Thom article and the 200-400mm

Started May 20, 2008 | Discussions thread
Mike Neary Veteran Member • Posts: 3,355
Re: Thom article and the 200-400mm

Thom Hogan wrote:

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.

Thom,

if you say you'd use two bodies to cover the pitch, I'm assuming you'd shoot the 300/2.8 VR + 1.4 on one, and a 70-200 VR + 1.4 on the other - correct?

So are you saying the IQ of the 300/2.8 with 1.4 is better than the 200-400 at 400mm?

And are you also saying, the IQ of the 70-200 VR + 1.4 is better than the 200-400 in the 200-280mm range?

Or is the 200-400 in fact better than the combo setup at some part of the focal range...?

Thanks so much

Mike

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