btbg

Merry Christmas to you as well. My comment abiut you not knowing what you are talking about is about how professional sports photographers work npt about your opinion about which lens to use.

I am curious though why are you so entrenched picking that lens when he already has a better lens covering 70-200 and all the reviews are clear that the 200-500 is a sharper lens than the 80-400.

If the whole reason is weight I can see that but I cant think of any other reason to pick that lens. The other lens is sharper, pairs nicely with what the op already jhas and is just plain a better lens. That isnt opinion look at the specs and you will see that is fact.

EJMcD

Thanks again for posting. His initial post asks for something a "LITTLE LONGER" than his 70-200. It's OK if you don't understand nor agree with my opinion. I've used the 80-400 for basketball, baseball, football, volleyball, soccer and have been pleased with the results. I judge by real use not manufacturer's specs. Can we please agree to disagree and leave it there?

GAH1944 Loc: SW Mich.

----I have both and I'm pleased with both------------the 80-400 is more versatile----------

btbg

The 80-400 is $1,000 more, and he already has 70-200 covered with a better lens. Versatility is not the issue since he should still be using the 70-200 f2.8 for anything that the 80-400 can do that the 200-500 can't do.

He gets more reach with the 200-500, still covers everything that the 80-400 can cover and has the advantage of being a fixed fstop.

EJMcD

Have you ever sold a lens and used the proceeds to replace it with another? Do we know if the OP will be shooting for MLB, NBA, NFL, MLS or high school sporting events?

I know you want me to say...you're right and I'm wrong. So if it will bring this to conclusion, YOUR RIGHT, I'M WRONG.

Merry Christmas, Happy Holidays, Happy Hanukkah, Feliz Navidad, and Happy Kwanzaa.

EJMcD

Thanks for your support but beware, you may hear from btbg.

SkyKing Loc: Thompson Ridge, NY

…have you considered using a teleconverter with the 70-200…?

btbg

In answer to your questiin no I have never sold a lens to buy a different one. I only buy lenses I need for work and use them until I trash them doing so.ething like rock climbing or rafting.

As to the rest of your post you asked me to agree to disagree, so I had stopped responding to you.

I was responding to another poster, but do you honestly think that the op would sell a perfectly good 70-200 f2.8 to help purchase an 80-400? That would be insanity.

Nothing at all wrong with the 80-400. Its a oerfectly good lens, just not the best solution for what the op asked about.

I have no idea what sports he shoots but I am familiar with his camera body and big lenses and their capabilities. If he were to stop using the 70-200 there are a lot of venues he would not be able to shoot in.

Next Wednesday I will be in a gym where correct exposure is f2.8 1/1000th of a second at iso12,800. His camera body will only shoot acceptable images up to iso 8,000 so he would already be shooting at 1/500th of a second with the 70-200. With the 80-400 it would be a lost cause, so no, he should not sell the 70-200.

Thanks for the dialogue though and for your opinion, and best of luck with your continued photographic endeavors.

EJMcD

Thanks much! THE END

EJMcD

Hi Groye:

Hope you've got enough opinions to help you with your decision. I'm curious, did you ever post what camera you'll be using your new lens with? I didn't see that.

Whatever choice you make, come back after you've had some use with it and let us know your thoughts.

rehess Loc: South Bend, Indiana, USA

So much talk about the atmosphere. Sports doesn’t involve a giant blow-torch, which has to have disturbed the atmosphere.

Flickwet Loc: NEOhio

I disturbed the atmosphere…just now