200-400 4,0 vs 300/2,8 VR + TC 1,4II

Started Apr 24, 2013 | Discussions thread
jsr4522 Regular Member • Posts: 110
Re: 200-400 4,0 vs 300/2,8 VR + TC 1,4II

My definition of long distance is 40+ meters (also depends on atmospherics, humidity, air quality, ect).  At 20-30m its great for large subjects and can do birds, but I would prefer the 300 f/2,8 II + TC for birds.  I totally agree with RBFresno  - its a great lens when your subject fills 40%+ of the frame at 350-375mm, but like all zooms, the breakdown (and it is <5-10% quality loss to a non pixel peeper) comes at 400 @ infinity focus when you are shooting something that is less than 50% of the frame.

I would also second the recommendation of the 80-400 AFS VRII.  Unless I plan on shooting bears or other large game in low/challenging lighting conditions  - one stop down its pretty close to the 200-400 (90-95%) and a whole lot easier to carry around as a second lens......

Laci55 wrote:

Thank U so much for the detailed answer! It was nice to read your opinion about the picture quality at long distances... If I understand U right it is not so bad as some people saying it was... Could U please tell me what is the distance you think it was "long distance" by definition... How is the lens at 20-30 meter distances? Have a nice day! Best regards; Laci

-- hide signature --

'If you can keep your head when all about you are losing theirs...' Kipling

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