Long and Fast: 200 f2, 300 f2.8, 200-400 f4

[RalphP13]

So I'm thinking about getting some longer fast glass.

I would be shooting my kids during indoor sports, outdoors sports, and also some backyard wildlife.

I'm looking for observations, thoughts, experiences, or whatever comments you may feel may add to the thread.

I'm tossing around the idea of three different lenses used in conjunction with 1.4, 1.7, and 2.0 teleconverters.

Nikon Lens (1.4TC-1 stop, 1.7TC-1.5 stops, 2.0TC-2 stops)
200mm f2 (280mm f2.8, 340mm f3.4, 400mm f4)
300mm f2.8 (420mm f4, 510mm f4.7, 600mm f5.6)
200-400mm f4 (280-560 f5.6, 340-680 f6.7, 400-800 f8)

I have a 70-200mm f2.8. 200 mm was enough range for indoor sports however poor lighting had me cranking up my ISO more than I wanted. 200 mm is a little short for outdoor sports, however, with good daylight this lens works fine with a 1.4 teleconverter. Wildlife runs scared at 200 mm. With a 2.0 teleconverter, I have trouble shooting any time other than midday.


I like the versatility of the 200-400 mm zoom, however, I fear the larger teleconverters just won't cut it with this lens.

I'm sure the 200mm f2 would be great for indoor sports, however, maxing out at 400mm may leave me wanting more range.

The 300 mm lens may be too long at the lower range and too slow at the top range.

Thanks for any input.


Ralph

 

[supraman215]

Sigma 200-500 f2.8? Best of all worlds.
Amazon.com: Sigma 200-500mm f/2.8 APO EX DG Ultra-Telephoto Zoom Lens for Nikon DSLR Cameras: Camera & Photo

Just kidding. The 300 looks good even with the converter for even low light stuff. With the D7000 you shouldn't have too much trouble with high ISO.

 

[Mike_E]

It would probably be cheaper getting a D3s and bumping the ISO over what you can go to now.

 

[RalphP13]

Sigma 200-500 f2.8? Best of all worlds.
Amazon.com: Sigma 200-500mm f/2.8 APO EX DG Ultra-Telephoto Zoom Lens for Nikon DSLR Cameras: Camera & Photo

Just kidding. The 300 looks good even with the converter for even low light stuff. With the D7000 you shouldn't have too much trouble with high ISO.

I actually did look at that one. I could just see me pulling that out at the kids' basketball games. The problem with that one is, it's too heavy to walk to the games with, since I would have to sell the car to purchase it. :lmao:

I was shooting with a D90 which didn't handle the high ISO as well. You are right, the D7000 is much better at the high ISO levels.


Ralph

 

[RalphP13]

It would probably be cheaper getting a D3s and bumping the ISO over what you can go to now.

That still limits my range to 400 mm with my current glass.

Thanks, Ralph

 

[dcmoody23]

To not be able to cover your kids indoor sports games with 400mm of reach you'd have to be in about the worst spot in the whole arena - but allowing yourself to bump your iso up more would allow for a better crop (by having less noise), which would be kind of like having extra reach (except for the fact that it isn't, or if you plan get like a 20x30 of your shot or something)

 

[j-dogg]

I would get the 300 2.8 + tele if you're not upgrading your hardware. 400 might be too long for some sporting events and if you need the extra range slap a teleconvertor on it.

I have an 80-200 4.5 push-pull I use on one of my Nikon 35mm's, if I need the range I slap on a 2x tele and problem solved.

 

[bentcountershaft]

I don't have any telephoto experience so my opinion is worth very little. However, to me a 300mm prime is about as versatile of a long prime you can get I would think.

 

[Derrel]

The 200/2 works pretty well with the newer converters. It's a remarkably sharp lens,with ultra-fast focusing. 300mm is pretty long indoors for many things, in many venues. For daytime sports, there's a lot less need for sheer aperture speed.

Seriously, the D3s and its best-in-class High-ISO performance is actually probably a better buy than the 200/2 is, in terms of how much "leverage" that body's superb High-ISO sensor performance would bring to the equation...it would make a number of slightly slower lenses actually workable. Have you seen the Popular Photography night time football series,shot with a D3s and the 200-400 f/4 VR lens, all done with NO noise reduction??? Sample Images: Nikkor 200-400 f/4 VR II Lens | Photography - PopPhoto.com Offers Camera Reviews and Exclusive Photo Tips

Look at their free, full-resolution images for download...quite amazing with an f/4 zoom lens at night, under the lights...with the D3s camera...with that camera you get FULL-frame, PLUS a built-in crop option with High Speed Crop, at the press of a button...that is another thing you need to think about with Nikon professional bodies: the option to shoot full-frae AND the option to hit the Func. button and have the camera automatically switch to the in-camera crop mode, which makes your prime lens actually have two different effective angles of view, PLUS what the prime has with any converters attached. With no loss of effective aperture.

 

[shaunly]

400mm on a DX is still not enough for you? That's about 600mm equivalent. Are you trying to get portrait head shot across the football field? Even pros sports shooter use 300/400/500 on FX and they seemed to be fine with what they have. I personally would go for the 200/2. That's one of the BEST nikon lens ever made and with a 2x converter, you still get a 400/4 which is still reasonably fast. This lens just seems so versatile on top of one of the best IQ available too.

I also read that the T-stop for the 200-400/4 is actually around 5.XX because of it's massive range. So unless you have a D3s, you would lose a lot of speed with that one. Please post some pictures of your D7000 with these beastly lens when you decide on which one to buy. =D

 

[shaunly]

The 200/2 works pretty well with the newer converters. It's a remarkably sharp lens,with ultra-fast focusing. 300mm is pretty long indoors for many things, in many venues. For daytime sports, there's a lot less need for sheer aperture speed.

Seriously, the D3s and its best-in-class High-ISO performance is actually probably a better buy than the 200/2 is, in terms of how much "leverage" that body's superb High-ISO sensor performance would bring to the equation...it would make a number of slightly slower lenses actually workable. Have you seen the Popular Photography night time football series,shot with a D3s and the 200-400 f/4 VR lens, all done with NO noise reduction??? Sample Images: Nikkor 200-400 f/4 VR II Lens | Photography - PopPhoto.com Offers Camera Reviews and Exclusive Photo Tips

Look at their free, full-resolution images for download...quite amazing with an f/4 zoom lens at night, under the lights...with the D3s camera...with that camera you get FULL-frame, PLUS a built-in crop option with High Speed Crop, at the press of a button...that is another thing you need to think about with Nikon professional bodies: the option to shoot full-frae AND the option to hit the Func. button and have the camera automatically switch to the in-camera crop mode, which makes your prime lens actually have two different effective angles of view, PLUS what the prime has with any converters attached. With no loss of effective aperture.

Even though I've seen TONS of D3s high ISO samples, it still amazes me every time. Look at the full resolution of the player #91. You can see the vain on his arm even at 6400ISO! I also love how the noise is render on the D3s as well. It's very film like and I personally don't mind it at all. Just simply AMAZING! One day D3s... you will be mine :mrgreen:

 

[RalphP13]

Have you seen the Popular Photography night time football series,shot with a D3s and the 200-400 f/4 VR lens, all done with NO noise reduction??? Sample Images: Nikkor 200-400 f/4 VR II Lens | Photography - PopPhoto.com Offers Camera Reviews and Exclusive Photo Tips

Wow. I guess I've heard so much about how the glass is more important than the camera body itself, I didn't think bodies had really that much more to offer.

400mm on a DX is still not enough for you? That's about 600mm equivalent. Are you trying to get portrait head shot across the football field? Even pros sports shooter use 300/400/500 on FX and they seemed to be fine with what they have. I personally would go for the 200/2. That's one of the BEST nikon lens ever made and with a 2x converter, you still get a 400/4 which is still reasonably fast. This lens just seems so versatile on top of one of the best IQ available too.

I also read that the T-stop for the 200-400/4 is actually around 5.XX because of it's massive range. So unless you have a D3s, you would lose a lot of speed with that one. Please post some pictures of your D7000 with these beastly lens when you decide on which one to buy. =D

Unfortunately, most of the wildlife in my yard seems to congregate on the other side of a pond I have. This does end up being approximately a football field away. It's the smaller animals that don't yield good shots. Deer are fine. Mallards, hawks, turkeys, foxes, and other smaller targets just don't fill the frame like I want. That's why I was looking for extra range.



It seems to me that the people who answered, which I appreciate - thanks, collectively favor the smaller aperture over the longer range with versatility of a zoom.

I probably need to rent some of these lenses and see how they work in my specific situations.

Thanks, Ralph