Is the 400MM 2.8 VR the right lens for me?

[unpopular]

Judging by your crop alone, to get the magnification you desire without an crop you'll need a little more than 400mm, so, resolution concerns aside, I don't think that a 300mm lens will be suitable. I likewise wouldn't go beyond 400mm simply because it's easier to crop out than to "crop in".

 

[Spesh]

Ultimately its going to come down to your own liking. Why are you wearing Nike shoes and not Under Armour? Why are you driving a Honda and not a Nissan. Try renting a lens for a weekend. I would start with a 500mm f4.

Seeing as I'm shooting from a fixed tower and cannot really move, do you not think that the 500mm f4 would make the framing a little too tight, based on the pictures that I have posted?

 

[sandollars]

TOTALLY agree about renting first. These puppies you are thinking about buying are NOT cheap lenses. You should rent and try them out THEN go buy. Better to be sure.

 

[brian_f2.8]

The 500 will give you other options for other sports down the road. If you are concerned a 400 f2.8 with a 1.4tc is an option.
Rent a 400 if you are set on that n go from there.

 

[brian_f2.8]

I'd love for a 400-600 f4 to come out😀

 

[unpopular]

The 500 will give you other options for other sports down the road.

how exactly is the 400mm lens more suited for water skiing while the 500mm is better suited for, say, baseball? That's just silly, it depends of the distance from the subject and degree of magnification desired. And short of something perhaps like wing walking, I can't think of too many sports which would require a longer lens than water skiing as the possibility of a closer vantage point simply would not be possible under any circumstance.

 

[brian_f2.8]

The 500 will give you other options for other sports down the road.

how exactly is the 400mm lens more suited for water skiing while the 500mm is better suited for, say, baseball? That's just silly, it depends of the distance from the subject and degree of magnification desired. And short of something perhaps like wing walking, I can't think of too many sports which would require a longer lens than water skiing as the possibility of a closer vantage point simply would not be possible under any circumstance.

its not better or worse but you have more options. lets say the OP shoots another event where you can't get as close as before, maybe decides to do birds or racing or golf. all im saying is that the 500mm is lighter and gives more distance. if the 500 is too close - back up a bit - if possible.

 

[unpopular]

You don't have any more options at all! If you're too close then the 500mm would be too long, too far and you'd still be too short. The 400mm doesn't offer any greater possibility than the 500mm, only greater magnification at any given working distance.

 

[Spesh]

.

 

[brian_f2.8]

read what i wrote, if the OP shoots other events at other places you might want the extra length who knows. so why are you promoting a 400 and arguing about a 500? have you used either? I have used both for both canon and nikon. The 500 is a better lens since its lighter. as i said before it will come down to what the OP feels comfortable with. end of story move on. lets not aruge n ruin a thread so you can prove a point.

 

[brian_f2.8]

.

thats what I said before. I just feel that the 400 f2.8 is 2x the weight or pretty close to it. The 500 f4 is so light.

OP RENT ONE OR THE OTHER AND SEE WHAT YOU FEEL COMFORTABLE WITH.

 

[unpopular]

who knows.

Exactly

so why are you promoting a 400 and arguing about a 500?

I'm not. I am saying that a 500mm lens does not provide any more "opportunity" than the 400mm. However, because the OP doesn't seem to mind cropping to some degree, a 400mm lens will provide greater FOV than the 500mm lens. I doubt very much that the difference in detail is significant enough to warrant this limitation, though I could be wrong.

have you used either? I have used both for both canon and nikon.

Nope, and that's nice.

The 500 is a better lens since its lighter.

If weight is an issue then perhaps this is a concern. I can't speak for the OP, but I look for the right tool before weight. Weight can be a deciding factor, but not if the lens is limiting.

as i said before it will come down to what the OP feels comfortable with. end of story move on. lets not aruge n ruin a thread so you can prove a point.

Takes two to argue, buddy. But i disagree completely with your sentiment that it's like driving one crappy car over another crappy car. The differences between two focal lengths is measurable, they're not essentially a 'preference'. I don't hardly ever use my 300mm lens because my subject of choice often is too close to be suitable. OTOH, i do use my 200mm lens frequently. It's a matter of working distance. I agree with renting the lens before deciding, but the two lenses are different.

 

[brian_f2.8]

ur right

 

[matthewo]

If you don't care about size and weight and 400mm is enough, and or 560mm with a 1.4 then get the 400mm.

I have a 500mm vr and love it, because i do birds a lot and would rather have the distance over a faster lens. The 500mm is also right on the edge of whats still comfortable for hand holding. I have shot from a car while in the driver seat, from a kayak, and carry it around on a black rapid strap for hours, without too much discomfort. Also using proper bracing techniques i have been able to hand hold it without fatigue for longer then needed to get photos.

I have a 400mm af-i 2.8 im working on fixing, its a 14lb beast, so it will probably only get used for fun. There is really something special about that 2.8 and 400mm, kinda like f4 and 600mm, just makes images stand out so much more because of shallow DOF and outstanding sharpness of the 400mm

 

[cgipson1]

Based on what you are shooting, and the possibility of evening - cloudy day low light / high shutter speed needed... the 400 2.8 would seem a far better choice than the F4 500. Doesn't sound like the weight would be an issue for you...