Love the video. I've been using a 300 and a 200-400 when shooting football, and really liked the 200-400 better even at f4. Wanted to get your take on a 500mm f4 vs the 400mm 2.8 for football. Especially when paired with a 70-200 and a wide zoom as well
Hi, As you said in the video the 300mm is more versatile and easier to use, easier to walk around and no monopod is really needed. I love the 300mm more than I love the 400mm, I write this because I owned both of the lenses mentioned (actually 3 lenses mentioned) but I sold my 400mm VR II to get a 600mm VR II for birding. I used the 400mm VR II mainly for soccer (pro league soccer in The Netherlands) but I use the 300mm VR II handheld now. I always took my 300mm along in case the action took place much closer where the 400mm almost was useless. I switched the lenses so I could get great frame-filling shots instead of action shots where ligaments were missing, hope this makes some sense? I do have to say I do miss the 400mm at the soccer games but I know I made my choice so I do accept this choice. I do understand when you say that your choice is the 400mm but probably you're a pro and visit many pro-league games as I am an amateur photographer who's lucky to visit pro-league soccer games. I also have to say why I choose the 300mm above the 400mm, I also visit amateur tennis and amateur soccer games and the 300mm has the perfect reach on that amateur soccer pitches. On these pitches, you can sit where you want without having those restrictions like at a pro-game. Like every sports photographer (I guess) I work with the 70-200mm VR II on a second body for the real close-by action. Also, the 300mm with the TC 1.4 III is a great combination. I only use the TC during day games and never with night games. The TC 1.4 III is a great TC and I also use it on my 600mm for shooting smaller birds. The results are really great. All this said I do like this video very much because as I see it, it's all true what you've mentioned, thank you. I know your lenses are the older versions (Non VR) but still very good lenses and mine are the VR version.
I've got the Sigma 120-300mm f2.8 OS. Absolutely love it, it's so unappreciated, versatile and great value. But my question is now do I get a 400mm f2.8 or 500mm f4? I'm leaning towards to 400 but the 500 is lighter. But was interested in your points about the learning curve. I do love cropping!
So I think weight would be more important to you than the extra 60mm of range you'd get with a 1.4TC and the 400 or the extra stop of light. Are you doing sports or wildlife? The 500mm can be carried for a longer period than the 400mm, so that'd what I would lean to. The 2.8 is nice, but of you have a decent body and are not shooting in extremely dim light you should be fine!
Hi, have you tried these lenses with teleconvertors, specifically TC20e iii? I have the 300mm f2.8 with D500. I wish to shift to a FF for better IQ, but worried about reduced range. If the said TC works, it can become my kit for birding and without TC for bigger birds/wildlife etc. Thanks in advance
The 2x is a bit much of a loss in sharpness for me to use! Also you get a loss of two stops of light! At the point something like the 200-500 makes more sense since you can track the subject with it and zoom in and out! Hope this helps
@@AhmedMustafax thank you. It actually helped a lot. I just sold off my 200-500mm to upgrade to 300mm and love the IQ - huge jump. 2x not being a good option is a heart break though. Thank you, will look for other options. 🙂
@@ViewFromShikhar Yeah the version iii of the 2x teleconverter is better than the ones before it, but it's not terrible useful if you need to crop the image further unfortunately!
Hello, I sold my TC 2.0 III because it made the auto-focus too slow and the results weren't bad but I did lose some sharpness. I bought the TC 1.4 III and love the combination with all my prime lenses. It's a great combination with my 600mm VR when shooting smaller birds and even better with a 2.8 lens. In my case the 300mm VR II.
@@pimnauta3840 this is so apt at this moment, I'm glad you posted this. I have been using 2x for a while now and was contemplating 1.4 x for the same reason. Thank you. :)
Thank you Ahmed. I'm actually now thinking either to get used 300mm or 400mm because i don't know in advance if I will be shooting inside or outside. I can get 420mm using 70-200mm with 1.4 tc. To buy used 300mm and then regret i don't have the reach or to buy 400 and then regret it's too much close to the subject. Still in dilemma. I'm considering vr version.
I've never really wanted more "reach" from the 300mm. It's superior to the 300 when it comes to tracking just because it's not tight enough to crop out limbs like the 400 often does. That being said I think the 300 is the better value of the two. My current set up is the 200 f/2 +1.4TC and the 400mm, but I went that route because I often shoot in poorly lit areas where the f/2 makes a difference! Hope this helps!
OMG! I just learned something extremely important from you! Focus motors. I didn’t take that into consideration while I’ve been contemplating buying a very expensive Nikon lens that is on the pre owned market but one that Nikon discontinued years ago, even though this used lens is in pristine condition aesthetically. I usually only buy brand new but because the lens was listed as a 9+ I decided to watch as many UA-cam videos that featured this lens so I can make a decision. Now I’m not so sure……. focus motors….. I didn’t think about that factor. Which brings up the question: how long do these lenses last?
I do! It's a great lens if you're doing day sports! However the 2.8's shine for night sports. If you want i can do a follow up video comparing the 200-400 vs the 300/400
I don't think its true that you need 2.8 for night sports anymore. With most new cameras you can shoot around iso 20000 and use topaz to get decent results.
Thanks mate, a great comparison of the two.
Love the video. I've been using a 300 and a 200-400 when shooting football, and really liked the 200-400 better even at f4.
Wanted to get your take on a 500mm f4 vs the 400mm 2.8 for football. Especially when paired with a 70-200 and a wide zoom as well
Hi,
As you said in the video the 300mm is more versatile and easier to use, easier to walk around and no monopod is really needed.
I love the 300mm more than I love the 400mm, I write this because I owned both of the lenses mentioned (actually 3 lenses mentioned) but I sold my 400mm VR II to get a 600mm VR II for birding.
I used the 400mm VR II mainly for soccer (pro league soccer in The Netherlands) but I use the 300mm VR II handheld now. I always took my 300mm along in case the action took place much closer where the 400mm almost was useless. I switched the lenses so I could get great frame-filling shots instead of action shots where ligaments were missing, hope this makes some sense?
I do have to say I do miss the 400mm at the soccer games but I know I made my choice so I do accept this choice.
I do understand when you say that your choice is the 400mm but probably you're a pro and visit many pro-league games as I am an amateur photographer who's lucky to visit pro-league soccer games.
I also have to say why I choose the 300mm above the 400mm, I also visit amateur tennis and amateur soccer games and the 300mm has the perfect reach on that amateur soccer pitches.
On these pitches, you can sit where you want without having those restrictions like at a pro-game.
Like every sports photographer (I guess) I work with the 70-200mm VR II on a second body for the real close-by action.
Also, the 300mm with the TC 1.4 III is a great combination. I only use the TC during day games and never with night games.
The TC 1.4 III is a great TC and I also use it on my 600mm for shooting smaller birds. The results are really great.
All this said I do like this video very much because as I see it, it's all true what you've mentioned, thank you.
I know your lenses are the older versions (Non VR) but still very good lenses and mine are the VR version.
Hey,
Do you have any experience with the 300mm 2.8 with 1.4 teleconverter?
I've got the Sigma 120-300mm f2.8 OS. Absolutely love it, it's so unappreciated, versatile and great value. But my question is now do I get a 400mm f2.8 or 500mm f4? I'm leaning towards to 400 but the 500 is lighter. But was interested in your points about the learning curve. I do love cropping!
So I think weight would be more important to you than the extra 60mm of range you'd get with a 1.4TC and the 400 or the extra stop of light. Are you doing sports or wildlife? The 500mm can be carried for a longer period than the 400mm, so that'd what I would lean to. The 2.8 is nice, but of you have a decent body and are not shooting in extremely dim light you should be fine!
400m I used for nesting or shots where I do not move much and off course owl at dark conditions ... 300 I used for bird on flights ... great lenses
6:04 Ahmed are you from Southwest Virginia? Noticed the Tech locations
thank you so much
Hi, have you tried these lenses with teleconvertors, specifically TC20e iii? I have the 300mm f2.8 with D500. I wish to shift to a FF for better IQ, but worried about reduced range. If the said TC works, it can become my kit for birding and without TC for bigger birds/wildlife etc.
Thanks in advance
The 2x is a bit much of a loss in sharpness for me to use! Also you get a loss of two stops of light! At the point something like the 200-500 makes more sense since you can track the subject with it and zoom in and out! Hope this helps
@@AhmedMustafax thank you. It actually helped a lot. I just sold off my 200-500mm to upgrade to 300mm and love the IQ - huge jump. 2x not being a good option is a heart break though. Thank you, will look for other options. 🙂
@@ViewFromShikhar Yeah the version iii of the 2x teleconverter is better than the ones before it, but it's not terrible useful if you need to crop the image further unfortunately!
Hello, I sold my TC 2.0 III because it made the auto-focus too slow and the results weren't bad but I did lose some sharpness. I bought the TC 1.4 III and love the combination with all my prime lenses. It's a great combination with my 600mm VR when shooting smaller birds and even better with a 2.8 lens. In my case the 300mm VR II.
@@pimnauta3840 this is so apt at this moment, I'm glad you posted this. I have been using 2x for a while now and was contemplating 1.4 x for the same reason. Thank you. :)
Thank you Ahmed. I'm actually now thinking either to get used 300mm or 400mm because i don't know in advance if I will be shooting inside or outside. I can get 420mm using 70-200mm with 1.4 tc. To buy used 300mm and then regret i don't have the reach or to buy 400 and then regret it's too much close to the subject. Still in dilemma. I'm considering vr version.
I've never really wanted more "reach" from the 300mm. It's superior to the 300 when it comes to tracking just because it's not tight enough to crop out limbs like the 400 often does. That being said I think the 300 is the better value of the two. My current set up is the 200 f/2 +1.4TC and the 400mm, but I went that route because I often shoot in poorly lit areas where the f/2 makes a difference!
Hope this helps!
OMG! I just learned something extremely important from you! Focus motors. I didn’t take that into consideration while I’ve been contemplating buying a very expensive Nikon lens that is on the pre owned market but one that Nikon discontinued years ago, even though this used lens is in pristine condition aesthetically. I usually only buy brand new but because the lens was listed as a 9+ I decided to watch as many UA-cam videos that featured this lens so I can make a decision. Now I’m not so sure……. focus motors….. I didn’t think about that factor. Which brings up the question: how long do these lenses last?
This is why I carry the 400mm f4. So small light and handholdable.
Which is best for a professional doing a sporting events
Optically, the 400mm. But portability wise, the 300 wins and you can add a 1.4 TC without a great sacrifice of image quality or AF performance.
..Hi..🖐️
Nikon 200-500
Nikon 300mm 2.8 + 2x converter
Whats the best option?
I would ask the same.....
actually the best is to own both of them... :)
Ever use the 200-400 f/4?
I do! It's a great lens if you're doing day sports! However the 2.8's shine for night sports. If you want i can do a follow up video comparing the 200-400 vs the 300/400
Yeah I’d like that
are you interested in joing a photography livestream show ?
16K views but only 229 subscribers: best definition of the word "unfair".
Hope you didn't knock down the 70-200...
70-200 is the bread and butter! But these lenses are the next step!
I don't think its true that you need 2.8 for night sports anymore. With most new cameras you can shoot around iso 20000 and use topaz to get decent results.
428 is absolutely much sharper than 328, but you can only see the difference when you enlarge the print. I tried before.