200-400 300 2.8 300 f4

if you could only buy one which one nikon 200-400, 300 2.8 ,300 f4 and why

good said:

if you could only buy one which one nikon 200-400, 300 2.8 ,300 f4
and why

Click to expand...

It'd depend on what I was shooting and what my budget was. If I needed low-light performance, then the 300/2.8 is the right answer, coupled with a TC-14EII, which makes it a 420/4, it'd probably be my most likely all-around answer.

(I chose the 400/2.8 as my answer though.)

Paul
--
http://www.fluiditgroup.com/blog/pdr

I don't have an answer for that, as I have never had to seriously think about it.

However, if I were thinking along these lines, I would add the 200 f2 (with some tcs) and the Sigma 120-300 2.8 to the list of potentials as well.

-Suntan

If speed mattered, probably the 300 2.8. If I was going to shoot sports, virtually always in daylight, on a budget, the 200-400. Though both of those two are monopod lenses (another factor to consider).

Personally I prefer the 300 F4 (I own a first generation F4Af and a 300 4.5 EDIF MF -- I prefer the latter for size but used the former for more than a decade handheld) if the new one isn't cumbersome (haven't ever tried one) I'd probably prefer that.

--
'Nice pen, bet you write good stories with it.'

I've been struggling with the same decision for 5 months. It boils down to what you are going to shoot. Lately, I've been shooting more sports, esp. little league with terrible lights.

I've been using the 70-200 VR, mostly at 200. If the light is decent, I'll add the 1.4x tele.

I decided on the 200 f/2.0. I like the VR (vs the 300 - though the 300 will probably be VR this year) and the shallow DOF at 2.0. With a 1.4x it's 280 f/2.8 and with the 1.7x it's 340 f/4. Overlaps the other choices, though without the zoom of the 200-400.

I have a 400 f/2.8 but it is too long for most of my needs. If you were shooting wildlife I think the 200-400 would be the way to go.

The 200 is going to be great along the sidelines for football in the fall.

Got the 200 in a week ago. #$#@@ B&H sent a gray market lens; talk about a let down...

--
Joe
http://www.joetravisphotography.com/

I had to make the same decision about a year ago. I ended up with the 300/2.8 because of the extra stop of light and the slightly smaller size.

--
Geir Bjerke, Norway ( http://www.darkside.no/ )

can decide which you need, and why. It totally depends on your shooting style, and what you are going to shoot.
And, this is the classic delimma all photogs face when going long.

I first chose the 200-400 f4.0 because it gave me the reach and at the time, I was mostly shooting during the day. Even at f4.0, in the evening, especially with clouds, I still need to start cranking up the iso. And I rarely shoot lower than iso 400 (D2X and D200). Which is OK. I also shoot at f4.0 about 70% of the time.

But when I started High School shooting football last fall, I needed more speed for the night games. So, I rented a 300 f2.8 for the night games, which is pretty good reach when I have good field access. Especially since I can use HSC on my D2X (for tight out-of-camera shots).

Last month, I paid off the 200-400 and had the decision between the 300 f2.8 and 200 f2.0. I chose the 200 f2.0 because it still gives me almost 300mm @f2.8 with the 1.4 tc (for those night games) but gives me even more speed @ 200mm. I figured the 300mm f2.8 was a bit redudant @ f4.0 (with 1.4 tc) since I already have the 200-400 f4.0.

I personally would never consider the 300mm f4.0 unless you were on a tight budget, and/or need the weight savings. For me, it is in no-mans land speed and length wise for sports. But then again, it depends on your style, and what you are going to shoot. It might be great for shooting birds and would be quite packable.

good said:

if you could only buy one which one nikon 200-400, 300 2.8 ,300 f4
and why

Click to expand...

jttravis said:

I decided on the 200 f/2.0. I like the VR (vs the 300 - though the
300 will probably be VR this year) and the shallow DOF at 2.0. With

Click to expand...

The Nikon 300 has had VR for a couple of years now, if you don't mean "I'm going to upgrade to VR this year."

Rumor says the 400 will go VR- we'll have to see.

jttravis said:

I have a 400 f/2.8 but it is too long for most of my needs. If you
were shooting wildlife I think the 200-400 would be the way to go.

Click to expand...

The 400/2.8 gives me about 45m on each side of an f/4 lens when shooting wildlife in the dawn and dusk light when things are most active. But I suppose it depends on what you're shooting and where.

Paul
--
http://www.fluiditgroup.com/blog/pdr

Wow!, My prediction of a VR 300 for the end of the year has come true!

Brain fart on my side, I was thinking about Nikon not having VR in the Big 3 (400, 500, 600) and for some reason said 300...

I agree with the assesments above, 200 f/2 for night football (+ - 1.4 tele) and 200-400 for day stuff. Great combination. Hope to have the 200-400 by the end of the year.

--
Joe
http://www.joetravisphotography.com/

--
If you have a moment, check out my site:
http://www.zotsandboo.com

I've been looking at the long lenses since my son is moving to a big soccer field. In the 300/2.8 vs 200-400 thread the latter although with outstanding optics was not as good as the 300/2.8. the 300 along with the 200/2 is regarded by some as the 2 best lenses Nikon has produced. I'm not sure how the 400/2.8 compares to these 2 optically. I'm leaning towards the 300/2.8 VR knowing that it's as good as it gets.
--
Jake

sfnikon said:

I've been looking at the long lenses since my son is moving to a
big soccer field. In the 300/2.8 vs 200-400 thread the latter
although with outstanding optics was not as good as the 300/2.8.
the 300 along with the 200/2 is regarded by some as the 2 best
lenses Nikon has produced. I'm not sure how the 400/2.8 compares
to these 2 optically. I'm leaning towards the 300/2.8 VR knowing
that it's as good as it gets.

Click to expand...

If you believe the MTF charts, the 400 beats the 200, but is slightly short of the 300.

http://nikonimaging.com/global/products/lens/af/telephoto/af-s_vr_200mmf_2g_if/index.htm

http://nikonimaging.com/global/products/lens/af/telephoto/af-s_vr_300mmf_28g_if/index.htm

http://nikonimaging.com/global/products/lens/af/telephoto/af-s_400mmf_28d_if_2/index.htm

Paul
--
http://www.fluiditgroup.com/blog/pdr

good said:

if you could only buy one which one nikon 200-400, 300 2.8 ,300 f4
and why

Click to expand...

Given the same choice, I added the 300mm f/2.8, followed by the 200mm f/2 and 400mm f/2.8 .

For wildlife, you really want that extra stop. It pays off in background blur and higher shutter speeds. The 300mm f/4 is nice for portability, but it just won't give you that blur or offer a sharpness sweet spot at f/4. Also, you really can't get far with teleconverters on the f/4, as focusing is compromised severely with anything more than the TC14.

I turned down the 200-400 for similar reasons, though that lens was tempting. Overall, I went with primes.

300 2.8, low light, razor sharp with and without the 1.4x tele but I do miss the zoom (teles are not the speediest option)

regards
Ray

good said:

if you could only buy one which one nikon 200-400, 300 2.8 ,300 f4
and why

Click to expand...

--

http://www.pbase.com/ray645

Its cheap (?) and light and very, very sharp;
really an excellent lens.
The others are also superb but very
expensive and heavy. The 300 f4 goes
along very easily; taking the other two requires
planning and a real commitment.

I have the 300 mm f4 and the 200-400 f4 zoom.

maljo

well, the question is "only one". no doubt in my mind. go for speed and sharpness. cannot beat the 300 2.8 vr. shot is from this morning, already uploaded and accepted by microstock agent. iso 100, f2.8, 1/500 sec. on tripod.