Sports Lens for D200

[patertech]

The more reviews I read more confused I become. I will make my decision based

on the responses to this post. I have D200 and 18-200 lens. I am not

completely satisfied with sharpness at 18 and 200. It is like using crazy

glue, you can glue everything but nothing well enough. I need a lens primarily

to shoot my son football games. Besides sports I like to photograph landscape

and people.

I got some nice shots with 18-200 but I noticed that I need to crop my

photographs too often. I need sharper and longer lens and I will not consider

any other brand.

<br>

Which one should I get with $1,5K budget.<br>

70-200 + TC-14E <br>

80-200 + TC-14E <br>

80-400<br>

NEW 70-300VR<br>

300 f/4<br>

 

Possibly selling 18-200, that would increase my budget, but then what else can

I get to cover the range?

<br>

Thank you.

[tonybeach]

"Possibly selling 18-200, that would increase my budget, but then what else can I get to cover the range?"

 

You can cover the range with the 18-70 and use the extra money to purchase the TC-14E. Get the 80-200/2.8 for now, and spend the difference on a good tripod and ballhead, and a Speedlight (if you don't already have those). For shooting sports VR and tripods are not as useful as simply shooting more wide open at the fastest available shutter speeds; and the shorter focal lengths are less critical for using VR. In fact, my experience has been that the biggest factor that degrades IQ is mirror shock below 1/250 (that's where auto-ISO comes in handy for me).

[joseph_smith3]

For football, remember the scenes on TV of the photographers at games? They are using 300mm f 2.8 lenses on monopods. I suggest you consider a 300mm f 4.0 AF-S, a 300mm f 2.8 AF-S VR or a 200mm f 2.0 AF-S VR. For any of the lenses, the Nikon tc 14E. One reason you are unhappy with the results is the relatively slower AF speed on the 18-200 lens partially due to its not so fast f stop. The faster the f stop, the faster the AF will capture the image. You have to determine how much focal length you need. Joe Smith

[stevea]

I will cast my vote for the 70-200mm f2.8 VR. It is very fast focussing (AFS gives it an advantage over the AF of the 80-200) and ideal for for medium distance sports. The tc 14eii works very well with it, giving you a 280mm FOV.

 

The 70-300 VR is a very good lens, producing very sharp pictures, but simply not fast enough for sports if the light is at all questionable. Ditto for the 80-400 - although I don't have it, my friend does and although he gets very sharp pictures with it, they are all of stationary subjects.

 

The 18-200 suffers from the same problems as the 70-300.

 

I'm not too familiar with the 300 f4, but the 300 f2.8 vr is a good longer lens for sports.

 

Steve Abramson

[klix]

Are we talking high school football (or older)? If so, you need a lot of reach. 70-200/2.8 + TC-14e will barely get you there. You want at least 400mm. I would vote for a 300/4 AFS and TC-14e.

 

You'll be shooting at 420/5.6 wide open, which should be long enough, and depending on available light, may be fast enough.

[Peter_in_PA]

I LOVE my 18-200, it's not as soft as, I'm thinking, yours is at the extremes, but I still don't

think it's probably the right lens for you. I'd do the 300 f4 AFS and TC14e, too. But they're

not fast enough for night games without bumping up the ISO like crazy...

[craig_gillette]

Be aware that not all of the Nikon lenses accept Nikon TCs, the current 80-200/2.8 for example. I got my 70-300 vr after soccer season so no first hand sports results yet. But I'd expect it would be a satisfactory if not stunning daylight sports lens. Not great isolation from a 2.8 aperture but not that bad for a family user. One big advantage of the 2.8 lenses is that if using a TC, you can always take it off to get back to 2.8. I'm kind of thinking that if you aren't on the sidelines, then most anything will be "too short."

[mark newcombe www.mcnphoto]

100-300 f4 sigma and matching 1.4 apo convertor + change or look for a 120-300 2.8 if you can find one maybe somewhere like cameta may have the older version in your price.

[tonybeach]

Craig wrote:

 

Be aware that not all of the Nikon lenses accept Nikon TCs, the current 80-200/2.8 for example

 

My reply:

 

Needs to be an AFS version.

[elmroc]

if it's football...300mm + tc at the very minimum.

 

Same goes with soccer.

 

I shot sports for a number of years for newspapers.

 

300mm 2.8 with a 1.4 converter was minimum gear, and a 2nd body with somwhere in the 80 to 135 range for close in plays ...ready to go

 

the 300 should be on a monopod also.

 

That's my 2 cents

[craig_gillette]

The 300/4 is a good lens, perhaps the better pure sports choice of the list, especially with the TC. But it does lack the flexibility of the various zooms for more general usage. I think the 70-200/2.8 and TC is the optimum for flexibility, but the 70-200/2.8 vr pretty much busts your budget before moving on with a TC.

 

alng with depending on the answers from whichever random group may happen to find the post, you may also want to rent one or two of the choices. I do agree that the 70-300 and 80-400 probably don't have the aperture to really deal with the demands of sports and keeping shutter speeds up.

[bourboncowboy]

I shoot a LOT of high school football, and I can tell you from my experience that you need a 2.8 lens. The 300 f/4 is a great lens...for baseball - but it simply isn't fast enough for football (unless the game is played on a WELL-LIGHTED field). I use an old 300 2.8 AF (non-AF-S) lens, and I get great results. If you use a TC, you're also changing the aperture - which aint good for football. If you want to go longer than 300mm and still stay at f/2.8, I'd suggest a 2nd mortgage to buy the 400mm. If you're shooting a 10 megapixel camera, you'll still be able to crop with good resolution with the 300.

[bsd230]

300 f4 if there is good lighting, if not the 70-200 and make due. I would also throw in the mix for consideration the Sigma EX 70-200 Macro it's an optically excellent lens with the same AF motor as the 70-200 Nikon, you can usually find them for a little less than the 80-200.

[brent_gulledge]

I agree with other posters that the 300 2.8 is the best bet, but that lens runs for something like 4,500, so it seems to be out of the question. The best thing for you to do on the budget that you have is to get the 70-200 2.8 VR and buy the 1.4 teleconverter. This will run closer to 2,000, but what is an extra $500 anyway? Well worth it in my opinion. Plus, you have the added bonus of having a great portrait lens. I know, some will say it is too heavy for portrait work, but I disagree. I use my 70-200 for sports and for portrait work and it is my favorite lens. It is versatile, fast, and ultra sharp. On portraits you can get an incredible DOP and for sports you can get pretty close when using the teleconverter. IMHO you have no business buying a 300mm lens unless you shoot these types of events for a living.

 

As for the 18-200? Who knows? Any lens with such a range is going to have some drawbacks, but it is also great in many ways. If your not on the field doing sports shots, then this lens works great for many situtations. You will need this lens for landscapes if you plan on continuing to shoot them. Just my 2 cents.

[raymond_petty1]

This is what I would do if my primary goal was to shoot my son's football games.

 

As a poster said above, if the games are at night, you need a 2.8 lens. Period. If you are taking daytime games, then you have more latitude.

 

Lets assume the games are at night. You need a 2.8 lens and you probably need a prime for reach and a zoom for flexibility. Your budget keeps you from any AF-S lenses and their ablitiy to retain auto-focus with a teleconverter.

What is also nice is the ability to utilize manual focus without swithing off of AF. Nice, but too expensive.

 

Take advantage of that nice motor inside the D200. You paid extra for it. Get some nice used Nikkor AF glass. Forget VR because it does not help for sports action. You have to be at 1/500 of a second anyway. One VR lens busts your whole budget.

 

Right now at KEH you could get a used bargain Nikkor 300/2.8 AF for 1270. That would give you an effective 450/2.8 and the results would blow you away if you are using the 18-200 for comparison.

 

You could add a two touch 80-200/2.8 AF (Not AF-S) in EX condition for 725 and have a wonderful combination for $20000.

[stefan_g]

I would suggest you try and find a well-priced used Nikon AF 80-200/2.8 and see how far that gets you; the old one-touch (single ring) version can be found for US$300-500, depending on condition. That and maybe a Kenko TC, for more reach in well-lit situations.

have fun,

 

Stefan

[jim_orr]

I agree with Brian. I use the Sigma 70-200 f2.8 and it is amazing. I paid about 800.00 New at B and H and get ultra sharp pics at baseball games. If shooting groups of players at a football game, you cant really shoot at 2.8 because some will be blurry due to the different depths of the players.

[patertech]

Thank you for your suggestions, I decided on 70-200VR lens wit 1.4TC. Thanks Brent.