70-300 VR vs. 80-200/2.8 for sports?

[eli_fox]

<p>Hi all... This fall I plan on shooting some high school sports. I'm thinking about the two lenses in the title--80-200/2.8 (most likely the D two-ring) and 70-300 VR. The 70-200 VR is lovely but I think the 80-200 represents a better value, considering the fact that VR doesn't affect moving subjects. To add complexity to this situation, the lens I choose will affect the camera that it's mounted on; right now I'm using a D40 and I know I'll have to complement it with something else if I want more speed and better tracking abilities. If I went for the 70-300 I would probably be able to get even a D700. If I went for the 80-200 a D300 would be a more likely choice. After considering the fact that at the long end in low light with both cameras, I'll get the same shutter speed (f5.6 + 6400 ISO = f2.8 + 1600 ISO), the D700 + 70-300 VR are appealing to me. </p>

<p>I understand the fact that better lenses should, more often than not, come first. But in this case if I went for the better camera I'd get two stops of ISO performance <i>with every lens, </i>not just the 80-200 or 70-300 I'll be buying. The D300 offers very little improvement over the D40 in terms of low light performance, while the D700 would open a new dimension. On the other hand one of these lenses may be significantly better at focusing than the other; I'm guessing it's the 80-200. Is there anybody who has used/owned both? I'd love to hear your thoughts!</p>

[jautey]

<p>For shooting sports I use the following combinations:<br>

2 D300's<br>

Hockey: 80-200/2.8 and a 300/2.8<br>

Football: 80-200/2.8 and a 400/2.8<br>

Baseball: 80-200/2.8 and a 300/2.8 or 400/2.8<br>

Basktetball: 80-200 and a 300/2.8 and somtimes a 17-55/2.8<br>

Swimming: 80-200 and a 300/2.8<br>

Track: 80-200 and a 300/2.8<br>

General Photo Assignment: 80-200/2.8 and a 15-55/2.8<br>

The common denominator: besides the 300/2.8 for sports, the 80-200/2.8 for everything.</p>

[glenn_c1]

<p>I've had both of these lenses and am not a particular fan of the 70-300 VR, but that's the lens I think you'd be better off with for outdoor sports. Ironically, the 300 on full frame won't give any more reach than the 200 on DX, but the 70-300 has good, quick focusing and that will be important for this type of use. You will also get better depth of field at f/5.6 and higher ISO than at 2.8 and lower ISO. And VR can indeed be helpful for panned shots.</p>

 

[Hector Javkin]

<p>As of very recently, I own both those lenses. The 80-200 is wonderful, but either can produce great images and serve you for a long time. Similarly, the D700 (which I don't have) should serve you for a long time unless the release of new cameras somehow convinces you that it suddenly became useless. On the other hand, the D40 will quickly become old. Also, don't forget that the D40 would require the AF-S version of the 80-200, which is no longer available new, may not be easy to find used, and is very expensive. Get the D700 and the 70-300mm VR.</p>

<p>I believe you can find reviews of both <a href="http://www.naturfotograf.com/lens_surv.html">here</a> . There is no better better reviewer of Nikon lenses.</p>

[marc_rochkind]

<p>"two stops of ISO performance <em>with every lens"</em><br>

Yes, that's the way I think of my D700, too. Makes those slow zooms very practical.</p>

[eli_fox]

<p>^That's what I'm thinking, Marc. </p>

<p>Thanks all. Glenn, I had thought about getting the 80-200 push-pull for FF because of the speed but then I realized it wouldn't give me enough reach (200mm is barely enough for field sports with the D40); the 70-300 VR is the best compromise of length, performance and price IMO.</p>

<p>Hector, I am definitely not one to upgrade with every new camera. The D700 seems ideal--excellent ability to shoot sports, great ergonomics (I have used it several times as well as the 300), weather sealing, and the all-important ISO performance. I think I've made my decision. :)</p>

[hughes]

<p>Eli<br>

There is one great advantage of a lens with a wide aperture apart from low light use, that is the ability to isolate the background. With all thing being equal you will get much more impactful images if you shoot wide open at 2.8 or close to it, one thing you do not need is lots of depth of field in sports pictures. Take a look at my sports folder and nearly all the shots are with either a 80-200 2.8 , a 180mm 2.8, or a 300mm 2.8 shot at wide open or close to. I wouldn't consider using an aperture of 5.6 for a sports image. I think you should think carefully about a D300 with 80-200 or even find a used 300mm 2.8 I did. I also have a 180mm 2.8 that works well with a TC to give more flexibility.<br>

If I was starting out now I would buy two D300's rather than 1 D700, but I would also only buy 2.8 lenses used if I had to, just food for thought to help you make a decision<br>

Steve </p>

[nick_davis]

<p>Are you considering new or used prices on the 80-200mm? This lens has been on the market for many years so plenty of used models are available. I have the two-ring tripod collar version. I feel that this lens gets a bad rap these days since it is not AF-S, but the focus is plenty fast enough if used with a pro quality body like the D300 or D700. I use mine with an F4s or F100 to shoot wildlife and the focus has never been too slow for me. I think it truly is a great bargain considering how much more money the 70-200mm is. Now as for the D300 vs. D700, I'd personally go with whichever combo gets me the D700 (either 70-300 or used 80-200) but as I am a film shooter I hate the DX crop and small viewfinders. A friend of mine snagged an 80-200mm (twist zoom like mine) on ebay two years ago for $300. I'd keep watching for a deal if I were you.</p>

[raymond_petty1]

<p>Are you shooting indoor or outdoor sports? There is a quite a big difference. If you are shooting outside then I don't think the D700 provides you with a huge advantage over the D300. You'd be much better off using the money to purchase pro glass.<br>

Once you shoot sports with a fast AF-S lens, it's hard to go back. I would take an 80-200/2.8 or 70-200/2.8 or 300/4.0 on a D300 over a 70-300 variable aperture on a D700 any day of the week. You're going to want to shoot wide open to isolate your subject anyway. What you "lose" in low light performance will be picked up by shooting at wider apertures with better lenses.<br>

The same rules still apply....glass drives the image and holds it's value. That D700 you lust for now can be had for a song in 2 years. </p>

 

[Matthew Brennan]

<p>Eli,</p>

<p>I suggest the D300 + 80-200mm f/2.8 combo. There is no substitute for a fast lens in my opinion (note : my <em>opinion</em>) VR is great for stabilising the image at slower shutter speeds but is of very limited use at the shutter speeds you will require to freeze your sporting action.</p>

<p>By choosing the 80-200mm f/2.8 (or indeed the Sigma HSM 70-200mm DG EX lens which I have used and recommend) you lose 100mm in focal length over the 70-300mm VR, but re-gain this to an effective 300mm crop with the DX sensor of the D300. I have shot with both D300 and now with the D700 (for different reasons to your requirements above) and would not hesitate to recommend shooting the D300 at ISO 1600.</p>

<p>The D300 may not be 'long' streets ahead of your D40 in low light / ISO /noise penalty performance but the D300's CMOS sensor is def. better performed thasn the older CCD sensors. On top of this I believe the D300 shares the same AF unit as the D3 and D700 and will represent a significant improvement over your D40 in this area.</p>

[Hector Javkin]

<p><em>Hector, I am definitely not one to upgrade with every new camera.</em></p>

<p>I didn't think you were, from your clear description of your choices. That's why I believe the D700 will work for you for a long time.</p>

[elliot1]

<p><em>" I'll get the same shutter speed (f5.6 + 6400 ISO = f2.8 + 1600 ISO), the D700 + 70-300 VR are appealing to me."</em> For <strong>high quality </strong> images, ISO 6400 should be your <em>last </em> choice even with the D700.</p>

<p>I am guessing that you will be shooting indoors. As such, you absolutely need fast glass, f2.8 or faster (85mm f1.8 gives exceptional results keeping the ISO as low as possible if you are close enough for the action). Although I generally use my 70-300mm for outdoor sports, I always use the 70-200mm for indoor shoots.</p>

<p>Other advantages to faster glass for indoor shooting are a noticeably brighter viewfinder and better auto focus.</p>

[stwrtertbsratbs5]

<p>The D700 is the camera to get if you shoot indoor sports. But consider the 180/2.8 as a possible lens choice. The AF isn't all that fast, but it's usable. Here's a shot taken at ISO 6400 (high school gyms often have dreadful lighting).</p><div></div>

[carl_becker2]

<p>I purchased a D700 over the D300 because I mostly use short fast primes 20-105mm range. I also use a 500mm f4 P. The stop I gained in high ISO is lost when I wanted a narrower field of view and added a TC. I think for tele use the D300 AF size plus the crop factor out weigh the D700. I also have a Nikkor 180mm f2.8 AF-D that I use for out door action shots. The AF is much better with the D700 than my old D200 but I think some of the 80-200mm zooms can focus much faster and would be a much better choice.</p>

[glenn_c1]

<p>My two-ring 80-200 focuses quite fast, very fast on the higher-end bodies, but it seems a lot more likely to lose focus and hunt than the AF-S lenses. AF-S lenses seem to hold focus better, which is why I'd think they'd be better for sports shooting, and they seem to be able to make quick little adjustments better where a screw-drive lens will be overshooting back-and-forth a bit while it is looking to hold continual focus on a moving subject. </p>

<p>Those are my impressions anyway.</p>

 

[eric_arnold]

<p>d300+80-200. you need 2.8 for sports, plus in general, unless you are shooting cycling, boxing or indoor volleyball, the DX crop is better than the FF ISO advantage. also, 5.6 is 5.6, any way you shake it.</p>

 

[bubba_fett]

<p>I'm assuming there's a budget involved....How about a D90 and a 70-200 VR? <br>

D90 = great ISO performance<br>

DX = Instant range improvement over D700<br>

70-200VR = arguably the best possible lens for your needs<br>

Just a thought....</p>

[michael_kuhne]

<p>I'm with Bubba. The APS does provide greater tele range. Then it depends, as others have said, what sports and under what conditions. I often shoot wrestling, where flash is commonly used, and a good slower zoom lens works fine. Same with outdoor daytime sports and a slower lens. The 70-200mm VR is a great lens, but the 70-300mm VR is also very good and has a terrific zoom range.</p>

[eli_fox]

<p>Once again, thanks for the great responses.</p>

<p>I think I've decided to go with DX. It's not a sure-fire thing but it would make sense.</p>

<p>Bubba, I've thought about the D90 + 70-200 VR, but I'm just not sure if the AF system would be good enough. I'm sure that after the D400 is released D300 prices will come down to near the current D90 levels. If I pick one of those up and buy a lightly used 70-200 VR off KEH it will probably cost me the same; it would be quite a bit less to go with the 80-200/2.8, however. Not sure if the 70 is worth the difference... is it?</p>

[charlie_johnson1]

<p>Forget the VR Crap, go get a decent Bogen Monopod and ball head for your camera, you will be amazed at the quality of the pictures. I shot some minor league hockey a few years ago with a Nikon N4004s with a Nikon ED AF Nikkor 70-300 1:4-5.6D using a Bogen 681B Monopod and S55 Ball Head with Hex Plate Release. It was indoor, and I was using 800 ISO Fugi Film. At the distance I was shooting at, I turned off the AF and set the zoom just past 200mm. I had a great field of view and depth of field, the entire rink stayed in focus. If I would have had the 80-200 2.8, I would have been in heaven, even with my lowly 4004s. <br>

Glass is the name of the game and stability is achieved with good platform such as a mono pod. Look at the photographers on the sidelines at sporting events, emulate what they are doing. I used the above listed equipment because that was all I could afford then, but my shots looked like they came from higher end optics. I got what I got because I looked up older post here on Photo.Net, especially about shooting indoor and outdoor sports and using and choosing a good monopod/tripod. I have one lens with VR and the VR is a total joke. I noticed in one of the responses, all the glass was 2.8; for sports, you need speed.<br>

Get the 80-200 2.8 and D700, that's what I would do. Used lenses from a reputable dealer or from someone on eBay with 100% rating would be a cheaper way to go to help save some coin. My 4004s was a gift, and I bought my 681B Mono from B&H, the rest of my gear, all from eBay. Death to DX, go with Full Frame Glass just like you would shooting 35mm Film.</p>

[nick_davis]

<p>I agree with Charlie, I shoot 98% of my images on a big ass Gitzo 1548 Tripod with the large Kirk Ballhead. The other 2% is done with a monopod so VR is meaningless to me. Unless you are shooting someplace where tripods are not allowed then there is no excuse for not using one. I'll admit that I wish the 70-200mm was not a G lens so that I could justify purchasing one, but it is the AF-S motor and the ability to use an AF teleconverter that I'd want not the VR. Maybe I should revise my previous recommendation, I said that the 80-200mm (two-ring model) was a great lens- it is- but if you can get the AF-S version for a similar price then go for that. For me, the beauty of the AF-S lenses is not their increased AF speed, or quietness, but the ability to manually focus without switching the body to MF.</p>

[hughes]

<p>a monopod maybe but a tripod for sports photography borders on the absurd if you guys are going to give advice try and keep it real<br>

Steve</p>

 

[bsd230]

<p>I was considering the 70-300 VR myself. I just bought the D700 and the ISO performance makes me consider a whole new range of lenses. I think I could easily get away with slower lenses now.</p>

[bsd230]

<p>By the way I just got my D700 today and it is amazing for low light. I upgraded from the D200 and can't believe the difference. The IQ at high ISO's is very impressive. For outdoor good light day shooting the D300 with its extra reach would be good, but for low light the D700 is the best I've used.</p>

[charlie_johnson1]

<p>When I was taking my pictures at the hockey games, the local news photographers were shooting in the same general area I was, but they had field artillery compared to me, i.e. 400 to 600 mm f2.8 glass on either Nikon or Canon digital bodies. You had to have a monopod to hold that kind of weight up. Yes, using a tripod is insane, I 100% agree with that. I used the monopod to steady my camera because I had a slow lens. I also compensated for the lack of lens speed with high ISO film (Fuji 800). </p>

<p>Brian, you're missing the point of this discussion. The camera body is meaningless if the glass can't do the job. These high ISO's that are available now with digital photography did not exist in film. I use to shoot Kodak Ektar 1000 when I could get it, I loved it. Again, I had low speed glass on a lowly consumer film body. However, using proper technique, I could capture images equivalent to those using pro-level bodies and high speed glass. The image captured is only as good as the skill of the photographer. Having the latest camera with all the bells and and whistles doesn't mean a thing if the kid next to you with his point and shoot camera using proper technique captures a better image than you. I learned photography using film. I didn't learn everything there is to know about it, but I'm still learning. Digital and all the Auto everything has made us lazy in taking the time to setup a camera and lens to capture a quality image. Film might be old school, but the rules still apply, just with some minor adjustments in the White Balance.</p>

<p>I can't throw down on a D3X or a D700 at the moment, but I wouldn't mind getting my hands on more f2.8 glass to go in my bag. My D1 and newly acquired D1X shoot pretty good pictures, even in low light. An 80-200 f2.8 is on my list for my next lens purchase. The 2 ring standard AF-D is fine in my book, the AFS is too pricey for me. Next would be a 300 f2.8 but I would even settle for 300 f4, but the older versions not the latest incarnations.</p>

<p>Eli, save your coin and hope Obama doesn't pinch your income tax refunds. Your best combination is the D700 (Full Frame) and the 80-200 f 2.8 AF-D, 2 ring with the mounting bracket foot. I still recommend a quality monopod and ball head, they will be very useful. Do a search for choosing and using a monopod and ball-head on here (Photo.net) and you will learn what I have.</p>

<p>If you go the D300 route, remember the crop factor of the DX sensor, the 80-200 f2.8 is a 120-300 f2.8. The key is the high speed glass. Forget the VR, it's a waste of money. The price difference alone in the VR and Non VR would cover the price of a good Manfrotto/Bogen Monopod. Also, the newer bodies have blazing fast focus motors in them these days. The F4s was AF, but was so slow its was a joke (F4s was the greatest Manual Focus AF camera ever made). The F5 had a superior focusing motor and made AF-D lenses fly. The digital bodies have the faster motors in them as well. I know this, I can compare my N4004s (same motor as the F4s) to my D1 (same motor as the F5) and tell the difference in the focus speed. I wouldn't throwdown on the AFS unless someone was going to be paying for my pictures. </p>