Swap 80-200 2.8 for 85 1.4 and 200 f2

<p>I've got a Nikon 80-200 f2.8 and for shooting indoor sports it's a little slow at times. So I've been thinking of getting rid of it and getting an 85mm f1.4 and a 200mm f2 instead. Any problems, other than the lack of versatility with the zoom? Wondering mostly about the AF speed of the 85mm. It's not AFS but I was wondering if the fact that it's 2 stops faster means that the AF can work faster in low light because the AF sensor has more to work with - or does it not work like that?<br />Steve</p>

 

<p>What camera body/ies are you using? The difference between f/2.8 and f/2 is almost meaningless, though that f/1.4 is a lot faster... at the expense of super duper shallow DoF. <br /><br />I ask about camera bodies, because you might benefit from some of that nice new high ISO performance on a newer unit, and thus preserve the very sports-friendly ability to zoom from 80 to 200mm on the fly.</p>

<p>I'm using the D3, but at f2.8 that often means 6400 ISO which I'm not that happy with. The difference between f2.8 and f2 is 1 full stop isn't it?<br />Steve</p>

 

<p>OK, never mind! Yes, that's a full stop, but you're not going to get anywhere (meaningful) by changing bodies. If you're feeling slow at ISO 6400, you must be shooting spelunking competitions? Whew!</p>

<p>I just did the English National badminton finals and the light there was giving me 1/1000th sec at f2.8 with 6400 ISO.<br>

Steve</p>

 

<p>I have the 2.8/80-200 AF D model (the one that came after the first version, but not the two-ring version) and the difference with the 2.0/200 is huge, if any comparison would be fair.<br>

AF speed, ability to focus under bad light, and IQ at fully open aperture are superior. That the 2.0/200 is only one stop faster then the 2.8 is only a theoretical remark and not based on actual use, the 2.0/200 is in a whole different class of its own<br>

I have no experience with the 1.4/85, but agree that a lens that is one stop faster gets allow more light into the camera and the AF system to work with, based on working with e.g. a 4/600 and 2.8/80-200 with or without TC,<br>

You will sacrifice flexibilty, depending on your style that may or may not be crucial</p>

<p>The 'faster 'aperture has nothing to do with focusing speed of a lens. Fater aperture relates to fact that you can use a faster shutter speed to acquire same exposure quality. Focusing speed of a lens relates to the mechanical design and quality oof build of a particular lens.<br>

I beleive I read in the past that the 85 1.8 is slightly faster focusing than the 1.4. Same, I believe, holds true for the 50mm versions.<br>

Shooting at 1/1000 sec is obvoiuslythe reason you need such high ISO. I'm guessing that most of us indoor gymnasium shooters are at 1/400 or 1/500. Have you tried those speeds in capturing badminton action?<br>

As Paul mentioned, the 200 f2 is an entirely different class of lens. It's one very nice prime, and expensive - around $4500 US! I've seen beautiful photos of volleyball, primarily, shot with this lens. Just gorgeous!<br>

Also consider your DOF when shooting at f1.4. Compare your typical shooting distances and the DOF between the 1.8 & 1.4</p>

<p>Thanks Steve, I am aware of how apertures work! I was just wondering if the fact that more light was getting into the sensor meant the AF had more to work with.<br>

I thought the 200 f2 might be a good compliment to my 400 f2.8VR, but the 85 was more of an uncertainty. The 24-70 f2.8 is another option, but I do like to be able to get to 1/1000s if possible and these indoor venues are so dull (as you obviously know).<br>

Steve</p>

 

<p>Not sure about Nikon, but with Canon, faster aperture does improve AF accuracy, and potentially speed. On most Canon bodies have AF points that improve AF speed and precision when you have a f/2.8 lens on the body. Usually, its the Center AF point, with this feature.</p>

<p>"The EOS 20D [40D, 50D, 7D etc] provides full cross-type performance with maximum apertures as small as f5.6, yet it achieves up to 3 times the standard focusing precision when used with EF lenses featuring maximum apertures larger than or equal to f/2.8."<br>

<br /> Just thought I'd mention it; f/2.8 may make a difference, depending on how Nikon bodies implement AF with f/2.8 lenses.</p>

<p>Well I got the 200 and the 85. The 200 f2 is probably the best lens I've ever used, unbelievably sharp, super fast focusing, well-built, a dream of a lens (as many other have also reported).<br>

Here are some shots.<br>

Steve</p>

<div></div>

<p>Another shot with the 200 f2</p><div></div>

<p>Another</p><div></div>

<p>And finally...</p><div></div>

<p>I reckon these are from Liverpool: Aust. Vs England? A very close game and intensely well fought battle . . . <br>

<br>

A great shot of Renae - playing Wing Defense Australia and the English Girl playing Goal Attack – I like the Umpire in the background too . . .<br>

<br>

Had I responded to your original question I would have said just get the 85 and keep the 80 to 200. . . I use Canon and mainly for swimming, but also for some gym work – my 70 to 200F/2.8L is too slow sometimes – even on a 1 series camera, and my defualts are then my 135/2 or my 85/1.8 . . . </p>

<p>But these images and your decision have given me pause to rethink the 200F/2 – but it is alot of $$$ and I am not necessarily doing many paid jobs now . . . also I do use my 135/2 often – and that holds enough quality, to later crop tighter, in post production.<br>

<br>

But really I dropped in to say "Thanks for posting the higher res images" – it is nice to see the girls up close and from the floor, a different perspective to the TV coverage.</p>

<p>WW </p>

<p > </p>

 

<p>Thanks William, it was a good game. I love netball, but it's hellish tricky to photograph as you probably know, it's just so fast!<br>

I think the 200 f2 is way ahead of any of the zooms (as you should expect really), not just in sharpness but the clarity and smoothness of the image.<br>

The lighting in the Echo Arena was good for once, giving me 1/1000 at f2 1100ISO.<br>

The 85 is nowhere near as sharp to my eyes, but once my camera was sorted out with the AF fine tune it was pretty good at f2, but focus was only so so.<br>

Steve</p>