Need to upgrade kit for sports shooting --new body or new lens?

I am in the market to upgrade my kit for sports. I have been shooting with a D50 for the past year and a half with a

50mm f/1.8 for basketball and an old school 70-210mm f/4-5.6 for outdoor sports (soccer, baseball etc). For the past

year I have been shooting for a local paper to cover high school sports (not my day job). This is merely a semi-pro

situation but one that has allowed me to challenge myself, increase my skills, and along with that my expectations

have also increased. After much success and accolades I expect “more” from my gear.

My dilemma is this: I have taken some very good images with my AF 70-210 Nikkor. But I’ll be the first to admit

that on cloudy days I am hard pressed to shoot any anything under 1600 ISO in order to stop the action. This has

lead me to believe that I need a faster lens (Nikkor 80-200mm f/2.8 or Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8) in order to improve my

IQ. (note: the AF-S 70-200mm VR is out of my price range). Again, my sports shooting is not my day job 

I recently replace my 50mm 1.8 with an 85mm 1.8 to give me better reach for basketball (shooting at 6 mp, this was

the best, most obvious solution for indoor sports)—crops at 1600 ISO just wasn’t cutting it)

However, for outdoor sports I am in a quandary. I definitely need faster AF than my current 70-210mm can give

me….but this is a 75 dollar lens, and at 10 times the cost I am not convinced I will get 10 times better an image..

From the research I have been reviewing the optics on the older AF 70-210mm is quite competitive with the 80-200

f/2.8. And quite honestly, from the surprising results I have gotten with the old school lens, I can see where this

sentiment is coming from.

I am thinking if I scrap my current 70-210mm and try and find a D it will focus faster and that would help solve my AF

speed needs. Naturally, a pro lens would solve that problem but again, I am worried if I get a pro f/2.8 ($700-$800)

lens to get just one F stop advantage I would have buyers remorse after finding that in essence the images produced

might only be nominally better in IQ than the 70-210mm.

Obviously, upgrading to a more advanced body would help matters, but here is where things get complicated so I’ll

sum it up this way. Would you rather:

1) Keep shooting with D50 and cave in for a pro level f/2.8 tele (either the Nikon 80-200mm or the Sigma 70-

200mm f/2.8). ($700-$800)

OR

2) Considering optics are a wash…How about instead get t a gently used Nikkor 70-210mm D ($200-$250)

and put the “savings” towards a D300. With the knowledge that the faster AF on the D300 body will make up the

difference in AF speed.

I welcome your thoughts.

T.C. Morton

Craig,

You put two good options here. Whilst a D300 combined with your existing zoom lens will allow you to consitantly shoot at

ISO 1600 without major noise penalties and give you some shutter speed gain - you will already have a grip on what

a 'faster' aperture lens will do for you when you shoot with your 50mm f/1.8.

My 20 cents worth says always go for better glass, the body can come later. Either the Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 or the Nikon

80-200mm f/2.8 will give you significant shutter speed gain on your D50 and any other body you choose to upgrade to in

the future.

I used the Sigma 70-200mm for 18 months and was very pleased with it's performance and reproduction. It is a HSM lens

(built in Auto Focus servo motor) and is likely to focus faster on your D50 than the Nikkor 80-200mm AF- the Sigma was a

little faster on my D200 than the Nikkor.

I'd stick with the D50 and try either of the Nikkor AF 80-200mm f/2.8 or the Sigma HSM 70-200mm f/2.8 - most gains to

made this way. I made the jump from f/4-5.6 zooms to f/2.8 zooms on the D200 and found it to be a minor revelation for

action photography. I don't think a D model 70-210mm lens will focus much faster than a non D version.

one of the problems with shooting sports on a d50 is the frame rate. at 2.5 fps with a slow variable aperture lens, you will miss some shots. so a d300 at 6fps/8 with the grip would give you considerable improvement in that area. a used d200 would also up your speed, but its ISO performance is worse than the d50's. which brings us to the next requirement for sports: high ISO. you'd see an improvement of about a stop with either a d90 or a d300, but you still need a fast lens for a complete 'semi-pro' kit.

which brings us back to your original question: body or lens.

well, for one thing, a d300 is considerably more expensive than a $7-800 lens. (it's confusing that you're willing to spend $1500+ on a body but only half that on glass). but even if you get a d300, you're still shooting at 5.6 on the long end. so take matthew's advice and get the 2.8 zoom first, since you'll need it anyway. bottom line: you might not really be taking advantage of the d300's frame rate with a slow-focusing old school lens. i'd go for the sigma HSM since your AF needs allt he help it can get (or the 80-200 AF-S nikkor if you can find one).

The new Tamron 70-200 f/2.8 received some nice reviews, especially their optics. Sounds like a great option except for one thing..... the lack of an internal motor. Since you want this for sports and your output is newsprint, I also would consider the Sigma alternative.

The D300 would be a great improvement with 6 fps/faster AF/better ISO but IMO, get the lens you need first. The body price will continue to plunge as newer/faster bodies are released, the lens price won't.

Hi Craig

I shoot sports (football, well, soccer to you over on the other side of the pond) and 99.9% of the time I shoot with a D300 + 80-200/2.8 AF-S

I've owned the D50 and the 70-210 AF as well as having the 70-210 AF-D and whilst the AF speed on the D version is an improvement I would not use it for sports

My advice would be to juggle things around in order to get the D300 and the 80-200/2.8 if it's at all possible, failing that then go for the 80-200/2.8 AF-S and get a used D200 as soon as you can

Craig, i have used the push-pull-nikkor (80-200/2.8D) for many thousand sport-shots. Its a good lens and if bought used

it will hold its value. Today i use the 70-200 VR and the fat 200 VR but i will never let the dusty push-pull-nikkor go. In Your

situation i would get a good used 80-200 Nikkor (two-ring or push-pull) first and save for a D300. Nikons new AF-system is

really nice - compared to my old D2H and D200 the AF of my D700 is much faster. georg