tk

I am a snowboarder 8 years now. My advice. Do one or the other.

The pressure of a camera being shoved into your body on a fall can be VERY dangerous. And you WILL fall. Go out, enjoy yourself, and learn to balance, and try new tricks ect. The amount of people who get hurt at this sport, wether serioulsy or minor is exoborant. and alot of them are very experienced(myself included). Take a few hours with your PS camera for picture taking. Don't intend to do "snowbaording" and photography together. Take your board off and walk around if you have to. I have used video at the mountain, and did that without boarding(just to and from the locations). I have broken a few bones, and have seen some bad things(I also work at the resort). So, my advice is do one or the other. Take a few rolls, put the camera away, and go enjoy yourself. Or, have one of the lift operatiors take the photos for, or of you. Most would be willing to help w/ no problems. Don't mean to discourage, just be wise...

Shun,

I agree. It is better to wait and get the right tool. The 500f4 does however go for about $1000 more than the 400 3.5 in the same condition. It's just that I dont think the 400 3.5 is a compromise. It really is that good of a lens. The poster states he uses a tc-14b w/ the 300f4 , so he had already lost autofocus(although he can reatin it of cource). I think if money is tight, and he wants something now for the warming weather(???) than the 400 is a good choice. It is not heavy, and I can handhold mine. It is great w/ the converter he already has, as well as the 2x. Rolland Ellioit can put contacts in it for $80 which will allow matrix metering, and program modes as in the 500P. He can also use the Tc-16a for a semi-autofocus 640 5.6...It's just my personal opinion, but I don't think the 400 is a compromise. You can get a usable 800f7 from it, and take the $1000 to use for a new tripod/film/safari/etc. I personally just never really like the 500f4. I think if you spend $3000 you should go for the 600f4 AIS, and keep the 300f4. The 600 is big, but also very versitile, and the 300f4 would be the light backup. The 300f4 is a great lens, and keeping it would be a good idea. So, there are some options for you. You may even consider the VR lens...I have had lots of telephots, and i have settled on the 80-200 2.8 with both converters, and the 400 2.8 Those are my choices form this side of the fence, but you needs im sure are different...

Don't settle for what you do'tn want, as any of those lenses you can resell, or keep for a lifetime, however, don't also spend yourself broke, so you can't enjoy the purchase, or feel comfortable using it....Best wishes

This is turning somewhat typical. A poster mentions BUDGET, and that they can't afford what they truly want, so they are asking for help.

The original post said he could not afford the 500f4. Seems everyone always discounts the original posts, and says go for the 9000mmf/1.2!!

It is clearly stated he cant get the 500f/4, yet people are recommending it. If you CAN get the 500f4, then DON'T, and go get the 600f4. If you can do that, then go get the 300 2.8 AFS, and so on and so on. In regards to your questions: The tc14b works EXTREMELY well with the 400 3.5. You lose autofocus anyway when you put it on your 300f4, so no biggie there. The 400 3.5 is a great lens. I have had 3 (yes 3) of them. It is lighweight, with great optics, and is great with converters. If you are looking for a longer lens, but have a budget, just get a good 400 3.5....You won't be disapointed. If you have more money, or choose wait, and save, then a 500 would be nice, but you dont mention that. The 300 f4 Af, and 400 3.5 are about equal optically. You will gain 100mm and EXTRA light by using the 400 3.5. You can find them for $2000 in good shape. I have also had the 300F4 and I love that lens. If money is not an issue I would say go for the 500f4, and keep the 300f4, but you say you cant do that. So, just get the 400 3.5 It is the best bet for what you say you want and need.

If you want to sell the 300f4, let me know, i might buy it..<div></div>

If your concerned with budget, Id do as you say.

The 400 3.5 is MANUAL focus, but is a superb lens, and is excellent with converters. So, you will have to focus manually, but you will gain 100mm, and 1/2 stop of light. I have the 300f4, 4003.5, 400 2.8, and 500f4 at one time or another. If you can afford the 500f4 and keep the 300f4 do that. Otherwise what you say is good idea. Often 300 is way to short for wildlife. With the 400 3.5 you can have a 640 4.9, or a 800f7. That should take care of your needs for a while. Get a tc-16a if you want autofocus. Otherwise, trade in the 300f4 for a 300 2.8...

It is possible if your strobe is strong enough.

Nikon 400mm f/3.5 with fill flash from an sb-28 speedlight.

You may want to +/- the flash to adjust to distance or effect.

I have both.

I'm sure if you are looking at either you know the "technical" differences in them.

In real world use, however, it is different.

If money is not the "restraining" factor, get the F5.

The F100 is great, but it is no F5.

Not built as well, in small areas, much less larger ones.

I HATE the bulk of the F5, but I deal with it. That is the only complaint. I like the slim size of the 100. The weight of the 5 doesn't bother me, but it is so damb big! But, the more you use it, the more thought you can see was put into it. It is very customizable for your type of photography, much more so than the 100. And, it takes more of the old lenses the 100 will not accept. Also it has ADR for AIS lense, which is useful since the aperature is not displayed electronically. The F5 is simply the better camera. There are many reasons why, that I dont feel like getting into. The F100 is great, but if money is not the limiting factor, go for the 5. You will not regret it. The 100 seems like a compromise, now that I have both. If you want any help Email me.