Shot at 300mm, ISO 6400, f/4 at 1/1000 sec. Some slight cropping was done in Adobe Lightroom 3. Download full-resolution original.
Photo: Dan Bracaglia
Shot at 300mm, ISO 6400, f/4 at 1/1000 sec. Some slight cropping was done in Adobe Lightroom 3. Download full-resolution original.
|
|
|
|
What better place to test the new Nikkor 200-400mm f/4G ED VR II lens than a nighttime college football game—a Big East Rutgers vs. Uconn football game to be exact.
There are three things required for successful football photos: a quick eye, intuition and snappy auto-focusing, but most importantly, snappy auto-focus. The 200-400 handled itself very well, despite the somewhat low–light conditions, at keeping focus on the player with the ball.
Also, thanks to Vibration Reduction, the wobbly monopod we had the camera affixed to (Actually a ski pole/monopod/cane made by the late Herbert Keppler), was a non-issue.
The 200-400mm focus range was more than adequate for covering all 100 yards of the field. It should also be mentioned that even though the lens was mounted on a D3S body, we had no problems lugging the camera up and down the field (and throughout the stadium for that matter).
All the photos that follow were shot using a Nikon D3S body. For the most part the images are unedited other than some cropping and slight exposure adjustments made in Adobe Lightroom 3. The photos were all shot in RAW and converted to jpgs in Adobe Lightroom 3. Click the link on each photo for the full-resolution version.
how would this lense work with a lower end camera like my D 80? I love shooting wildlife but hate the price of the BIG lenses
The difference between photographers is far greater than the difference between cameras. I suspect the 200-400 f/4 mounted on a D-80 would produce outstanding images in the hands of a good photographer. But unless you need to shoot mostly at f/4, there are other options, such as the Sigma 100-300 f/4 equipped with a good 1.4x converter.
Don't be misled. This lens isn't small. It's quite large and is priced in accordance with the other "BIG" lenses.
It's $7000 in Canada.
Most of Sigma lenses I've shot with are soft on wide open.
If you want to shoot on F-4 you better have a high Q lens.
As expected, this is apparently a stunning lens but one needs deep pockets to head out with the 200-400 and a D3s. I shoot quite a high school football with a D300s and an 80-200 f/2.8. The best I can usually get is f/2.8, 1/640, ISO 6400.
The D3s gives EXCELLENT results at ISO 6400 but one has to note that the college stadium light levels are much brighter. f/4@1/1000 is about 2 stops more light then the typical high school field.
That combo runs about $8,500 MORE than mine. No doubt it's better but is it $8,500 better?
Copyright © 2012 Bonnier Corp. All Rights Reserved. Reproduction in whole or in part without permission is prohibited.
how would this lense work with a lower end camera like my D 80? I love shooting wildlife but hate the price of the BIG lenses
The difference between photographers is far greater than the difference between cameras. I suspect the 200-400 f/4 mounted on a D-80 would produce outstanding images in the hands of a good photographer. But unless you need to shoot mostly at f/4, there are other options, such as the Sigma 100-300 f/4 equipped with a good 1.4x converter.
Don't be misled. This lens isn't small. It's quite large and is priced in accordance with the other "BIG" lenses.
It's $7000 in Canada.
Most of Sigma lenses I've shot with are soft on wide open.
If you want to shoot on F-4 you better have a high Q lens.
As expected, this is apparently a stunning lens but one needs deep pockets to head out with the 200-400 and a D3s. I shoot quite a high school football with a D300s and an 80-200 f/2.8. The best I can usually get is f/2.8, 1/640, ISO 6400.
The D3s gives EXCELLENT results at ISO 6400 but one has to note that the college stadium light levels are much brighter. f/4@1/1000 is about 2 stops more light then the typical high school field.
That combo runs about $8,500 MORE than mine. No doubt it's better but is it $8,500 better?