What next?

Kieransliwowski said:
I will have to check out farm next time I go then. For Motorsport photography which of the 2 lenses would you recommend, given that I have the crop factor and that 300mm seems to be alright? I would assume the g2 would be better slightly with IQ but does the lens affect focusing much or is it more the bodies job?



Good to know the d3400 is better equipped than I thought! Crop sensors with decent lenses seem to be decent for Motorsport!
Click to expand...
It's very difficult recommending equipment as what I prefer you may not and vice versa. This may seem obvious but they are two very different lenses. The 100-400mm is more flexible in terms of reach, but the 70-200mm is more flexible in terms of the different types of shots that you can achieve with it (not necessarily talking motorsport here) and the f2.8 aperture gives you subject isolation. As mentioned earlier, the 100-400mm is that bit easier to handle as it's lighter. TBH the only reason I've not pulled the trigger on a 100-400mm is that f6.3 lenses don't play nice with Nikon's latest 153 point AF system in that at the longer focal lengths it restricts the number of useable AF points. It definitely does on the Tamron 150-600mm (as I have one) and the Sigma 150-600mm (according to numerous users) and also the Tamron 100-400mm according to users of that. The only one I need to check is the Sigma 100-400mm, when I tried it I had the D750 at that time not the D850 with the newer AF system.

I've been looking at the 100-400's for a while and from what I can gather the Tamron is the better of the two. IQ is very good on both, but the Tamron has better AF and is a touch lighter. However, this is only based on extensive reading online and not through testing myself. I believe the Tamron has better weather sealing too.
 
Kieransliwowski said:
Really! That is interesting, I thought that in comparison to a d750 the d3400 would get destroyed.
Click to expand...

There are instances where FX is better but in good light you will struggle to see the difference and if you are panning then all those differences are out the window and technique is the limiting factor. I ditched all my FX gear for m43 (an even smaller sensor) when I found for my usage I had to look at 100% to see any difference and at that point I figured FX wasn’t worth the extra weight, m43 lenses are generally very good though.

However, one persons ‘not much difference’ is another’s ‘night and day’ so it is really up to the individual.
 
Nawty said:
There are instances where FX is better but in good light you will struggle to see the difference and if you are panning then all those differences are out the window and technique is the limiting factor. I ditched all my FX gear for m43 (an even smaller sensor) when I found for my usage I had to look at 100% to see any difference and at that point I figured FX wasn’t worth the extra weight, m43 lenses are generally very good though.

However, one persons ‘not much difference’ is another’s ‘night and day’ so it is really up to the individual.
Click to expand...

This really. When I came to cull last years holiday pictures, in good light when I didn't need to do much processing to an image it was difficult to tell apart the M43 and FX images. Of course once lighting became difficult & substantial tone control was required the difference was much more obvious.
 
snerkler said:
It's very difficult recommending equipment as what I prefer you may not and vice versa. This may seem obvious but they are two very different lenses. The 100-400mm is more flexible in terms of reach, but the 70-200mm is more flexible in terms of the different types of shots that you can achieve with it (not necessarily talking motorsport here) and the f2.8 aperture gives you subject isolation. As mentioned earlier, the 100-400mm is that bit easier to handle as it's lighter. TBH the only reason I've not pulled the trigger on a 100-400mm is that f6.3 lenses don't play nice with Nikon's latest 153 point AF system in that at the longer focal lengths it restricts the number of useable AF points. It definitely does on the Tamron 150-600mm (as I have one) and the Sigma 150-600mm (according to numerous users) and also the Tamron 100-400mm according to users of that. The only one I need to check is the Sigma 100-400mm, when I tried it I had the D750 at that time not the D850 with the newer AF system.

I've been looking at the 100-400's for a while and from what I can gather the Tamron is the better of the two. IQ is very good on both, but the Tamron has better AF and is a touch lighter. However, this is only based on extensive reading online and not through testing myself. I believe the Tamron has better weather sealing too.
Click to expand...

I think I'm leaning towards the 70-200 as it can make images look better and from what I have seen 300mm seems to be enough for most shots if I'm in the right place. The lens is also more versatile so can be used in many situations as an all rounder. eBay has them going brand new from the region of 850-900 ish area but I could try to find a used one for cheaper.

Nawty said:
There are instances where FX is better but in good light you will struggle to see the difference and if you are panning then all those differences are out the window and technique is the limiting factor. I ditched all my FX gear for m43 (an even smaller sensor) when I found for my usage I had to look at 100% to see any difference and at that point I figured FX wasn’t worth the extra weight, m43 lenses are generally very good though.

However, one persons ‘not much difference’ is another’s ‘night and day’ so it is really up to the individual.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the insight, I guess if I hone my technique I can get some event better shots than I already get, coupling that with a better lens and I should have some decent content. I would presume using the 70-200, as it's heavy, would be hard to use handheld so a nice monopod would be useful. (Which can be mounted to the lens if I'm not mistaken)
 
Kieransliwowski said:
I think I'm leaning towards the 70-200 as it can make images look better and from what I have seen 300mm seems to be enough for most shots if I'm in the right place. The lens is also more versatile so can be used in many situations as an all rounder. eBay has them going brand new from the region of 850-900 ish area but I could try to find a used one for cheaper.



Thanks for the insight, I guess if I hone my technique I can get some event better shots than I already get, coupling that with a better lens and I should have some decent content. I would presume using the 70-200, as it's heavy, would be hard to use handheld so a nice monopod would be useful. (Which can be mounted to the lens if I'm not mistaken)
Click to expand...
New for £850-900 I would expect they are from grey importers. Some grey importers are fine (as long as you're happy with the ethics) but some don't have such good customer services. Panamoz, HDEW and E-infinity all get very good reviews and tend to offer very good warranties.
 
snerkler said:
New for £850-900 I would expect they are from grey importers. Some grey importers are fine (as long as you're happy with the ethics) but some don't have such good customer services. Panamoz, HDEW and E-infinity all get very good reviews and tend to offer very good warranties.
Click to expand...

2 of my current lenses I must have brought from a grey importer too then as they were cheaper than retail. I don't mind as long as I get a working product in the end! I will buy from a retailer with a good customer review. If I gather enough money I will purchase the 70-200, if I don't have enough I will go for the sigma 100-400.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top