Fields Sports: Nikkor 300mm f/4 PF versus Nikkor 200-500mm f/5.6

[dwswager]

I have the opportunity to add a new lens to my kit.  Before Nikon announced the 200-500mm f/5.6 to great reviews and at a relatively low price, I was all ready to buy the 300mm f/4 PF and use it with and without the 1.4x TC-14EIII.  I plan to use an FX and DX camera in tandem using the 70-200mm f/2.8 as a base lens.  My problem is I've never shot anything longer than 300mm before.

While I know this is a landscape/nature board, I figured I get opinons here.

Question:  For field sports (Soccer, football, baseball/softball), which lens option makes more sense and why? I'm not oblivious to the size and weight difference.  But I am willing to heft the 200-500mm if it makes sense to do so.  Also, I can not afford something like a 400mm f/4.

[Colorado David]

I can't reply about field sports, but I can offer my opinion based on wildlife photography.  I have the 200-400 f/4 with the 1.4 and 2x converters.  I also have the 70-200 f/2.8.  I like the versatility of both lenses vs. the primes.  I really like the 200-400 f/4 and will keep it, but plan to buy the 200-500 f/5.6 for the size/weight advantage and the little extra zoom range. There are times I would have felt hindered by a prime in that you find yourself in situations when you simply can't zoom with your feet.  Shooting from a blind comes to mind.  Your personal safety and the ethics of refraining from pressuring an animal also come to mind.  I'm sure you can figure out how that might also apply to field sports.

[stever]

I used a Canon 300 f4 with and without converter some time ago but after buying the 100-400 I used it very little and finally sold it.  My use is mostly wildlife and I agree with David.  I've shot my grand kids soccer games for a few years and use either a 70-200 with or without 1.4x on crop frame or 100-400 full frame.  a 70-200 and 200-500 with 2 bodies is a very good combination for wildlife and field sports.  with modern lens stabilization and high ISO performance lenses longer than 300mm are no problem

[Paul2660]

Thanks to Bedford Photo, in Little Rock AR, I received my replacement 200-500.  (the first one had a problem with the rear rubber seal).

I would assume for action/sports this would a great lens, especially with a D7200 or D810 as each camera has excellent high iso.  The F5.6 vs F4 on the
200-400, to me is balanced by the mass/weight of the 200-400.

I own the 200-400, VR II, but I guess I am going to attempt to sell mine.  It's really too heavy to carry all day in the field, at least for me.  I don't see any difference in sharpness between the two lenses, and I get a bit more reach with the 500mm.    The bokeh on the 200-400 is beautiful, creamy and smooth, and you don't see this with the 200-500, at least I don't.  But it's a matter of which lens I am going to pick up to carry. 

The 200-500 is also no light weight, but still is lighter/smaller than the 200-400.  Optically, I just don't see any real differences. 

Paul C

[dwswager]

First, I had been shooting with a D7100 (DX) body and the 70-200mm f/2.8 with and without the TC-14E.  And at times, I wish I had more lens. I have sold the D7100 and bought a D810 and shoot sports in 1.2x 25MP mode and I definitely need more lens.  While most field sports I shoot are in daylight, some are at night and most high school and even college fields are marginal to poorly lit.

And yes, I am constrained by shooting position, especially with high school and college games.  Club and travel leagues are a little more lax in their rules such they will allow you on the field (baseball/softball) and in better locations (soccer) since the goal is to get their players seen by college recruiters.  But the higher pixel count of today’s cameras do help with the ability to crop some and still have enough pixels.

Technology is helping in making slower lenses usable in situations where they had not been.  While raising the ISO leads to inevitable quality decline, I find that I can still get usable, if not great, images

I’m really trying to figure out the usability factor with 2 cameras.  I could see a D7200 w/ 70-200mm f/2.8 and the D810 w/ 300mm f/4 PF/TC-14E and both would be hand holdable.  Putting the 200-500mm on would almost force me to a monopod which becomes cumbersome trying to switch cameras.

If I had the money and the wife wouldn’t shoot me, I would just get both.  And I am hampered in my location by an inability to, at reasonable cost, test the both out in actual situations.  And both are so new, not much of a used market yet in either.

Thanks for the advice!

[Colorado David]

Get them both from someplace like Lens Rentals and test them both side-by-side.

[dwswager]

Get them both from someplace like Lens Rentals and test them both side-by-side.

Yeah, that would be the smart move.  The soccer club is playing in Memphis this weekend and if I was going, I would have picked them up at Lens Rentals in Cordova.  But, not going.

[Petrus]

I would go with the super light and small 300mm f/4 because it is faster. That comes in handy in indoor and night games. With D810 you can get some extra reach by cropping, some for prints and quite a lot for the Net. Using a zoom lens for sports can be a hinderance also, fumbling around with the zoom ring might make you miss great moments, just use the focal length you have and frame with that, one less thing to worry about.

[jng]

You might consider the 300mm on the D7200 and 70-200mm on the D810 rather than the other way around. This will give you a pretty wide range without using a teleconverter. Several years ago when shooting my daughter's rowing events I used a two camera kit with the older 300mm f/4 on a D300s (450mm FX equiv) and 70-200mm f/2.8 VRII on my D700 w/grip. The old 300mm lens was easily hand hold able as long as I kept the shutter speeds up. This will be even better with the newer lens.

Somewhat off topic: using the D300s and D700 together was a dream. The controls are basically the same so it was easy to switch back and forth quickly without thinking about anything but framing and shooting. I sold both bodies to offset the purchase of a D800E (the wife was definitely getting testy) but if I were still shooting sports I'd probably go for the D7200/D800 combination with the same lenses.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[dwswager]

You might consider the 300mm on the D7200 and 70-200mm on the D810 rather than the other way around. This will give you a pretty wide range without using a teleconverter. Several years ago when shooting my daughter's rowing events I used a two camera kit with the older 300mm f/4 on a D300s (450mm FX equiv) and 70-200mm f/2.8 VRII on my D700 w/grip. The old 300mm lens was easily hand hold able as long as I kept the shutter speeds up. This will be even better with the newer lens.

Somewhat off topic: using the D300s and D700 together was a dream. The controls are basically the same so it was easy to switch back and forth quickly without thinking about anything but framing and shooting. I sold both bodies to offset the purchase of a D800E (the wife was definitely getting testy) but if I were still shooting sports I'd probably go for the D7200/D800 combination with the same lenses.

Yes, I am considering all combinations.

I had a D300 that I sold and "side graded" to a D7100.  Great camera, but never liked the dial interface.  Been waiting for a D300 upgrade for years.  I'm holding out through April hoping Nikon get's their thumb out of their backside.  Someone here suggested a D300 upgrade might show at CES with the D5 like they did with the D3/D300 pair.  If that doesn't happen, the D7200 isn't a bad fall back.

A friend with a D750 wanted to get to 400mm.  He has a 300mm f/4 and was going to try a 1.4x TC-14E.  My suggestion was by a D7100 or D7200 body instead.  You can get a new D7100 for about $100 more than the TC.  The D7200 about $500 more.  All methods have benefits and drawbacks.

[kers]

...
A friend with a D750 wanted to get to 400mm.  He has a 300mm f/4 and was going to try a 1.4x TC-14E.  My suggestion was by a D7100 or D7200 body instead.  You can get a new D7100 for about $100 more than the TC.  The D7200 about $500 more.  All methods have benefits and drawbacks.

I a fully agree- the image quality will be better with a DX body than with a TC.
The DX area of these lenses can do more than 24MP- and it will save you a lot of money compared to a 400mm F4 lens.

[pdp11]

A small OT question:
I used the old nikon 300 f/4, optically is a good lens, but AF motor was often too slow.
Afer I swithched to canon and buyed 400 f/5.6 and I fully satisfied for AF speed, but the lack of IS is annoing.
The new 300 f/4 has a faster AF motor than older?
The 200-500 has a decent speed AF motor?
At those focal lenght the AF speed and realiability is at least importat as the optical quality.
Those news superzooms are tempting me, the last generation is definitively better than older one.
I tried the tamron 150-600 but the af is not enought reliable at 600mm.
The sigma C is to big and too heavy,
The nikon is totally unknonw for me: I see some good photos but I fear big bias in some reviews: the quality at 500mm wide open is not stellar as described, the af performance is rarely mentioned.

[dwswager]

A small OT question:
The new 300 f/4 has a faster AF motor than older?
The 200-500 has a decent speed AF motor?

Yes, the 300mm f/4 PF will focus faster than the older 300mm f/4.

Yes, the 200-500mm f5.6E is reasonably fast.  Not as good as some other more expensive and brighter lenses, but will be better than the old 300mm f/4.

The Sigma Sport is a very good lens, but the 35% weight increase from the Nikon 200-500mm is the killer for me.  Add an additional $600 on the price, and FOR ME, it outweighs the areas where the Sport outperforms.

[pdp11]

Yes, the 300mm f/4 PF will focus faster than the older 300mm f/4.

Yes, the 200-500mm f5.6E is reasonably fast.  Not as good as some other more expensive and brighter lenses, but will be better than the old 300mm f/4.

The Sigma Sport is a very good lens, but the 35% weight increase from the Nikon 200-500mm is the killer for me.  Add an additional $600 on the price, and FOR ME, it outweighs the areas where the Sport outperforms.

Thanks for the answer,
The old 300 F/4 autofocus is very limiting.
the $600 becomes 200€ with europeans nikon prices. there's a little difference.
Have you tried the 200-500 on fields?