Nikon 200-400 f4 at footy

ChrisDonnelly

ChrisDonnelly

Suspended / Banned
Messages
279
Name
Christopher
Edit My Images
No
Anyone used one.
Thoughts how it handles low light and focus speed at f4. Will be using in a d3s
Cheers
 
Joeturner11 said:
For footy Photography your better off getting a 300mm or 400mm f/2.8 as in the winter months f/4 will be a struggle even with a D3s...
Click to expand...

Trying to find one cheap enough is hard.
Have owned the 300 2.8 and it's a cracking lens but not enough on a full frame camera for footy too much cropping for managers and other end goals
 
ChrisDonnelly said:
Trying to find one cheap enough is hard.
Have owned the 300 2.8 and it's a cracking lens but not enough on a full frame camera for footy too much cropping for managers and other end goals
Click to expand...

The 400mm's are hard to come by, you could go and buy the new one at only 10k ;) I personally in your case if its between the 300mm and 200-400mm, the 300mm + crop would be better as the 200-400mm will struggle to much in the coming months with the light
 
Joeturner11 said:
The 400mm's are hard to come by, you could go and buy the new one at only 10k ;) I personally in your case if its between the 300mm and 200-400mm, the 300mm + crop would be better as the 200-400mm will struggle to much in the coming months with the light
Click to expand...

nice one, had a feeling this would be the comments. so it confirms it.
wont be getting another 300, have my eye on a few 400's cheap (ish):confused:
 
Just seen One on Fleabay for £4300 but it now

Nikon 400mm f2.8G ED VR Lens in good condition razor sharp it has the flight case included as standard and also both feet for the monopod.
It has a couple of scratches around where the monopod fits but doesn't affect the quality of the lens.
Just been in at Nikon and had the following with over £300 spent Fit new spare parts

Infinity focus, shift/ deviation and lens resolution checked
Lens communication and Aperture function checked.
AF/VR functionality and accuracy checked - recalibrated if necessary. Focus/Zoom ring functionality checked and adjusted if necessary. Elements cleaned and optical alignment checked.
Check, test and clean equipment
 
Hi Chris.
Bernard Platt now uses a 200-400 exclusively for both his RL & Footy!, message him on Facebook for a true run down of the lens!
You still interested in the 400 I pointed to? (not that i'me jealous :) ). Kind regards Graham.
 
Bluesman graham said:
Hi Chris.
Bernard Platt now uses a 200-400 exclusively for both his RL & Footy!, message him on Facebook for a true run down of the lens!
You still interested in the 400 I pointed to? (not that i'me jealous :) ). Kind regards Graham.
Click to expand...
You can get away with f/4 at Langtree Park mate, same at Leeds, Salford, Hudds but theres many more you cant. Bernard also uses the much improved MKII
 
Used a 200-400 f4 MK2 for a couple of years for everything. Great lens. In fact, think that's it in my profile picture at Twickenham.

It's best use, that I've found, is kids rugby on small pitches, and cycling events; triathlons, sportives etc.

It struggles in the winter months at the big field sports, in very low light. Additionally, having the ability to come out to 200mm means you are sometimes stuck in two minds when the action gets close. Whereas if you are shooting on a standard 400mm and 70-200mm set up, it'c clear when you should change camera.

All that said, mine is your for just £3999.99 (and I'll throw in the rest of this bagel I'm eating)
 
I used a Canon 200-400 f/4 with the built-in teleconverter at the World Cup. It was excellent, especially with the ability to drop in the teleconverter for corners/action at the other end or shooting the managers/celebs etc. I haven't used a Nikon equivalent.

All the World Cup arenas were very well lit. In the UK unless you had the lastest body I think you'd struggle with shutter speed at a lot of non-Premier League grounds. With a 1Dx or top Nikon equivalent you'd be OK I think.

From a usage perspective, it does take quite a bit of getting used to. Specifically, the point at which you switch from the 200-400 to your shorter lens (presumably a 70-200) is very different compared to when you use a 400. Obviously you can zoom back as the players come towards you, and follow them into the penalty area or wherever, but if your mark scores and celebrates towards you you'll rapidly find yourself on the wrong lens and scrabbling for the 70-200 (or just getting a tight cele shot of course). Alternatively, you switch a bit earlier and possibly miss a shot from outside the box. On a prime, you'd probably switch quite a bit earlier and shoot loose on the 70-200 and therefore be less likely to miss anything.

However, I really liked the flexibility of zooming as players ran towards me. I could also frame loose then tight shots of individual players and so on without changing bodies. It's also lighter and less hassle to move around than the 400 2.8. The image quality isn't as good as a prime though - there's just something about a 400 2.8 which is lovely to behold. Now, a 200-400 2.8 would be very interesting.
 
Thanks for the response guys
Decided on the 400 as can't risk it and for a few hundred more.
 
...fine, I'll throw in a whole bagel for the same price....!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top