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!

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
    Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)


    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
    Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

    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.
     
  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.