And to think! I almost sold this lens. JV Soccer.

Discussion in 'Sports Photography' started by Connahhh, Oct 1, 2008.

  1. Connahhh

    Connahhh

    Oct 27, 2007
    NH
    D200/70-300mm VR. I almost sold it because it wasn't cutting it for low light and planned to replace it with an 80-200/2.8. I'm glad I hung on to it and waited for the good light instead. :biggrin:

    large.gif

    View attachment 261634
    Bigger: http://www.pbase.com/connorroelke/image/103948363/large

    View attachment 261635

    View attachment 261636

    View attachment 261637
    Bigger: http://www.pbase.com/connorroelke/image/103948371/large

    View attachment 261638

    View attachment 261639
    Bigger: http://www.pbase.com/connorroelke/image/103948384/large

    View attachment 261640
    Bigger: http://www.pbase.com/connorroelke/image/103948389/large

    Critique is appreciated!
     
  2. Good stuff, but I'd get the 80-200 anyway.
     
  3. Connahhh

    Connahhh

    Oct 27, 2007
    NH
    It's pretty impractical for what I shoot. Surfing requires the reach, as does wildlife etc. The only time I would use the 80-200 is for football under the lights which I don't shoot often.
     
  4. Connor, not too bad, looks as though you are up a little north from a few of us (MA) in NH? I'd highly recommend the 80-200 if you don't want to be limited to just good light.
     
  5. Connahhh

    Connahhh

    Oct 27, 2007
    NH
    Yep, NH. I just don't have the coin to spend on an 80-200, but it would be something to consider later on.
     
  6. Sorry, I took it that you were going to sell the 70-300 to help fund the 80-200.
     
  7. Connahhh

    Connahhh

    Oct 27, 2007
    NH
    I was planning to, but I think I would miss the reach of the 300mm...

    80-200mm F/2.8 + 1.4 TC? That's a possibility.
     
  8. I used that combo for awhile and loved it.

    It's easy for me to say buy it...it's not my money or lens to sell.

    IMO, glass is everything and the 80-200 is far better than the 70-300 VR. I once use to think reach is better, but that normally meant smaller minimum apertures.

    Just my .2cents.

    Whereabouts in NH are you? I grew up in Hudson.
     
  9. Connahhh

    Connahhh

    Oct 27, 2007
    NH
    I hadn't even considered that combo and I do agree.

    I'm in the Manchester area.
     
  10. chemisti

    chemisti

    208
    May 24, 2007
    McKinney, TX
    Trade offs and value

    No doubt, the 80-200 2.8 is a classic... I own one and love it! Would love to own the AFS version (or even the 70-200 VR, but I like sleeping in my house at night! The Wife Thing - you know.)

    I shoot a lot of softball with the 70-300 VR - in good light, of course. Here's my take:
    a. I like the bokeh for those zoomed in "sportrait" type shots
    b. AFS is snappy
    c. Weight - holding this thing all day on my D300 is very manageable.
    I think that this kind of use is exactly what this lens was designed to do.

    I do wish it had those creamy OOF backgrounds that the 2.8 gives for most standard shots...

    I am considering adding something like the Sigma 100-300 f4 to my stable for its combination of AF speed, IQ, and build. Even if I did, I would still keep the 70-300. Hard to beat for its combination of weight, focus speed, and IQ. I still believe that it is the finest "consumer zoom" in the world in it's class.

    Sportrait example:
    1727499649_f2778545f4.jpg
    There may be all kinds of things wrong with this image, but I still love it.
     
  11. Sanford504

    Sanford504

    466
    Mar 27, 2008
    Yeadon, PA
    70-300 VR vs 80-200 2.8

    I have both lenses and I wouldn't get rid of either. For bright mornings and afternoons, the 70-300 is my go to lens. I use the 80-200 mostly for heavily overcast days and night games.
     
  12. JESTER

    JESTER

    96
    Dec 4, 2007
    ORLANDO, FLORIDA
    I agree with what Phil said (Except for the Go Pats thing!). I shoot all kinds of sports and my 70-200 is usually with me at every game. If you need the extra reach get a TC. I love the 70-200 and use it probably 70% of the time.
     
  13. I just bought the 70-300 VR off a fellow Cafe member and just got it yesterday. I think it is a nice lens for the price.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Oct 3, 2008
  14. Connahhh

    Connahhh

    Oct 27, 2007
    NH
    Ugh, and I thought I would be safe from lens lust posting in the sports category! :biggrin:
     
  15. jonh68

    jonh68

    Sep 21, 2008
    Alabama
    The 80-200 Af 2.8 will not work with Nikon converters if you want AF. The AF-S version will.

    With that said, I think the 80-200 2.8 would be a great investment, or even the 70-200 2.8. The 80-200 2.8 can be had for 500-600 used and it will produce very sharp images. While you may not shoot in low light, I have found I usually take advantage of the gear I have and look for possibilities to use them. Getting fast glass opens up new creative opportunities.