Jim Bob wrote:
Not in the same class as the Nikon but considerably less expensive.
I keep hearing that the Tamron is equally as good as Nikon, but I'd personally go with Nikon.
I have the VII version and think its a great lens, but I wonder how much better would the FL be.
I currently have the FL 400 lens and it is much lighter and sharper than the 400 VRII, so I would expect
the new 70-200 FL to be much better. It would be nice to verify it though.
Those are all great reviews, but Steve Perry is the best out there!
I dont really follow others advice as I shoot my own style, but I have made some exceptions
for Steve's recommendations.
The TC 1.4x III is great on most larger primes like the 400, 500 & 600 lens, but the IQ will suffer plenty with any zoomed lens like
the 70-200, 80-400, 200-400 and the 200-500. I know many colleagues who use the 1.4xIII with the 400 2.8 vr1 & 2 & the 600 vr with good, but not great results.
If you use the TC with a 200-500 and like the results, then more power to ya, but I challenge you to test it side by side to the big primes and I guarantee you will
definitely see a major difference in overall IQ.
I know the cost for the big primes are several thousands more, but to hear some say the the IQ is the same, are just misleading and flat out wrong.
romanticf16 wrote:
Actually the magnification stays the same, the smaller sensor captures a smaller crop area. If that is the desired result he could just crop his FX D810 images.
FYI, The D500 image Quality is better than the D810 when in crop mode.
The D810 is a great camera indeed, but its not the holy grail of all cameras.
Specific cameras for certain style shooting.
D500 is a great wildlife and sports camera.
D810 is great for landscape and studio work.
Robeng wrote:
Hi Mongoose,
Thanks for the info, I have the second generation 200mm-400mm with the VR2, Thinking about calling NPS to send me a 600mm but not sure if I want to lug that lens around. This will be the first time for me shooting the 49ers. I'm still waiting for info regarding where my seats are, was told next to the field.
Rob
Rob,
The 600mm is a great lens, but way too long for what I need.
I'll get some really great shots with it, but will also miss a lot.
The 200-400 VR2 is a great lens for what you'll need.
I recently sold my 200-400 and bought a D500 and now it stays with my 70-200,
making it a 100-300 2.8 lens, however its not as sharp as my 400FL or 600 f/4 primes.
That 600mm is way too heavy for me to carry around the whole game, perhaps I'm just too out of shape. :(
Well, I better run, I gotta catch the Liberty Flames @ SMU Mustangs game in a few and drive up to Houston to cover the Chiefs/Texans at noon tomorrow.
I personally would not go +/- 4 either way.
I do not trust it enough.
I have 6 camera bodies and never auto tune anything as all the shots
are extremely sharp enough for my use.
However, I have sent in a couple of lens to Nikon for calibration because
the sharpness may be average due to accidental banging around while shooting.
The lens that are serviced by NPS will comes back extremely sharp.
All my lens are sharp enough out to the box, I just feel the Auto Tuning
can potentially be overused and can create more issues
than needed.
btbg wrote:
It's a lot better than the D300 in low light. Since that is the OP's choice the D810 will be much better in low light. Besides if it is a good stadium it won't be that low of light. The big stadiums are pretty good. They can be shot at 3,200 f2.8 and have a fast enough shutter speed to do just fine.
Beside the fact that the camera buffers slowly isn't that big a problem if you go old school and only shoot one image at a time. That's the way we all used to do it. Worked then. No reason you can't still do that if you have to. It beats firing away and then having the camera buffer right when you get to the shot you really want.
It's a lot better than the D300 in low light. Sinc... (
show quote)
You are correct about newer and better stadium lights will definitely help in getting 3200 ISO f/3.2 1/1000, but unfortunately you will not achieve those results with a 200-500 f/5.6 lens and I personally would not use 12,800 ISO for the D810.
Robeng wrote:
Noel,
Just my personal opinion, I love my D800 but it's a little slow when it comes to frames per seconds in sports. If you can rent a D4s or D5 I would use that. I've been invited to shoot the SF 49ers next month at Levi Stadium. I will be using a D4s with a 200mm-400mm with a 1.4 tele. If you do use your D810 put it in group focusing. it helps a lot with action shots.
Rob
Hi Rob,
Which version of the 200-400 do you have? Is it the VR1 or VR2 (Nano Coated)?
There is a huge difference between the two, especially when used with the D4s.
I personally would not recommend using the 1.4x with the 200-400 because the quality will suffer considerably on the high end, especially
for night games, even with the best lit NFL stadiums. Your better to just use the 200-400 and just crop what you dont need.
I shot 18 college football games last year and 8 NFL games as I used both the 200-400 and my 400 lens as a combo setup and if you compare the shots side by side, you will definitely be disappointed in the 200-400 because the image breaks down closer to 400mm.
Ive only tried the 1.4xIII twice with the 200-400 lens and decided it was not worth submitting to my clients as most use my images for print. However, day games are perfect for the 200-400 lens.
Best of luck next month, but the players will be wearing pink trim such as shoes and gloves because of breast cancer awareness.
Unfortunately my clients do NOT use these shots because they tell me they will not sale.
PaulR01 wrote:
Of the first choice Nikons listed, the D810 is you best choice for low light. You really need a body that has a native ISO of 24,000 so when you have to shoot in the 12,800 ISO range your images are not grainy. I wont shoot anything that has a max ISO under 50,000 Any of them would shoot well under well lit conditions.
As for camera shake, at shutter speeds over 1000 it isn't much of an issue. That's why image stabilization on a lens is worthless at such a high shutter speed.
Have you actually been able to get good usable shots at 12,800 with the D810 for night games?
I personally feel the D810 is horrible if pushed past 3200 ISO.
mas24 wrote:
The Nikon D810 is not the preferred camera for either NFL games or top Division I NCAA football teams. Like Alabama, Ohio State, Stanford, and others. The #1 choices are the Canon 1DX(II) or Nikon D4s/D5. The 70-200mm 2.8 is a must lens for either Brand name photographer. And a prime too, one being the cherished Canon 400mm. The most expensive one that use to cost about 10K. Of course any good DSLR can capture sports with good fast glass and a skilled photographer. It is just some are better suited. Good luck in your football adventures.
The Nikon D810 is not the preferred camera for eit... (
show quote)
I agree with most of what you said, but the D810 is still a very good backup as it is used as my 3rd choice with a 24-70 around my neck as I have been able to capture some awesome end zone celebration shots, but it is very slow indeed.
My D5 is on my 400 while the D500 is used for my 70-200, making it a 100-300 backup, which works excellent for my needs.
Looks like your gonna have lots of fun.
Is it possible you may have the auto ISO activated, if so, turn it off.
The difference for me when using the D5, D4s & the D500 for High School football so far.
The 500 is really nice to have for that extra reach, but your gonna get stuck when the play is between 10 to 20 yards away.
I got some really nice touchdown celebration shots and an end zone fumble recovery with the D5 and D4s bc of FF.
I noticed strong stadium color shifting with the D4s & the D500 (somewhat), but not the D5.
The higher ISO is awesome on the D5 over all cameras.
I appear to have a much better keeper ratio, mainly bc I think its the mirror driving assist (while in high speed mode) in helping to keep the subject
in focus while tracking. It just does not miss, unless I do something wrong.
I had to change batteries on the D500, while my D5 was only down 1 bar on the indicator after the game.
The one thing that concerns me is the spring loaded carriage for the XQD card on the D500, it already feels as if it has some resistance while pushing in the card.
The D5 has eject buttons, which kicks the cards out, this to me will last much longer in the long run.
If you add a battery pack with an 18A battery and a charger for the D500, then the price only becomes about half the price of the D5.
The shutter count life on the D500 is at 200k vs 400k on the D5, you will then have to add an additional $450 to $550 for that replacement cost.
I love both cameras, but I really like having two XQD card slots for the D5 and the extra much higher ISO and keeper ratio over the D500 & D4s.
sadgit wrote:
I have this lens and its superb!
Maybe I am very lucky but I find it sharper then both my 70-200 2.8 and indeed my 300mm 2.8!
Great range, was originally going to get the 200-400 but this is so much lighter, both on my shoulder and my wallet and the results are stunning 😃
Wow,
I never heard of any zoom to be sharper than primes, especially the 300 2.8 lens.
Is your 300 an older model or a newer one? Perhaps you should send it in for recalibration.