Thom article and the 200-400mm

Started May 20, 2008 | Discussions thread
Thom Hogan Forum Pro • Posts: 13,659
Re: Thom article and the 200-400mm

Wanchese wrote:

OK. Then let's see someone's 400mm f2.8 take this shot, from the same
game I shot the other picture. This was shot at 200mm f/4, iso320 @
1/2000th on a monopod. Focal length was 200mm. I was by a corner
flag, shooting towards the middle of the box.

Sometimes we sacrifice one attribute for another. Personally, I would have two bodies to shoot the pitch, just as do with basketball and football. Also, since you claim that one image was at 560mm and the other at 200mm, you obviously were taking the teleconverter on and off. You could just as easily have changed lenses.

Again, my point isn't that the 200-400mm is bad. I still use mine for some situations where I want flexibility over ultimate image quality. The question you have to ask yourself these days as a pro is this: am I more likely to get the picture that will sell over my competitor's with flexibility or image quality? For some things--sports for overnight publication, for example--my answer would be flexibility. For other things--selling wildlife images to NG or another publication where there is immense competition, for example--I'm more likely to pick image quality.

-- hide signature --

Thom Hogan
author, Complete Guides to Nikon bodies (18 and counting)

Post (hide subjects) Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow