Nikon 70-200 f4 for indoor hockey

[sam_reeves1]

Ok, I know this has been discussed a lot, but I am still confused.

 

Facts to consider:

I am an amateur

Camera is a Nikon D800

It will be a dual use lens.

 

My main reason for asking the question is the 70-200 f4would be adequate for most uses, however my son plays ice hockey and I want to

capture the best shots I can while he plays. I can't afford the f2.8 at the moment, even the refurb would be hard to swing. Sigma and the

Tamron are options, but I my preference would be to have the quality and reliability of Nikon.

 

Other options would be the 70-200 f2.8 VR1 or the 80-200 f2.8

 

I plan to use the lens for other outdoor photography as well.

 

Opinions will be appreciated!

 

Thanks in advance

Sam

[craig_shearman1]

<p>The f/4 has a fine reputation, especially for outdoors work where speed is less of an issue, but it will not cut it for indoor hockey. Trust me. Been there, done that.<br /><br />I've been shooting figure skating -- same rinks, same light -- for several years now. I've gone from the 80-200 2.8 non VR to the 70-200 2.8 VRI to the 70-200 2.8 VRII. I have also shot with a non-VR Tamron 70-200 2.8.<br /><br />I can get shots with any of those four, but the VRII is by far the most consistent. But regardless of which lens, I am shooting wide open at 2.8 at ISO 1600 and getting maybe 1/125 or 1/160 of a second. The D800 might be able to go to 3200 without objectionable noise but you need that extra stop for shutter speed, not to go to a slower lens. Probably more so in hockey than figure skating since you need to stop the motion of sticks and pucks, not just players.<br /><br />Don't let anybody tell you that VR makes up for the slower aperture. VR only helps with camera shake, not subject motion. And in super low light/super fast action like this you need the faster AF of a 2.8 lens even if you crank your ISO up enough to go to f/4 for depth of field.<br /><br />Not sure how photographers handle it at hockey, but I find to get good shots I have to be down on the ice in the box. Up in the stands is too far away and shooting through the banged up glass you might as well shoot with a Coke bottle as a Nikon lens.<br /><br />Good glass is expensive. I only shoot skating a couple of times a year, so I rent the VRII for those jobs. (I own the Tamron and it can get skating shots but I prefer the VRII.) You might try that if you only shoot occasionally. Sigma and Tamron also have new 70-200 2.8 VR's out so you might look into them. But I would want to try before I would buy if at all possible. Nikon quality and reliability are better if you are shooting every day, but if you're not Sigma and Tamron are fine.<br /><br /></p>

[ShunCheung]

<blockquote>

<p>I am shooting wide open at 2.8 at ISO 1600 and getting maybe 1/125 or 1/160 of a second</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I don't know about everybody else's shooting/lighting conditions and requirements. But if I shoot indoor/night sports, such slow shutter speeds are going to be a disaster. I would use 1/1000 sec and ISO 6400 if necessary. An f4 zoom is clearly not ideal for indoor sports, but apparently the OP is well aware of that. We have discussed this many times before, indoors or under dim light, f2.8 has a pretty significant advantage over f4 in terms of AF speed and accuracy. And when your subjects are moving, AF speed is critical.</p>

[Rick Helmke]

<p>For me the answer would be the 80-200/2.8, hands down. Never did care for the 70-200/2.8, either version but the 80-200 is a favorite.<br>

<br />Rick H.</p>

[User_6502147]

<p>Hockey is difficult to shoot, unless you up the game. Either spend the cash on better lens/es or better camera. Sure the D3s or D4's would definiately help (renting perhaps ?). The 85/1.8, 100/2, 200/2 would help and hockey is often under inadequate light.</p>

<p>OK, back to reality...one of the guys that shoots constantly hockey went for Sigma 120-300/2.8 since it give him more reach. You might want to look for a used one if new one is out of question.</p>

<p>I like to skate...what do I know :>).</p>

<p>Les</p>

[Two23]

<p>I don't see any way an f4 lens is going to do the job, myself. At least, not without a powerful flash.</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>

[eric_arnold]

<p>like shun said, 1/125 or 1/160 is not going to freeze fast motion. 1/500 is more realistic; 1/1000 would be ideal, but that would mean pushing a d800 beyond its comfort zone in terms of ISO. an f/4 lens will also be f/4 in the viewfinder, while a 2.8 lens will be 2.8 in the viewfinder. that makes a difference in low light.</p>

[elliot1]

<p>One of the problems with shooting indoor hockey is that the type and age of lighting system in the venue can limit your shutter speed due to white balance color shifting from frame to frame and with older lighting systems color shifting can appear within the same frame (almost impossible to correct). Mercury vapor lights are often used at hockey arenas. Older lights require lower shutter speeds, newer allow for higher. Arenas hosting youth hockey are typically using lighting systems that allow for shutter speeds in the 1/250 to 1/400 range. Each venue is different and testing at each venue is required.</p>

<p>An important factor that determines the 'best' lens for shooting hockey would be your shooting location. Are you shooting from the stands or by the ice through the glass? One of my favorite lenses to shoot hockey when I had my D800 was the 85mm f1.8. The focal length is perfect for shooting net play from the glass when you are perpendicular to the net (this focal length only works well for FX). When shooting from behind the net at the glass, a fast aperture wide angle lens is a great choice.</p>

<p>Since the D800 allows for plenty of cropping, you can get great results with a wide assortment of fast aperture lenses and don't necessarily need a zoom lens. (Obviously print size is an important factor if cropping.)</p>

<p>A limiting factor to ISO is your print size. For smaller prints, you can easily shoot above ISO 6400 with the D800 and get superb results. I have shot at many hockey arenas and have never found the need to shoot above ISO 3200. But of course, low ISO is generally preferred.</p>

<p>And unlike many sports, lower shutter speeds can contribute to more interesting pictures, if you are shooting at the right angle. I often shot parts of hockey events intentionally at shutter speeds under 1/100 and got some of my favorite/most interesting action shots.</p>

<p>If you are shooting from the stands, the 70-200mm VRII is your best choice. The VRI can get the job done very nicely as well but keep in mind that corner sharpness can be an issue with FX (not so much for hockey but for other shooting you may be doing with the lens).</p>

<p>So what type of shots will you be taking, where are you going to be shooting from, what kind of lights are used at your local venu(es), and what size prints will you be making? The outdoor photography you mention, will it be done in daylight hours?</p>

 

[elliot1]

<p>Also, what level of hockey is your son playing in? </p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>I don't shoot inside a gym all that often, but for example, I captured hundreds of images inside a high school gym in one occasion last year. Quality-0wise, all images were similar to the one below as far as lighting and colors go. I captured this image with a 24-70mm/f2.8 AF-S at f2.8, 1/1000 sec @ ISO 7200. That day, I intended to shoot all outdoors, but there was this one event inside a gym, and I only had a 80-400mm AF-S VR as a mid-to-long telephoto (no 70-200mm/f2.8) such that I was forced to using maximum f4.5 @ ISO 25600 in some occasions. At least the body I was using was a D4S, whose high-ISO capability helped a lot.</p>

<p>The problem is that the OP has conflicting goals: a lighter, less bulky and less expensive 70-200mm/f4 for outdoors shooting and a faster 70-200mm/f2.8 for indoor sports.</p>

<p>BTW, I wouldn't hesitate to buy a used 70-200mm/f2.8 AF-S VR version 1 or a Sigma version. A lot of the pros and cons have just been discussed on the following thread: <a href="/nikon-camera-forum/00dF4G">Given budget constraints, which 70-200? </a></p><div></div>

[craig_shearman1]

<p>"such slow shutter speeds are going to be a disaster"<br /><br />Agreed that it is challenging. I manage to get by, often by shooting peak action -- points where there's a slight pause at the top of a jump or other moves, an old trick from the old days. Also when the figure skaters strike a pose at the beginning or end of a piece, etc. In some shows there are spotlights that let me get a higher shutter speed but you're not going to have that with hockey.</p>

[sam_reeves1]

Ok, so now I am convinced that the Nikon 70-200 VR II is going to be the best option. My choices are (after I find more

money) is Used from KEH, Used from Adorama or a refurbished lens. Give the used KEH warranty is 6 months Adorama

3 and refurbished is 3. Costs are anywhere from $1,799 to $2,099 used and 1,900 to 2,000 for refurb. What's the best

value?

[elliot1]

<p>Keh is a very reliable source, has an excellent warranty and by chance is having a 20% off sale on used gear tomorrow (4-27-2015).</p>

[sam_reeves1]

Thanks to all for your help with this endeavor. With the help of Elliott and KEH I was able to get the Nikon Lens for less

than the refurb. :))