Lens for LAX?

[DaMavs]

My son just started playing Bantam Lacrosse (3rd/4th graders) which has provided my first opportunity to shoot the sport. So far I've been using a 70-200 VR II primarily with a 1.4X TC on it, although I've shot it naked on occasion too. This is of course pretty short for shooting a field sport so I've been debating the best way to get some more reach on a D700.

I was debating a 300/4 with the 1.4X TC or even considering looking for an 80-400 potentially, but am now planning on picking up a 2.0X Nikon III TC for the 70-200. I figure that's my cheapest option to get to 400 and judging by some other threads recently the image quality is still pretty good despite the 2.0 TC. I'd love the 300/2.8, but can't justify the cost unfortunately.

Did I choose wisely? Any thoughts?

My local camera store actually had 1 in their system which allegedly gets delivered to my local store tomorrow so this weekend I should get to play with it at a LAX tourney.

 

[photobrad]

TBH, most games are in the daytime....a d300 or d7000 would give you some added reach and pixel density...the 300 f4 is a nice way to go as well. 300 on a 300 of course is 450 equivalent....with plenty of pixel density for cropping too....

The tc idea sounds great, until you realize that its a big hit on af speed/accuracy on most lenses. Esp the 2.0. The 80-400 isnt much either tbh. John here uses the sigma 120-300 2.8 which can occasionally be found used in the 1800 range....but many have found their copy a bit slow on the af as well according to many reviews.

 

[Aqualung]

^+1...I also had the Siggy 120-300, good lens, and liked the zoom, but the AF perf and IQ of the 300 is a step up, for a price, of course.

I'd probably go with the 300f4, ~$900-950 used these days.

 

[DJ Dunzie]

Just make sure if you go the 300/f4 route that you grab the AF-S model. I owned two copies of both the AF-S and AF-ED models, and the AF-S version was heaps better in both instances. Shooting wide open, with a TC, and of course for AF performance, the AF-S is far superior. I never enjoyed either non-AFS model.

Having said that, it's a bargain for field sports, and works well even wide open with a 1.4X TC. Without breaking the bank for an f2.8, it's a good solution on a budget.

 

[sambo.]

i find i can shoot field sports with a 200mm. it's just a question of being patient.

now, that said, i prefer a 400 for field sports.

if you can justify plonking for a 300/4, then that's a very high-end way to go. those 300/4 lenses are pretty nifty.

 

[DaMavs]

Thanks for the feedback. Sounds like the 300/4 stays on my Lens Lust List. You guys are a bad influence...

Short-term I'll play with the 2.0 TC and see how it does on the 70-200. Long-term I'll look to "graduate" to a worthy 300 option...