glenn_cummings1

<p>Gloomy day in the harbor.</p>

<p>There are multitudes of nonprofessional photographers who could only wish to be in your dilemma. All six of your lenses are excellent pieces of glass, you would notice only insignificant improvement in images, if any. I would even keep your D200 as the backup...your set is fine just the way it is.</p>

<p>Absolutely send it back!</p>

<p>Crown of Thorns starfish...tubefeet detail. Nikon N90 with 60mm AF-D.</p>

<p>Crown of Thorns starfish...tubefeet detail. Nikon N90 with 60mm AF-D.</p>

<p>I agree with most of the replies posted already. Those two lenses are truly "top of the line" and will benefit you for years to come. Not to mention the sentimental value they possess. </p>

<p>Depending on the bulk head on the housing, this will determine which sync cord will work. See this link <a href="http://www.aquatica.ca/en/charts/bulkhead_web_field_guide.pdf">http://www.aquatica.ca/en/charts/bulkhead_web_field_guide.pdf</a>. Once you know the bulkhead and sync cord required, there are a multitude of underwater strobes which are available on the market such as Ikelite and many others. You can also house many of Nikon's speedlites.<br>

Hope this helps.</p>

<p>I agree with Dan. I've been shooting the 80-200 2-ring for a few years now on a D300 primarily for ice hockey. I have had absolutely no issues with my lens at all. I couldn't imagine a better lens for the money.</p>

<p>David...I just checked that site and they charge $9 per month.</p>

<p>I used an FE2 for over a decade in a Nexus housing underwater...absolutely loved it. Currently a D300 above the water.</p><div></div>

<p>I would have to agree with Denis...lighting in ice arenas, no matter what their age, are notoriously horrible. Stagnant shots of players not involved in any action can be accomplished with 200 iso, however even the slightest action shots will require an iso of at least 1600.</p>

<p>By all means get a custom white balance off the ice which will pretty much act like a gray card. Otherwise your color will not even come close to what it actually is.</p>

<p>NPSHL Youth Hockey</p><div></div>

<p>Here we go...</p><div></div>

<p>NPSHL youth hockey</p>

<p>I second the recommendation for the Manfrotto 681B. I've been using one for over 4 years, primarily for ice hockey. It is extremely well made and has saved my arms while using a D300 and a 80-200mm lens in a cold environment for over 2 hours.</p>

<div></div>

<p>Tamrac backpack which always has the following:</p>

<p>Nikon D300<br>

17-55mm 2.8 AF<br>

60mm 2.8 macro AF<br>

80-200mm 2.8 AF<br>

35mm 1.4 AIS</p>

<p>This pretty much covers everything I need. I'll remove various lenses when I go out for a day hike with specific photographs in mind, rarely do I leave the house with all lenses packed.</p>

<p>Just a few quick comments since I believe you have the perfect set-up with the D300 and 70-200mm. </p>

 

<ul>

<li>Forget the flashes and use higher ISO such as 1600-3200</li>

<li>Get a custom white balance off the ice, this will accurately act as a grey card.</li>

<li>Turn VR off. You should be shooting at shutter speeds of 320-500th generally.</li>

</ul>

<p>You have got to be kidding! This set-up looks as though it was thrown against a wall. $2800??? Return it immediately</p>

<p>A shot from some time ago while living in Hawaii...Nikon N90; 24mm; Anthis Nexus housing; Ikelite strobes.</p><div></div>

<p>Which camera are you using? For shooting action shots, you will need to use one that can handle high ISO with acceptable results for the dimly lit youth arenas that you will experience. </p>

<p>Get a custom white balance off the ice, this will act pretty much as a grey card and give you the most accurate color results. Although I use a Nikon with an 80-200mm 2.8 for most of my hockey shots, you are certainly able to do the same with a Canon and any lens that is 2.8 or faster.</p>

<p>I shoot in manual mode, wide open, 1/400th or 1/500th sec. with an ISO between 1600 and 3200. Below is an example shot at ISO 3200, f2.8 and 1/400th of a second.</p><div></div>

<p>I use the 681B (3 sections), which I'm sure is quite similar to the 680B. I use it exclusively for ice hockey and wouldn't be without it. The images are consistently sharper than without the use of the monopod, besides it relieves the weight of your system while your at the cold rink for an hour or two.</p>

<p>I've never used a swivel or ball head, I think that would be more of a nuisance. The game is much too fast.</p>

<p>Thanks everyone for your responses. Looks as though I will keep what I have, perhaps the grass isn't always greener.</p>

<p>Ilkka...I use a D300.</p>

<p>Actually, the VR does not interest me, most of my shots are between 1/320 and 1/500. I have the AF-D version, so an upgrade may be beneficial.</p>

<p>Thanks,<br>

Glenn</p>

<p>I currently use the Nikon 80-200mm f2.8 (2 ring version) primarily for action shots (ice hockey).</p>

<p>Now that used prices of the Nikon 70-200mm VR are dropping due to the new version being released, I was considering this purchase. For those of you using the 70-200mm, is there really that much of a difference between these two in regards to the speed and accuracy of the auto-focus?</p>

<p>Any input and recommendations would be appreciated.</p>