Recommend BIG Nikon glass

[LoungeLizard]

I've got a friend who is getting into kids sports photography - mostly driven by her kids. She just got the Nikon 70-200 f/2.8 VR (which she promptly dropped and had to send in for repair!) and is now looking for something with longer reach.

Since I don't know the Nikon product line, what would you recommend. I'd like two recommendations: "budget not an issue" and "budget is an issue", though knowing her, she'll go for the first!

[srwatters]

What body is she shooting with? If it's a D70, then she MUST have a AF-S lens for sports. If she has a D2H, D2Hs, or D2x, then other lenses are OK. Prime or zoom? I'll tell you what I would lust for...

AF-S VR Zoom-Nikkor 200-400mm f/4G IF-ED
or
AF-S VR Nikkor 300mm f/2.8G IF-ED

Both are VR (Canon IS like) lenses with AF-S (motor built in the lens). Price is $5100 for the zoom and $4200 for the prime (rebate of $400 not included in that price).

On a budget...
AF-S Nikkor 300mm f/4D ED-IF
or
AF VR Zoom Nikkor 80-400mm f/4.5-5.6D ED

No AF-S on the 80-400 though...

[jeffkohn]

What kind of sports photography? Wondering exactly how much reach she needs, and how much of an issue low-light conditions will be.

For "budget" I'd recommend a TC-14 or TC-17 to use with the 70-200VR. I can't really think of any budget lenses that would be better than that combo. Maybe the 300 f/4 but that only gets you 20mm more than 70-200 + TC-14 gaining maybe a slight edge in optical quality but giving up the flexibility of a zoom. You might also consider the 80-400vr but honestly for somebody who already has the 70-200vr I think a TC-17 makes more sense.


For "budget not an issue":

200-400vr - Probably the best zoom Nikon has ever made. Extremely sharp even wide open, plus the flexibility of a zoom. Only downside is f/4 max aperture, you might have trouble indoors or for evening games. And it's a pretty heavy lens.

300 2.8 VR - Another new lens that's getting raves, has a 1-stop advantage over the 200-400 but you lose some reach and flexibility due to fixed length. A little bit easier to handhold then the 200-400 from what I've heard.

200 2.0 VR - Awesome low-light performance, for times when that extra stop or two makes all the difference. You can get more reach by adding TC's, and it's more easily handheld than the other two. But again no zoom flexibility, and by itself it might not be enough reach.

I'd go with the 200-400 unless low-light shooting is a priority. I just got this lens and it's magnificent. I wanted it mostly for wildlife shooting and although f/4 means bumping the ISO sometimes, the zoom is just so convenient. It also works well with the TC-14 if you can live with f/5.6.

Not to sound sexist but I can't imagine a woman hand-holding any of these lenses for long. I'm a pretty big guy and I don't plan on handholding the 200-400 much at all, because even though it can be done it's hard to hold it steady enough to get clean shots (VR can only do so much). A monopod or tripod is definitely recommended to get the most out of these big lenses.

[LoungeLizard]

Goes to show how much I know about the "dark side"!

She's shooting with a D70. Sports - think kids little league and football. Her kids participate, so she's actually shooting and selling prints to other parents. Her theory? "I'm there already and taking pictures, might as well". By the way, she was doing it for free until I talked some sense into her!

[srwatters]

Originally Posted by LoungeLizard

Goes to show how much I know about the "dark side"!

She's shooting with a D70. Sports - think kids little league and football. Her kids participate, so she's actually shooting and selling prints to other parents. Her theory? "I'm there already and taking pictures, might as well". By the way, she was doing it for free until I talked some sense into her!

She would be far smarter to take Jeff's advice and buy a TC and a D2Hs instead of dumping big money on the glass. The D70 is a fine body for static objects, and you can get good action shots, it's just not the right tool for sports. JMHO.

She can adopt me if she has that kind of loot

[jeffkohn]

Scott mentioned an important fact about the 80-400vr I forgot to mention, the lack of AF-S, IMHO this is pretty much a deal breaker for action.

D2H(s) is certainly a good option though 4mp might be somewhat limiting for larger prints (not much cropping room). It might be wise to wait and see what the D200 looks like, although the "wait and see" game can be frustrating since it's hard to know how long the wait will be or whether it will be worth it.

[LoungeLizard]

Originally Posted by srwatters

She can adopt me if she has that kind of loot

You'll have to take a number behind me!

Is this the TC? http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/cont...ughType=search

[jeffkohn]

That's the 1.4x. I might recommend the 1.7x. It costs you 1.5 stops but gives more reach. The 1.7x seems to be a good compromise between reach and optical quality. It doesn't degrade the image as much as a 2x TC, although the 1.4x is slightly better. For TC's I went with the gray-market versions since they're quite a bit cheaper and with no moving parts I wasn't too concerned about warranty (you do get 1yr from B&H though).

[LoungeLizard]

Thanks, guys...

[engstrom]

No budget: AF-S VR Zoom-Nikkor 200-400mm f/4G IF-ED
Slight budget: Sigma 120-300mm f/2.8 EX APO IF HSM
Budget: 1.4 TC

[labguy]

i've got a tamron 60-300 f3.8 that I'll let go for $75 since i no longer shoot. Its not a digital lens but for a film camera. it is a manual focus. not sure but i think film and digital use same mounts.