Nikon Telephoto lens for D700

Seba

Seba

Messages
716
Name
Seba
Edit My Images
Yes
Hello Talk Photography,

I'm new to the site and looking for some advice on a my next lens to go with a soon to be purchased Nikon D700. I work in sport for a company that mainly focuses on Rugby and Horsing.

I'm currently using 2x Nikon D300, with a Sigma 120-400mm f4.5-5.6 and 17-70 f2.8-3.5. These have been great for the last 8 months but I am now looking to upgrade one of the D300s and the 120-400mm, as coupled together they have struggled on a couple of occasions in low light (Inside Twickenham stadium and at Cheltenham Racecourse's Hunter Chase Evening Meeting).

I have been doing a fair amount of looking around and feel the Nikon 200-400mm would be a good partner with the D700. Yes I'd be losing 80mm on the 120-400 but would sort of get it back with the FX D700, against the DX D300. The 120-400 has been a good durable lens for the range of events i've done.

http://www.warehouseexpress.com/buy-nikon-200-400mm-f4-g-vr-ii-af-s-ed-lens/p1520588

Now I'm not the most technical of people but know a fair amount, but i'm mainly after people experiences with the aforementioned equipment. Would you recommend them, or suggest something else. If so, what in a similar price range?

Also, not so important at the moment, but what flight case would you recommend for the Nikon 200-400/similar lens. My current bag won't fit a lens of that size in, and i feel a flight case would double up as a smaller seat where my WalkStool is too tall.

Thanks in advance

Seba
 
Gary Coyle said:
The 200-400 is a bummer in fading light, say using ISO 1250-1600 or above and the AF is nigh on useless
Click to expand...

On the occasions I struggled with the D300 + lens combo I would have thought the D700 and 200-400 be fine or at least handle much better. Are ther any other lenses you would suggest?

The Sigma and TCS mentioned isn't a bad shout. Do NIkon do a similar one?
 
To be honest, only a fast f/2.8 300 or 400mm prime, the Sigma 120-300 is useful but AF is twitchy under fading light, dont forget the 200-400 is an f/4 lens so a stop worse ISO and much slower AF in fading light.

i currently use a D700 and a 400mm f/2.8 and its certainally not brilliant under floodlights compared to a D3 so the 200-400 will be very much worse, Rovers Andy has the 200-400 and leaves it home if shooting under fading light.
 
Hmmm... I have thought about a 400mm f/2.8, just feel I'd lose the durability of the 200-400mm. Not needing to shoot on two cameras at Twickers. I rarely, and I mean rarely shoot under floodlights. It's usually the heavy grey cloud at the end of an afternoon that can cause problems.

It's a tricky situation. The majority of the time the previous combo of D300 and lens worked fine. Looking for the step up from it.
 
If you are considering buying a lens of that value, would it not be worthwhile to hire one and a D700 body to test out before dropping over £4k on a lens that might not do the job?
 
TCR4x4 said:
If you are considering buying a lens of that value, would it not be worthwhile to hire one and a D700 body to test out before dropping over £4k on a lens that might not do the job?
Click to expand...

Yeah, just looking into hiring for a preseaon Championship game. My local hire company don't do the 200-400 and say that the 400 f/2.8 is not available due to fraudulent previous hires.
 
Seba said:
Yeah, just looking into hiring for a preseaon Championship game. My local hire company don't do the 200-400 and say that the 400 f/2.8 is not available due to fraudulent previous hires.
Click to expand...

Lensesfohire should be able to help on the lens front, otherwise try Calumet - they do body and lens rentals for various periods of time :thumbs:
 
Last edited:
It won't have been the D300 struggling with the low light, it will have been your glass.

I'd try some decent f2.8 glass before wasting money on a D700 which probably isn't the answer.

AFAIK the AF system on the D700 is the same as the D300 - only the D3S has anything more advanced.
 
desantnik said:
It won't have been the D300 struggling with the low light, it will have been your glass.

I'd try some decent f2.8 glass before wasting money on a D700 which probably isn't the answer.

AFAIK the AF system on the D700 is the same as the D300 - only the D3S has anything more advanced.
Click to expand...

It's not the AF system that struggles with the D300, it's the image quality. To make sure I don't go below 1/500 (and that's the absolute limit) so that action if frozen I have to crank the ISO up, and beyond 800 the images can be pretty turd. The D700s higher ISOs seem more usable.
 
Hmmm you do know that the difference between f5.6 and f2.8 is two whole stops though? Thats the difference between shooting at ISO1600 and ISO400...

Not to be underestimated!

However, the old "FX is better at high ISO" thing becomes a real issue if you are a sports shooter because not only do you need an more expensive body but suddenly you also need to buy the uber-glass to keep your reach.

So basically you need something like a 400 2.8, which in itself probably is the answer to your light issue in its own right.

The 200-400 is seriously not the answer though!
 
desantnik said:
Hmmm you do know that the difference between f5.6 and f2.8 is two whole stops though? Thats the difference between shooting at ISO1600 and ISO400...

Not to be underestimated!

However, the old "FX is better at high ISO" thing becomes a real issue if you are a sports shooter because not only do you need an more expensive body but suddenly you also need to buy the uber-glass to keep your reach.

So basically you need something like a 400 2.8, which in itself probably is the answer to your light issue in its own right.

The 200-400 is seriously not the answer though!
Click to expand...

The 400 2.8 sounds good, my only worry is for example with rugby, with that length, I won't be able to get the tries in front of me, without having to switch to a different camera with a shorter lens on.

Does a 200-400 2.8 exist?
 
Seba said:
The 400 2.8 sounds good, my only worry is for example with rugby, with that length, I won't be able to get the tries in front of me, without having to switch to a different camera with a shorter lens on.

Does a 200-400 2.8 exist?
Click to expand...

Sigma do a 200-500 f/2.8.....

sigma_200_500mm_zoom.jpg

:D
 
Seba said:
The 400 2.8 sounds good, my only worry is for example with rugby, with that length, I won't be able to get the tries in front of me, without having to switch to a different camera with a shorter lens on.

Does a 200-400 2.8 exist?
Click to expand...

Nope, it would be the size of a cannon (not a Canon lol!).

You'll have to do what certainly in motorsport is a common sight - a long prime on one body and a shorter zoom on another - usually with us its a 300 or 400 with or without a TC and then a 70-200 on the other body. Swap from one to the other as appropriate.

I'm sure the rugby/football sport people do the same.
 
desantnik said:
Nope, it would be the size of a cannon (not a Canon lol!).

You'll have to do what certainly in motorsport is a common sight - a long prime on one body and a shorter zoom on another - usually with us its a 300 or 400 with or without a TC and then a 70-200 on the other body. Swap from one to the other as appropriate.

I'm sure the rugby/football sport people do the same.
Click to expand...

Yeah, they do. The other photographer I usually work with at rugby will do this, but there opens up the chance of missing the action whilst changing cameras.
 
Gary is spot on :thumbs:
 
Granted, timing is key, but i've seen seasoned pros miss important/great images when changing cameras.

I feel perhaps I had made my mind up before i'd even started posting, but the suggestions and advice have been very helpful. I think I'm going to try and hire a couple of different lenses and see which works for me and my situations.
 
You can't catch them all, nobody gets all the shots... the experienced get most of them and the rest is simply where we all get to make a few quid in surprise windfalls 8)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top