New to me 400/2.8 AFS Ver. 1, am I expecting too much?

[robert_bouknight1]

I admit that I am a sucker for a deal on things that used to be expensive.  The latest, a 400/2.8 AFS from about 20+ years ago, arrived last week.  A 300/2.8 of the same generation has served me well for many years, yielding great results with D3s and D810 cams.  I had high expectations for the 400/2.8.  

The lens arrived with better cosmetics than I expected, a quick check indicated that the AF seemed fast and accurate.  Yesterday, I loaded it up with some other gear to shoot a HS soccer match for a friend.  I did not find out about the event until Saturday night, so no further testing other than the quick initial was done to prepare.

First, I am out of practice shooting soccer.  It has been probably 15 years, I believe I used a D200 and 300/4 AFS back then.  Many times I was too late tripping the shutter.

I started with the 400/2/8 on a Z7II (which I have never used for action), and a 200-500 AFS/VR on a D850.  Both rigs on monopods, good light let me set 1/2000 initially at f2.8 then 3.2 on the 400/Z7II, and 1/1600 at 5.6 on the 200-500/D850.  Later, I moved the 200-500 over to the Z7II to have a comparison.  I did not move the 400 over to the D850.  In hindsight, I should have.

The photos with the 400 look nice on my 24" monitor before zooming, but don't look perfect zoomed to 100%.  Probably the most sharp photos were delivered by the D850+200-500 combo.

Today, I did some more static testing with a heavy tripod  The 400/2.8 does focus accurately on both the D850 and Z7.  The lens definitely has a little glow at f2.8, but probably looks better at f4 than the 200-500 does at 5.6.  I pulled the 300/2.8 out, it looked similar to the 400 at 2.8 today, but I think the 300 gets sharper quicker when stopped down.  The 400 did pass a flashlight test today, pretty clean inside.  I cleaned a thin oily layer off of the front element before today's testing, but after soccer photos.

Looking more carefully at the soccer photos, the 400 does not have much DOF at f3.2 even at half way across a soccer field.  I think the Z7II may have been spotting the plane of focus just barely behind my chosen running player.  In fairness to the Z7, action AF accuracy seemed more acceptable using the 200-500 (at 5.6).  The day was a test of the Z7II as much as the 400/2.8.  Actually the Z7 seemed to focus on action better than I thought it would, so I did not change to the D850.  I should have swapped to have a better lens evaluation.  For the record, I was using Dynamic area AF-C on the Z7 and AF-C D9 on the 850.  Guess I will have to try a Z8 or Z9 someday, but I am not shooting much sports lately.

So does anyone have any experience with the pre-VR 400/2.8?  Is a typical 400/2.8 notably better stopped to f/4?  I don't really need a 400/2.8, but can justify keeping this one for the low price I paid.  Maybe I should think of it as a very heavy 400/3.5 with an emergency f/2.8 mode.

 

 

Edited May 21 by robert_bouknight1

[Rick Helmke]

It isn’t the lens. Shooting either of those at 2.8 or 4 will not give you the sharpest results. DOF is almost nonexistent until around f/8 and still not much. You’re asking autofocus to keep constantly moving subjects in focus and the odds just keep getting worse. My suggestion is set ISO to auto. Pick a shutter speed 500 minimum and use f/8. Keep your subject inside the focus area your camera is using. Concentrate on keeping your subject framed on your focus point. Check your image on the back of the camera once or twice and if exposure/white balance and focus look good leave it alone and concentrate on capturing images and not playing with the camera. It won’t take long for you to get accustomed to the task and you’ll quit thinking about it and just do it. You’ll have a lot of throwaways, that’s the nature of sports photography. In the film days I was happy getting four decent shots on a roll of 36 exposure film. With the high frame rates now the percentage of keepers is much less. You’ll also find strengths and weaknesses of both lenses and after a bit of practice you’ll find what works for you and not carry a lot extra, often heavy, stuff.

 

Rick H.

[mike_halliwell]

7 hours ago, robert_bouknight1 said:

I admit that I am a sucker for a deal on things that used to be expensive.

I know the feeling!

That's how I ended up with my 400mm 2.8 Fl.... 😂

and, yes, DoF is razor thin so subject isolation can be a delicate balance between 'deep' enough subject sharpness and creamy background.

It is possible to over-do-it... 😉

[ilkka_nissila]

I think it's just likely that the Z7 II doesn't have a fast enough processor to deal with such action situations reliably. Use the D850 with the 400/2.8 and you should get better results in this kind of scenario, at least if the subjects are moving a lot. Stopping down a bit is no bad idea as 400/2.8 really gives a very narrow slice in focus.

 

I use the 300/2.8 for singles figure skating and while I shoot it wide open, I use it with a lower-pixel-count D6 which focuses it excellently to the requirements of that sensor. It's a nano-coated lens (the latest) and there is no "glow" to speak of, but the rendering is not as bitingly sharp as some of the newest lenses; the 300/2.8 gives a more gentle appearance to the images. I know the 300/2.8 is excellent on the D850 as I have used that combination for outdoor concerts. I think you should get very good results with the D850 and the 400/2.8 although it's not the newest version and some improvements in focusing technology and optics have taken place since.

 

For sports photography with a mirrorless camera, you need a Z8 or Z9 basically to get good results consistently. I find the Z8 with the 200/2 II produces outstanding results in indoor sports, but I haven't used the 300/2.8 with it for this purpose. I have never personally shot with a 400/2.8. Just too big for my purposes!

[robert_bouknight1]

Thanks, all.

While the images from the 400 at 3.2 were generally a little less sharp than those from the 200-500, there was a nice look to them.  The 200-500 images look slightly more "plastic" in comparison.  I had thought this, Ilkka notes that his 300/2.8 gives a more "gentile" image.

And I need to work with the lens to figure out a stop that has just enough DOF for the image.  IMO, the subject's face(s) need to be in focus, the rest can get soft.

In addition to the D850, I still have a D500 and D3x that might work well with the 300 and 400/2.8's.

[ShunCheung]

I am afraid that both the Z6 and Z7, including their respective ii versions, don't have the best AF for tracking moving subjects. You can try the Z7 with a static subject and see how that looks like. Otherwise, the D500 and D850 have almost the latest DSLR AF, only second to the D6 and D5. (D6 is supposed to be somewhat better.)

[tonybeach_1961]

On 5/20/2024 at 7:28 PM, Rick Helmke said:

It isn’t the lens. Shooting either of those at 2.8 or 4 will not give you the sharpest results. DOF is almost nonexistent until around f/8 and still not much. You’re asking autofocus to keep constantly moving subjects in focus and the odds just keep getting worse. My suggestion is set ISO to auto. Pick a shutter speed 500 minimum and use f/8.

I'm not sure about the value of shooting an f/2.8 lens at f/8. I would think you can get comparable results from a less expensive and less heavy alternative. Also, I would start at 1/1000s for that focal length, not using solid support with MUP, and any subject movement whatsoever.

Edited May 25 by tonybeach_1961

[robert_bouknight1]

Thanks for all of the input.  I decided to return the 400/2.8.  It did not seem to be stunningly sharp at f/2.8 & 3.2 as online reviews had led me to expect.  My 300/2.8 AFS seemed to be a little sharper wide open, and is much more portable.  While the lens was a deal, I was thinking that it was much too large and heavy if I considered it a non-zoom f/4 lens.  Maybe it was just this sample.  The (slight) softness did not seem to be from a mis-alignment or internal haze, though.

The other take away from the soccer shoot was that having a zoom is nice, but I did not like the zoom action on the 200-500.  With practice, one could get used to it I am sure, but I might look at other options.  I should be looking at the Z mount lenses, but I am stubbornly clinging to keeping my F mount system viable.

Edited May 26 by robert_bouknight1

[mike_halliwell]

180-400mm E TC FL VR f4 ?

Bit heavy and might need a second mortgage, but...😉

Edited May 26 by mike_halliwell

[ShunCheung]

Robert, sorry I don't remember which Z bodies you have. If you would like to shoot action, sports, you need either a Z8 or a Z9, maybe perhaps a Zf. I don't think any Z6 or Z7 is sufficient.

[robert_bouknight1]

Mike, that 180-400 would be nice but not happening.  I am not a serious sports shooter any more, but go to events where friends' kids are playing on occasion.

Most of my photos are friends and family, and some events like the concert a few weeks ago.  The Z7II is good enough for this usage.  I also have a Z6 that should be my low light choice, but the Z7II is good enough in most situations, so the Z6 is mostly unused.  I should gather up a bunch of stuff I don't use, sell and get a Z8 or Z9, I guess.  

So my next question for you Z8/9 action shooters:  What mode do you use, and do you get face/eye AF shooting sports?  Looking through the soccer photos yesterday evening for a final cull, the Z7II/200-500 combo seemed to be mostly keeping up with action using Group AF mode.  What would be better if face/eye tracking could lock on and keep up.  I did not try this mode, thought it would overwhelm the Z7II brainpower.  I would try it before getting a Z8/9.

Also, I did another comparison of the 300/2.8AFS vs 200-500, on a D850.  The 300 was looking very good today, "better" than the 200-500 at 300.  I did get a sense that the zoom focused faster, though.   Also interesting is that the bokeh did not look dramatically softer with the 300 at 2.8 vs the zoom at 300/5.6, with subject at around 100' and background at 200'.  The focus fall off to softness happens in less distance at 2.8 vs 5.6 as one would expect.

I probably should give the Z7II/200-500 another couple of games before jumping ship (spending more $).  A little more practice with the slow zoom ring would help.  And, of course, I still have the D850 and a D500, but the appeal of mirrorless face/eye focus/tracking is tempting.