Best Pro telephoto zoom over 200mm

[mksnowhite]

for action shooting with D70.Fast focusing a must.DOn'tcare aboutVR.

And I don't want prime.

[Ed_Ingold]

How about a Nikkor 200-400/4 AF-S G VR? Just turn the VR off if you don't want it. I don't think Nikon makes another pro-level zoom in this range, particularly with fast focusing (AF-S).

[chris haake]

200-400 would be the one.

[mksnowhite]

I'm almost afraid to ask how much it is. What about Sigma?

[greglyon]

It (the Nikon 200-400) costs a very 'pro' 5100 US dollars...but WHAT a lens!

[todd peach seattle, washi]

$5,000 for the Nikon 200-400.

 

I've heard a few kind words (and seen some nice PJ results) about the Sigma 120-300 f/2.8 APO EX HSM for $2,400.

 

Conventional wisdom goes something like "spend money on glass, not on bodies", but I would question spending big money on pro zooms to hang on a D70. I have an 80-200 f/2.8, and I can't see well enough through my D70 to confirm the focus. If you're willing to trust the AF, it's OK, but with narrow DOF glass I much prefer the D2H.

[klix]

Why would you waste a pro zoom like the 200-400mm on a consumer body like the D70?

 

I say "in for a penny, in for a pound" -- if you get the 200-400mm, get the D2X or D2Hs as well.

[lex_jenkins]

A few sorta random thoughts:

 

"Action shooting" and D70 don't really go together. But you seem to be doing well with your equine photography so you've proven that dictum wrong.

 

Regarding the price of lenses like the 200-400 VR or anything at Tiffany's: If you have to ask...

 

Since you did have to ask, maybe the 300mm f/4 AF-S is your best bet. It's reasonably fast (in terms of maximum aperture), has the quick and quiet SWM for autofocusing and is very reasonably priced at around $1,000 new.

 

Altho' it may be difficult to confirm focus through the D70 finder in tricky lighting, if the AF is accurate then it probably doesn't matter. As long as you get the shot.

 

You might want to reconsider getting a prime. When I bought a 300mm f/4.5 AI Nikkor recently to try my hand at wildlife photography I thought I'd miss having the flexibility of my 70-210 zoom. I haven't. The extra reach of the 300 is a big advantage and while I can't recompose easily since it's usually necessary to remain immobile to avoid spooking the critters, they move around enough to offer plenty of compositions.

 

I see you already have the 80-200/2.8 AF-Nikkor. Maybe adding a really good 1.4x teleconverter is a reasonable compromise. Some folks report the Kenko 1.4x is at least as good as the Nikon and costs less. The only problem I see with the 80-200/2.8 AF-Nikkor is that it won't focus quite as quickly and quietly as the AF-S.

[jon_noble]

The D70 is not a camera for action?

 

If i remember rightly "The Times" photographers used D70's at last years Wimbledon last year and the results seem to prove otherwise

[gaius1]

According to Nikon Pro magazine, the Times photographers at Wimbledon were using D2H bodies with the wireless adaptor.

[jon_noble]

I stand corrected

[mksnowhite]

Thanks guys for your responses. Yea I know...the D70...but at this point I'm not going to spend 5K on a D2X. I shoot LOTS of images every week and figure my D70 is a throw away (already have close to 20K on it since Jan...but it has paid for itself)... and to be honest I only fill the buffer occasionaly. I think my timing is pretty good (it has GOT to be for what I do.) At the average event I shoot 4 gigs of raw and can't imagine having even more fps to go crazy with ;) I doubt my clients can tell what I'm shooting with...prints look fantastic...especially since I've been doing metallics.

 

Looks like that 2-400 lens is out of my range for a few more years. maybe rent it? The TC is an option....or a bigma :)

[lex_jenkins]

I'd agree that you shouldn't worry right now about a D2X. You're getting good results with your D70. Another good lens could be used later on a D2X if you decide your business can justify the expense.

 

BTW, if you're considering a backup or second body, the D50 will be out in July and based on the preliminary images it looks very promising. I don't know how well built the body will be but it looks like it'll take good photos.

 

I mention this because one thing that makes a zoom attractive is the ability to change the focal length quickly. However, having used two or more bodies with primes for many years, I'd say it's just as convenient in most cases. So a spare body like the D50 and a 300/4 AF-S might be a cost effective way to provide you with more flexibility during your shoots.

[mksnowhite]

Lex I tottaly agree with you as when I do awards shots I have to changes lenses. I run to my car to try a minimize dust but it's a pain. I was thinking of picking up a D100 as I've seen them under 1K now. I still carry a film body as a just in case camera.

[david_h._hartman]

"Action shooting" and D70 don't really go together. But you seem to be doing well with your equine photography so you've proven that dictum wrong. --Lex Jenkins

 

The more skilled the photographer the more they can do with less. Not a unique method at all, I used to shoot fast moving go carts coming towards me with a manual focus lens by prefocusing on a fixed spot and when the subject was almost in focus I?d trip the shutter. I had to accommodate my reaction time and the mirror?s flip up time. I was using a 300/4.5 pre-AI or ED-IF AI.

 

?I'd agree that you shouldn't worry right now about a D2X. You're getting good results with your D70. Another good lens could be used later on a D2X if you decide your business can justify the expense.? --Lex Jenkins

 

I?d usually recommend a better body but if I had $5,000.00 I?d very likely buy an AF-S 200~400/4.0G ED-IF VR over a D2X. This was a tiny part of my decision to buy a D2H.

 

?Conventional wisdom goes something like "spend money on glass, not on bodies", but I would question spending big money on pro zooms to hang on a D70.? ?Todd Peach

 

I do too but I?d buy the lens. It will put more pressure on buying a better DSLR. I?d be shooting the lens with an F5. Maybe in Melanie?s case the lens would pay for itself and a better DSLR?

 

---

 

Melanie, photographic equipment is an expense but tell yourself it?s an investment then just buy it. Do you have an accountant? Ask if there is a tax advantage to buying the AF-S 200~400/4.0G ED-IF VR.

 

Regards,

 

Dave Hartman.

[greg s]

"And I don't want prime."

 

Respectfully, this is the part I don't understand. A 300mm f/4 AF-S is such a great lens... and relative chicken feed in price. At 3 lbs it is quite manageable, and talk about sharp with good contrast.

 

Sorry, just had to say it. :)

[ShunCheung]

Depending on which sports we are talking about, most likely I would prefer a zoom also. Typically one needs to shoot from the sidelines in sports such as soccer, basketball, tennis, etc. As the players move around, it is very helpful to have the ability to zoom so that you get the right crop. Actually I would imagine that the 200-400mm/f4 AF-S would be an excellent sports lens, except for the price tag.

[don_cooper]

Find a Sigma 100-300 F4 HSM and try it. It ain't a Nikon but if you try it I'll bet you buy it.

[RaymondC]

I been thinking about streamlining my lens set up lately. You know buy once and bit the bullet and be satisfied in the LR and hope to buy none or v minimal lenses in the future.

 

For myself 18-35 is fine to be stopped down, I have two mid range primes for portraits. I also have a 80-200/4.5-5.6 light lens for travel. Then I hope to land a 17-55/2.8 DX and a 35-70/2.8 for social/portraiture/travel (digi and film respectively). The long range I think the VR is essential, for me its prob a 70-200/2.8 VR with a 1.7x VR which on the D70 provides 510mm range and it is a zoom. I thought about a 300/4 with 1.7x as this is the only Nikkor that is affordable but I doubt I need the 765mm on the D70. I use digital more these days. Anymore longer/wider are just too $$$.

 

In terms of available lenses the only way is the 200-400/4 $5k lens. All other Nikkor lenses are primes ie 300/2.8, 300/4, 400/2.8, 500/4, 600/5.6 (?). From this list the 300/4 is prob the only affordable lens for the mass.

[Allen Herbert]

The more skilled the photographer the more they can do with less.

 

How thoughtful. Of course the less skilled the photographer........

[Allen Herbert]

70-200/2.8 VR with a 1.7x VR which on the

 

Or, the 70-400 VR. Put the savings in the bank.

[RaymondC]

80-400 VR isn't that fast thou :-)

[joel_blacher]

The Sigma 100-300f4HSM is a fantastic, professionally made zoom and it is still exceptional with the matched 1.4x tc. Great optics, great build and handling, fast focusing. Just a thought.

[jay_blocksom]

<BLOCKQUOTE><I><B>Lex (perpendicularity consultant) Jenkins - jun 02, 2005; 04:59 a.m.</B>

<br>

"Action shooting" and D70 don't really go together.

</I></BLOCKQUOTE>

You're hardly the first person to state this, or similar, so don't take this personally; but this claim REALLY grates me every time I hear it.  Sure, if you have an unlimited budget, there are more capable cameras.  But who *really* has an unlimited budget?  The D70 was a genuine breakthrough in terms of both overall handling speed and particularly sensor --> buffer --> CF-card performance when it came out, especially in light of its relatively modest cost; and to this day, it's still "pretty good" by comparison to anything even remotely close to its cost.  Obviously, more recent (and MUCH more expensive) models like the D2h and D2x will outperform it, but so what?  That's a specious comparison from the get go.  Even if you *can* afford one of these, would the relatively minor improvement in speed be worth trading off the bag-full of lenses that the difference in cost could otherwise buy?

<br>

<br>