1. Welcome to NikonCafe.com—a friendly Nikon camera & photography discussion forum!

    If you are thinking of buying a camera or need help with your photos, you will find our forum members full of advice! Click here to join for free!

Nikon 200-400 VR or Sigma 300-800

Discussion in 'Lens Lust' started by draithby, May 1, 2005.

  1. Hi All,

    I am wanting a longer lens to replace my 50-500sigma and am curious which of these 2 you think is better and why.

    Obviously the sigma has way more reach.
  2. I don't have mush experience with either, but I will suggest that you go lift both before you buy. I know the 200-400 was 7.2 lbs, but until I tried one on a D2H, I didn't really appreciate the true size of this rig.
  3. Of course the hard thing is to find a place that actually has one in stock that u can try. Most have to order it and are reluctant unless i can commit 90% to buy, which i am not at yet.
  4. Flew


    Jan 25, 2005

    Several Cafe members have the 200-400VR, and I have shot with them and seen their images. It is a great lens, and very carry-able. I think that the 300-800 is probably a good lens, but isn't really targeted toward the same applications as the 200-400.

    Guess it depends on what you will be using it for.

  5. Hi Frank

    I want to use it for sports - skating and hockey indoors and soccer and baseball outdoors. Also some birding.

    I have the TC14E2 and 17

    I am wondering iof the f4 aperture is a hinderance when compared to maybe a 400 F2.8?
  6. Flew


    Jan 25, 2005

    There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that the 400 2.8 will be superior in almost every way to the other lenses that you have listed. It is also about $7,000. If I could possibly afford one, I'd get it in a minute. :lol:

    For inside sports shooting, I would definitely agree that a 2.8 or faster lens is highly desirable. To me, that would include the 85 f1.4, 85 f1.8, 70-200VR f2.8, 300 f2.8, and the 400 f2.8.


  7. yeah i hear you frank.

    The tough part of this decision is that a 400 2.8 is prob sharpewr and better max apeture. However, the 200-400 has VR so helps a bit with low light but of course not with high speed action, it also has a large zoom range where the 400 is fixed.

    Tough call.

    I think i need to find a place that can let me touch both, or maybe i'll try to find a place to rent them.
  8. Flew


    Jan 25, 2005

    I forgot one or two things, including the 200 f2. You should also consider the 300 f2.8 VR.

  9. yeah, thanks i'll check them out too !!!
  10. two competely different lenses...

    I currently have both... sold the 200-400... bought a 70-200.....
    hated it compared to the 200-400... returned the 70-200 and
    bought for the second time the 200-400... oh well...

    they are both incredibly sharp and fast focusing lenses..
    the Sigma is great if you plan on not moving around much.. the reach is remarkable and is tack sharp wide open from 300-700... at 800 at f8 it is tack sharp... side by side test it's sharper than the 200-400 with a tc...

    The 200-400 is mobile...great on a monopod and even with the 1.4 tc it's very sharp ...

    so it really depends what you are going to use the lens for...
    I shoot MX with both lenses and it works out great... oh... bokeh
    on the 300-800 is really nice...

    my favorite of the two is the Sigma 300-800 for it's reach...

    hope this was a little help...
  11. bpetterson

    bpetterson Guest

    I have the
    200-400 f4 VR
    400mm f2.8
    200mmVR f2

    All are great and expensive.
    Each has it's best usage.
    So you need to pick your most usage and that is it.

    For field sports- long field- the 200-400mm with monopod.

    Static subects 400mm f2.8 with monopod or sturdy tripod

    Sports in rather poor lighting and where you are close
    You can't beat the 200mm f2 VR

    I was using the 200-400mm yesterday with the D2X in HSC
    whats that FOV of 800mm @ f4 tack sharp. I was on Gitzo 1325 tripod and Kimberley Head
    Even tried the mirror lock up.

    The 200mm f2 is the easiest to carry around.

  12. mrdinh


    Mar 8, 2005
    North Dakota
    how about the 200 f2 with a extender or 300 2.8? what are the main diff?
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.