One more lens to complete my setup

[patertech]

I was on the market to purchase 70-200 but got fascinated with some of you guys

macro photography that I went and I bought 105 micro lens instead. So now having

12-24 and 18-200VR and 105VR should I still buy 70-200 with TC1.4 or 1.7 for

shooting sports or should I get 80-400 or 70-300VR? My camera is D200 - No night

games. High school only, mainly football some baseball. Max. budget with bill me

later option $2K. Thank you very much for your suggestions.

[eric_silvi]

The 70-200 VR lens is better, but doesn't have the "reach". Although it is alot slower to focus, I use my 80-400 VR for sports alot more than the 70-200.

[ShunCheung]

You had asked this same question about 3 weeks ago, before you decided to get the macro instead of a longer tele.

I suppose you situation hasn't really changed much since then:

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00LBeL

[Peter_in_PA]

Sports? No night games? I'd get the 70-300 unless I could afford the 70-200 with the 1.4.

[patertech]

3 weeks ago I was certain to buy 70-200. Someone suggested that it's a great portrait lens and good for sports with TC.

Situation didn't change much but it's harder to decide now since I can use 105 for portraits but still have to fill the long range gap. I'm looking for suggestions from people with a similar setup.

Thanks.

[tonybeach]

"Situation didn't change much but it's harder to decide now since I can use 105 for portraits but still have to fill the long range gap."

 

If you own a Nikkor 70-200, you will never likely use the 105/2.8 VR for portraiture. The ability to get closer and the legendary bokeh of the 70-200 is precisely what makes it such a fine portrait lens. You probably get about a stop of extra wide open performance (f/4 on my 70-200 is fantastically sharp in the center).

[ShunCheung]

If we are talking about shooting sports, as Jesse stated originally in both threads, the answer should be pretty much the same as last time. Ideally, a 300mm/f2.8 AF-S with the TC-14E option would work very well for football and baseball. If you are not ready to spend $2000+ (used) to $4000+ for a new VR version, you compromise with a 300mm/f4 or 70-200mm/f2.8 AF-S VR, also with TC-14E.

 

I think you got some good answers last time.

[Dieter Schaefer]

300/4 AF-S

[elliot1]

I have the 70-200 with the 2x. It is only good (the 70-200 is superb on its own). Good is not good enough for me so I just bought the 80-400 and am really happy with it. It focussed faster than I expected (from the comments in this forum, I expected it to be really slow) and gives very, very sharp images. I am thrilled with it!

 

Which lens you needs really depends on how far you will be from the action.

[trunfio]

Well, let me weigh in. I have been using the 70-200/2.8 VR with the 1.7X TC and have so far been happy. It's a very versatile lens that I use for portraits, low light events (plays, musicals, concerts) and sports. With the TC that gives me f/4.5 and a max focal length of 340 which remains faster than the 80-400 nikkor and has just a little less reach. I've used it with the TC for baseball and soccer and have been happy since I can usually get up quite close anyway.

[tim_knight]

I looked back on your last posting, if you think you want to be able to hand hold and take your zoom shoots consider the 70-300vr zoom. I have it and like it. It is heavier than your 18-200, but I have had it around my neck for 3 hours at a time at track meets with no problems. The auto focus works great and it takes great pictures. Stopped down a little it is great. See attached picture taken mid day with bright sun.<div></div>

[dan_k6]

For sports the 70-200VR might not have enough reach depending on where you are in relation to the action. I would go with the 300mm 2.8 but that's a lot of money.

 

The 70-200 is heavy and is a pain to carry around. That aside, it's the best lens I have ever owned. I think you can get close enough to the action in a high school game so the 70-200 + 1.4x should be fine.

 

The 70-200 is built extremely well, colors and contrast are great, it's razor sharp, and it performs quite well wide open.

 

The 70-200 eliminates the 180mm and 85mm for me because it performs so well at both ends.

 

Buy the lens and the converter, you won't regret it.