# Golf



## kajiki (Oct 4, 2009)

Folks, your input please. I have an opportunity to shoot the Japanese Open this month. I will use DX format Nikon dslr, but have no suitable lenses - which I will rent. 

Back in the days of film most people used a 400, some on 500. I recall shooting the 400mm F3.5, which is quite a lot lighter than the 2.8, especially useful when trudging around courses laden with all sorts of other stuff. 

 I wouldn't have a problem with focusing manually, though my D70 bodies won't meter with manual lenses, so just need to keep checking with a Minolta meter, same as we used to back in the day. 

So what I am asking is, which lens would you rent? The 400 2.8 latest, the 400 3.5 manual focus, the 300mm F2.8 (as shooting DX format), or anything longer/shorter?

Incidentally, the reason I won't shoot FX format is that renting doesn't give sufficient time to acclimatise to a new piece of equipment.....lenses are not too difficult to understand but a D3.......


----------



## Derrel (Oct 4, 2009)

The D70 works quite well on the 300/2.8 AF-S Mark II lens, the one right before the VR version came out. That lens and the D70 make very beautiful images with high color saturation and biting sharpness. The lens is somewhat fat and clubby, but on a monopod it handles "okay",and the optical quality is superb. I hear the 300 VR is even better optically.

The 400 f/3.5 ED-IF is a lot more slender in the barrel than the 300/2.8,and it handles much better on a D70 on a monopod. The optical quality is very high on the 400/3.5, but do NOT stop it down to f/5.6--the lens is absolutely best at f/3.5 and f/4 to f/4.5--it actually LOSES sharpness when stopped down.

It's possible that you might need the reach of the 400 on some shots, but at other times, 400mm will be too narrow a FOV,and you will risk needing to move back to get a full-body shot,and having somebody come in between you and your subject...the 400 puts you VERY far back on 1.5x....

Both the 300/2.8 and 400/3.5 are around 7 pounds. I would not suggest the 400/2.8--it's nearly double the weight of the other two lenses and will not bring you much advantage in terms of f/stop or reach. Golf is a pretty slow-moving sport, shall we say. AF is not needed.


----------



## Kenny32 (Oct 4, 2009)

I'm not sure that the 300 F/2.8 will work out as good as the 400 F/2.8 would for Golf. Depending on WHICH version of the 400 you are using, it will most likely be better in every way than the 300. 

Also, Nikon has a 200-400 F/4 which is cheaper on the site that I rent gear from. If you're shooting in sunlight, this will give you a great range for a golf tournament...No need to switch lenses for when you get on the green.

Good luck!


----------



## ottor (Oct 4, 2009)

Ah.............. I'm positive you're gonna need an assistant... PM me for my address to send the tickets to..  :mrgreen:


----------



## phocus78 (Oct 4, 2009)

Hey what a cool opportunity, best of luck


----------



## kajiki (Oct 5, 2009)

thanks , folks. Has anyone USED the 200-400? If so, how is the AF speed? I don't see light as a p
roblem, unless it rains. I was unsure of the 300, as some images I've seen don't seem to lose the b/g detail as well as I had hoped. Which was why I was thinking about a 400.

http://www.sportsshooter.com/gear_profile.html?id=97


----------



## kajiki (Oct 5, 2009)

ottor said:


> Ah.............. I'm positive you're gonna need an assistant... PM me for my address to send the tickets to.. :mrgreen:


 
these would be the plane tickets?


----------



## kajiki (Oct 10, 2009)

OKay, seems I will shoot the 300mm F2.8 but unsure which version to rent; have a choice of either the regular AFS lens or the AFS-VR version.
I've never shot a VR lens, will use a monopod, and perhaps for some shots the TC-14EII. 
Which version should I use?


----------



## kajiki (Nov 6, 2009)

went for the AFS and the 1.4x

a couple had the 200-400, some shots were a little too tight so maybe next time I will get that zoom.

basically everything was fine, I have forgotten how to attach images!

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3496/4074203353_c3260108f1_o.jpg


----------



## kajiki (Nov 6, 2009)

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2685/4073922596_270e16151d_o.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3519/4073269783_4145894b99_o.jpg

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2776/4073356029_34e9fc688c_o.jpg

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2736/4074290984_d7d0d72272_o.jpg

c&c most welcome


----------



## ottor (Nov 6, 2009)

I think they're awsome !! Keep in mind that in most sports, you can't get toooo tight.. You captured some of the facial features that's just as important as the sport action itself... great shots .... Of course, you could have done better with me as an assistant.. I'm free for the next tournament ... 

rick


----------



## kajiki (Nov 7, 2009)

this is too tight......


----------



## TheCoolerKing (Nov 7, 2009)

D3 isnt that hard to learn.  When you rent does the manuals come with them?  I think you would have more of a problem going from nikon to canon.


----------



## kajiki (Nov 8, 2009)

TheCoolerKing said:


> D3 isnt that hard to learn. When you rent does the manuals come with them? I think you would have more of a problem going from nikon to canon.


 
no manuals, if there were they'd be in Japanese anyway - not my favourite subject


----------



## TheCoolerKing (Nov 8, 2009)

kajiki said:


> TheCoolerKing said:
> 
> 
> > D3 isnt that hard to learn. When you rent does the manuals come with them? I think you would have more of a problem going from nikon to canon.
> ...


Camera manuals are like a photographers bible.

You should be able to find a pdf of it off of google.


----------

