Derrel
Mr. Rain Cloud
- Joined
- Jul 23, 2009
- Messages
- 48,225
- Reaction score
- 18,941
- Location
- USA
- Website
- www.pbase.com
- Can others edit my Photos
- Photos OK to edit
For your first piece of big glass, the 300 f/2.8 is probably the better choice, in terms of ease of transport, ease of use, and general usefulness for sports. You can add a 1.4x teleconverter to a good 300/2.8, and have a decent 420mm f/4 that will be "serviceable", if not as good as the images from a 400/2.8. The weight difference between a fast 400 and a fast 300 is about double--think 7 kg for a 400/2.8, and 3.5 kg for a 300/2.8. Since you shoot a Nikon, you can probably look forward some day to a pro-level body that has a DX crop mode option, which for some uses, is pretty handy. You do not mention which "sports" you are shooting; indoors, a 400 can easily be too long, especially on a 1.5x body. Good, used AF-S 300/2.8 Nikkors can be bought at walk-in retail for around $3,000-$3,500, especially if you are willing to buy the AFS-II model, with the magnesium barrel, which is the one that came out right before the first generation VR model; the magnesium barrel makes it like a pound lighter than many others, and it has very close minimum focus,and superb optics. I have one, and am pretty happy with it. For some types of wildlife, a 500mm f/4 might actually be the better choice than either 400 or 300 2.8 lenses.