooms it would seem don't take TC's very well - and thats even with probably the best Nikon zoom on the market.

So there you go, on balance I think it would have to be the 300 2.8 and later a 500 f4.
 
The 200-400 with a TC-14Eii is superb, so worth the investment if you go that route. Yes, the 200-400 is heavy in the field, but it's well worth the effort. As many others have said, it's all down to what you need the extra reach for.
 
I meant to also say:

8) I am talking about on my DX body... if I had FX, I think the game would change and the 200-400 would be on the shopping list...
 
x777 said:
The 200-400 with a TC-14Eii is superb, so worth the investment if you go that route. Yes, the 200-400 is heavy in the field, but it's well worth the effort. As many others have said, it's all down to what you need the extra reach for.
Click to expand...

The 200-400 is pretty good with the 1.7TC ISO 1000 f6.7

However if it was me, bearing in mind the predominant use being motor sport, I would go with 300 f2.8 prime.
 
Knowing the tracks you go to and shooting at them myself, 400mm seems to be about right for the worst places to stand, but sometimes 70mm can be too long. Never having used either lens, if it were my money, the 300 prime and a 1.4x T/C would be where my money would go.

Give Calumet a call and see if they have any display models to look, feel and hold on the camera or rent both from Stuart and try them in the 'real world' A lot of money to spend that yoyu've never used before. Both get great reviews, but you'd expect that at the price you're paying.
 
300mm F2.8 and use the spare cash to get the 1.4x.
This will give you a lighter, faster focusing piece of kit without compromising too much on range and flexibilty.
 
Its simple don't compromise, 300mm 2.8, 90% of my shots are with this lens, it is just stunning, other 10% are with the 400 2.8, now this one is heavy !!!!!.
 
Thanks guys. Already own 1.4 and 1.7 TC so well on my way to the prime I feel. Have to get rid of some lenses first! (5nO - 35mm/1.2, 50mm/1.8, 85mm/1.4, 70-300VR and 300/f4 - sound nuts doesnt it, but the new 300/2.8 takes some financing - these ones I dont use so much except the 300/f4 of course but is there any point in having 2 x 300 lenses? merv:thinking::thinking:
 
Having never shot motorsport it's a hard call for me to make but the 300 is lightening fast to focus even with a 1.4x on. I went for the 200-400 because overall reach and flexibility was what I needed. I don't really think you'd go wrong with either to be honest :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top