p.57 #4 · Official Nikon 400/2.8S image thread + some discussions
You guys are making it harder and harder to not splurge. I'm holding out for a used one someday. In the meantime I may just pick up used 400 2.8G and hope the AF-S motor holds up. I tried the 70-200 2.8S with the 2.0TC and it just doesn't seem like it holds up as well as I'd like.
p.57 #5 · Official Nikon 400/2.8S image thread + some discussions
Vorpahl wrote:
You guys are making it harder and harder to not splurge. I'm holding out for a used one someday. In the meantime I may just pick up used 400 2.8G and hope the AF-S motor holds up. I tried the 70-200 2.8S with the 2.0TC and it just doesn't seem like it holds up as well as I'd like.
All of Nikon's 400mm f2.8's are amazing (from MF -> AFS -> G -> E -> S/TC). The difference is that the current S/TC can be shot for long periods without a tripod. If you are willing to give up a stop and third, the 400mm f4.5 is an amazing lens too.
p.57 #6 · Official Nikon 400/2.8S image thread + some discussions
OwlsEyes wrote:
All of Nikon's 400mm f2.8's are amazing (from MF -> AFS -> G -> E -> S/TC). The difference is that the current S/TC can be shot for long periods without a tripod. If you are willing to give up a stop and third, the 400mm f4.5 is an amazing lens too.
bruce
I seriously considered the 400 4.5, but I tested out shooting a football game a couple of weekends ago and I used my z 70-200mm with the 2.0TC which put me at f5.6, and I had to shoot at 1/800 at ISO 12800 and the image was still slightly underexposed. The 4.5 would get a little closer to a better shutter speed, but the ISO is still pretty high. I think the 2.8 is sadly where I'll end up, but it may also be my desire to be able to photograph any situation, which typically means 2.8 glass. I'm not currently doing this professionally, so it seems silly to feel that way but my boys are now deep into school sports and I only have the opportunity to photograph them at this stage now, versus years from now when the opportunity is gone.
Do you have any experience with the 400 2.8G? That seems to be more in line with my price range ($2500ish). The only complaint I've heard is the weight.
p.57 #7 · Official Nikon 400/2.8S image thread + some discussions
Vorpahl wrote:
I seriously considered the 400 4.5, but I tested out shooting a football game a couple of weekends ago and I used my z 70-200mm with the 2.0TC which put me at f5.6, and I had to shoot at 1/800 at ISO 12800 and the image was still slightly underexposed. The 4.5 would get a little closer to a better shutter speed, but the ISO is still pretty high. I think the 2.8 is sadly where I'll end up, but it may also be my desire to be able to photograph any situation, which typically means 2.8 glass. I'm not currently doing this professionally, so it seems silly to feel that way but my boys are now deep into school sports and I only have the opportunity to photograph them at this stage now, versus years from now when the opportunity is gone.
Do you have any experience with the 400 2.8G? That seems to be more in line with my price range ($2500ish). The only complaint I've heard is the weight....Show more →
The line up of 400 f2.8 lenses are the bread and butter for sports photographers. With the development of high resolution sensors and the weight loss of the new Z 400 f2.8, it has also become the darling of wildlife photographers. I absolutely love mine and use it many times a week.
The 400mm f2.8 G is also a brilliant lens. However, you will find it to be heavy and will probably need a monopod to help support the lens. When buying any of the pre-Z lenses, make sure you test the AFS motor out, as some squeak over time, and this may be an indicator that the motor is going to fail. With that said, many squeaky motors just need to be lubed and will work for ages to come.
p.57 #16 · Official Nikon 400/2.8S image thread + some discussions
Lance B wrote:
Fantastic shot, Bruce!
Thanks Lance.. I feel fortunate to have photographed this duel, and that the eyes of both animals were suddenly visible at the same time.
I love photographing mammals...
cheers,
bruce
