Sports Photography Upgrade D200 or 70-200 VR

Hi

In the fall im going to be the only shooter for a soccor club of 2500 kids. I

will not be shooting any posed shots all action currently I own a D70, 18-70

3.5-4.5 AFS DX. 50mm non d 1.8. 60mm 2.8 macro and a 80-200 AF-D ED. I

noticed that my autofocus just doesnt seem to be enough. Should i upgrade my

Body to a D200 or my lense to a 70-200 2.8 AFS ED VR. or should i just work

with what i have and save until i can afford both. thanks

 

-Anthony

While a better lens for soccer would be a 300mm, I would think that the D70 and 80-200 would perform well. It doesn't have the frame rate you'd probably want, but you should still get good results.

 

That said, from all accounts I've read, the D200 has a much better AF engine and, combined with 5 fps, should allow you to get more out of your 80-200. I shoot with an 80-200 and a D2H and while it's not an AF-S, this combination focuses as fast as I need it to for hockey, volleyball, lacrosse, baseball or whatever I'm shooting.

 

If you're missing shots due to slow AF, I would upgrade the body first. Assuming the D200 AF is as good as I've read, you should see perceptible improvement. If you then find that it's still too slow (and that would surprise me) you can then move up to the 70-200.

If you can borrow a Nikon D50 body, you should try it at ISO 800 or 1600 for action__the AF 80-200 lens will be just about right. You could buy a pair of D50 bodies and have $$$$s left over compared to the D200 body.

(You do understand that the VR feature will keep the camera-lens steady in your hands but do next to nothing for keeping a moving object 'steady?')<div></div>

Anthony, The D70 w/ the 80-200 is a very capable rig. I have covered several seasons of rec/highschool level soccer with it and come away with many keepers. The range of the lens is a little short. I can cover about 1/3 of the field but the zoom is handy for close quarter sideline action. . A 300 f.4 AFS is mounted on another body. Knowledge of your sport and camera/set-up mixed with a little patience helps alot. I have recently aquired a D200 and it does drive the lenses a little faster and the frame rate is higher but I attribute my " misses" more to operator error rather than the cameras. The 18-70 might be useful for detail and sideline images. I try to include close-up storytelling shots in my coverage. Good Luck, Mark<div></div>

I purchased my girlfriend a D50 for her birthday so if i need to mount a second lense that will be posible i was planning on just keeping my 18-70 on it. but i have noticed the 80-200 being a tad too short. thanks for all your responses

Guys,

 

For action photography, the AF mechanism is *in* the camera body. It's the main driver of the autofocusing. The more you move up the product line, the faster the AF.

 

REMEMBER: the lens is driven by the AF mechanism in the body.

 

If you really want speed, you need a pro body to drive the lens. The D2HS & D2X have the same AF mechanism. If it's not practical now, try the D200. The consumer level bodies can probably heck it but you may miss shots.

Im thinking about ordering the d200 and waiting on a lense will the 80 -200 be noticable faster on the d200

Here's my personal experience with action shots of my 3 kids in soccer and baseball for the past several years. My main camera is an F100 and back-up is an N80 (similar to the D200 and D70 respectively).

 

I started with a 70-300/4-5.6 zoom that did okay with the F100 but hunted from time to time on the N80. I eventually saved for a used 80-200/2.8 AF-S. I got a great deal on a mint lens from a known photo.netter. The money I saved by not buying the VR version I used to buy a 1.4 Nikon teleconverter, giving me a 280/4.0 at the long end.

That is about the reach you have on your digital body. Also, the addition of the teleconverter downgrades the AF cabability. It's okay on my N80, but still very good for my needs on my F100.

 

You certainly don't need VR for action shots. If you have other reasons for upgrading the body, I think that you will find a very nice upgrade in AF performance also. It is where I would look first.

You might throw a Kenko 1.4 AF teleconverter on the lens (since Nikon doesn't make one for non AF-S lenses) and see if the results are better than comparable cropping. That would give you 420/4.0 at the long end (that makes me salivate, thinking what a D200 would do for me...but I have a wife and self-preservation issues to think about).

 

Good luck.

I'll pitch in my 2 cents worth...and that's really all it is...because I covet both tools as you do...

 

In any case, I have always been instructed to invest in glass first because it will hold value and function longer than a body will. For example, try picking up a 17-35 AFS lense used today and it still demands close to $1K even though it has been out for years. It is still considered supurb in its range. Compare that to my F100 or a D1/D100 and consider their current resale value...not so good. I know you're not looking to buy only to resell later, so let's look at it from a functionality standpoint. In 3 years, I'm betting the 70-200 will still be a performance rockstar, comparable to or higher than today's price(depending on exchange rates and rebates...I wish I had bought @ 1350 after rebate). At that time, the D200 would likely have come down in price due to subsequent digital bodies. Newer bodies would likely surpass the D200's features in areas such as the AF module. I know it's all speculation, but since you have a relatively new body (my impression from reviews was that the D200 AF was not much faster than D70), I'd go for the glass.

 

Like I said though, this comes from a guy that wants both...I'm jealous of whichever you decide.

Thats what I was taught also; buy glass first for they hold their value. One main point I meant to make was that if the D70 had a functional vertical grip, I wouldn't even have a question at what to buy. except to vr or not to vr. But I find the lack of a useful vertical grip to be uncomfortable. anybody have similar experiances.

I have a D50, a D200, and the 70-200mm AFS VR. I've also owned a D70 and an 80-200mm AF-D ED. The 80-200mm I had was one of the slower focusing lenses I've owned. The AFS version is a big step up.

 

The D50 focuses noticeably faster than the D70. The D200, in turn, is a bit faster than the D50, but not blow-you-away faster. The frame rate of 5 fps is fantastic, but you have to be wary of firing off lots of unfocused pictures. Another advantage of the D200 is that you get more cropping room.

 

If I had to pick the lens or the body, I'd pick the lens and borrow your GF's D50. You might also look into picking up a used 80-200mm AFS. The VR isn't going to be of much value shooting soccer.

Anthony, you mentioned the question of "whether vr or not to vr." All things being equal, I would love to have the 70-200 VR. It would be useful to me in many ways.

 

However, in my experience, sports shooting would not be one of them. For the sports I shoot, I'm almost always shooting with a monopod. My missed shots aren't the result of camera shake - they're typically due to user error, misplaced focus point, another player in the way at the last minute, etc. Even indoors, shooting hockey in badly-lit rinks, I'm shooting at shutter speeds fast enough that camera shake isn't one of my problems.

 

All this is to say that if you're considering spending the extra money (the differential is $500+) for VR, consider how you shoot to determine if you'll actually get any benefit from it.

I have shot rodeos for years. I have tried many lens,tripods mono bean bag etc. The best equment I have ever used is the 70-200 VR shot free hand to be able to follow the action. If you wish get a Nikon 1.4 extender. I have the d200 and love it. BUT the 70-200 f2.8 is at the top of the list.

Keep this in mind: 5 years from now the 70-200 will still be a great lens, but you'll have thrown the D200 on the scrap heap long before that.

Is that the tripod-collar, two-ring 80-200 AF-D ? In daylight, I find the 70-200 on a D100 (center sensor only) and the 80-200 on a D2h to be about the same. The D2 wins hands down as it gets darker.

 

I have shot soccer with a D100 & 80-200 two-ring, and I find that while I'd get more usable shots with faster AF, I'd rather have a second (D70?) body with a 35-70/2.8 for the near sideline shots that I just couldn't get with a long zoom. Also, the Sigma 70-200 HSM is as fast & good as the VR lens for half the price (and no VR). Sure, it has less resale value, but it's way less money up front if you need it soon.

Get a d2h or x if you can afford it, I don't use d200's preffering 8fps and the ability to use 2 times crop on the d2x.

 

For glass I'd highly recommend the sigma 120-300 2.8 (dg version if possible) its an absolute killer for soccer.

 

I shoot about 6000 soccer kids a year and as its my business I preffer to stick with d2h or x's over the 200. Get a body first then the lens as your 80-200 will work fine with a d2h or d2x also if you do stick with the 80-200 grab a kenko convertor they work well and a good mono pod.

 

Enjoy the shoot how long have you given yourself to capture all these kids? Contact me by email and I'll give you a few tricks to speed things up if you like.

 

regards

Mark<div></div>

Are you guys seriously recommending a D50 as an *upgrade* to a D70? If you have the latest firmware (or a D70s, which came with it pre-installed) there shouldn't be any reason that a D50 would out-perform the D70 in the AF department.

 

That being said, I would think that the 80-200 mounted on a D70 would be a fine rig for soccer, if a bit short as some others have suggested. You might just try looking for a slightly longer telephoto (zoom or otherwise) to mount on a spare body (either borrowed or rented).

 

The D200, or a pro body, will certainly have slightly faster AF, but learning to pan and track your subjects will make a much bigger difference. I'd say you should go for a longer lens, if anything.

Re: the D50 vs. the D70. I've had them both and the D50 is seriously a better camera. I shoot JPG; RAW shooters may disagree, but the image quality is better right out of the camera, the metering seems improved and the AF is better. There are some negatives with the D50 -- it is harder to control (more menus, lesss buttons and dials), punyier pop-up flash that vignettes with the 17-35mm, etc. -- but it is still a better camera.

So I think I have decided to not upgrade my body untill I make my profit from this upcoming season, and when I do I will go for a D2 or who knows a D3 series camera. Now from thinking about how I shoot I do not see a need for vr. but I did want to mount a bigger lense on the D50 for now. Is the 120-300 good enough or should I get a 300 2.8 or a 300 4 prime lense I would like to stay under $2000 any suggestions. Also whats the differense between the different companys 300 2.8 nikon, tamron, sigma? Again thank you for all your feedback.

 

-Anthony

the 120-300 is a 2.8 and will give you heaps more flexability over the prime. We use them all the time and they are a really top notch lens. They smoke the 300 f4.