300 2.8VR vs 70-200VR?

I've been using a 70-200VR, and have been pleased with it, but I've seen stuff

here & there suggesting that the 300 2.8VR really outdoes it for image

quality... the focus preset seems like a really handy feature, and it looks

pretty tempting, but aside from the extra reach (and unfortunte loss of zoom

flexibility), do you folks find it really that much better that the 70-200?

"Real world" input would be valuable here, if anyone would be so kind. Wilson,

ya got one of these?

 

Cheers!

What about the 200-400/4 VR for $5K. If I were a hardcore sports shooter and needed that reach, that's what I'd buy.

I'd say the 2.8 is worth it in general--I just got a 300/f4 L for Saturdays and it makes a

huge difference. The main thing is that you have to do less enlarging/cropping, although

you do still have to crop creatively. I find myself cutting off the tops of helmets and cutting

off legs....it takes some getting used to as far as the loss of zoom....once the play goes

through your field, it's hard to find it and refocus quickly unless you're following.

 

I still keep my 70-200 on a separate body, slung over the shoulder for sideline and shots

nearer the sidelines.

 

These are with the 300/f4L (Canon); with a 2.8 you bg blur will be even better. The first is

essentially uncropped, the second, only slightly.<div></div>

second example<div></div>

The 300mm/4 L from Canon is the same price as the similar f/4 lens from Nikon WHICH IS WITHOUT VR/IS. So, Canon has the advantage there. The 200-400VR Nikon is out of my price range. I've been getting away with the 70-200VR with the 1.7X TC, which is a 340mm equiv reach and f/4.5 max, but still retains the VR.

I've always been under the impression that for shooting sports if you are using a monopod,

you prolly don't need the IS?

Hi Chris, if you're happy with result from the 70-200mm f2.8 VR when shooting sport, then I don't think you need to worry about getting a 300mm f2.8 just to improve image quality as both the VR telezoom and 300mm f2.8 VR can produce spectacular images. However, if you need the reach of a 300mm focal length, then you certainly should consider one.

 

In the "Real World," many sports shooters would use both lenses simultaneously on two bodies. In fact, it's common to see shooters with 400mm f2.8+body+monopod, 70-200mm f2.8+body, and 16-35mm f2.8+body running up and down sidelines of an NFL/division I game (no time to change lenses.) Bottom line is whatever works for you, that's the right way to go. If single body with 70-200mm f2.8VR works for you, then why change?

 

As for VR or monopod, they are nice to have, but you don't really need them for shooting fast moving sports that require you to constantly shoot at 1/500 sec. and up as the reciprocal shutter speed to focal length rule of thumb already eliminate that possible hand holding camera shake. Having said that, monopod is definitely a must if you're shooting a 400mm f2.8 (or 500mm f4, 600mm f4,) since you don't want to hand hold 12 pounds for an entire soccer game (70-200mm f2.8 and 300mm f2.8 are much easier to hand hold.) VR is effective when shooting at low shutter speeds, those at below the reciprocal shutter speed to focal length rule of thumb. Again, you'll be shooting at 1/500 sec. or higher, so you won't have camera shake (therefore VR/IS not needed.) Couple scenarios that VR/IS can be helpful is panning at slow speed (use mode II) or when shooting the 600mm f4 at 1/500 sec. IMHO, if you were to shoot wildlife, then VR/IS will give you much more benefit since you'll often shoot at below reciprocal shutter speed to focal length. Essentially, VR/IS stops the camera movement, but can't stop a moving subject (that you need fast shutter speed.)

Thanks Wilson--I'd hoped you were lurking here!

 

That's definitely good perspective... since I'm only marginally needing extra reach, I think I'll stick with the 70-200. That's 4 grand I could put to good use elsewhere!

 

I'd tried a TC on the 70-200, but the quality just wasn't there, so I was thinking this might worthwhile.

 

THANKS!!

Have a look at the 120-300 2.8 sigma it also works great with the apo 1.4. Zoom and image quality for about 2.5K usd.

I tried the 120-300, but I was really unhappy...super slow to focus, hunted a lot, and just felt clumsy to me. Not to bash Sigma, but the ones (including thus one) I've tried just didn't measure up; I think I'll stick with the Nikkors, because at least for me, they've been much better.

Wow I'm surprised at your answer there Chris, we have three of them and the are all as good as the 70-200 with the exception of VR which i don't use anyway HSM is as fast as AFS maybe you got a dud sample.

 

I also love my nikkors but give credit to the 120-300 and the 10-20 sigs that I have aswell I even sold my 300 2.8 nikkor as it was gathering dust.

 

Now the new 400 looks like a cracker, I'm gonna see if I can get my hands on one for Indy if they are around by then.

Nice website Chris.

hey, thanks for the site compliment Mark!

 

Yeah, I had high hopes for the 120-300, but maybe this particular one WAS a dud...I hadn't even considered that. Does it bug you at all that the zoom is backwards from the Nikon? This one zoomed in the opposite direction--I can't tell you how many times I missed shots because something happened quickly & I spun the ring the wrong way--LOL

now, in all fairness, it wasn't a "DG" version, if that makes a difference here. Would that have been a big factor?

We returned one back focus but all of ours are sharp and super fast. At first It used to bug me re zooming in reverse but you get used to it. Ours are all dg versions with t41 foots.