DSLRUsers.com

I am considering purchase of new lens for sports photog - my main interest.

80 - 200 f2.8 seems most logical choice.

would either of the VRs (either 18 -200 or 70 - 200) be a more suitable lens for footy, baseball, basketball etc?

I know the 70 - 200 VR is highly regarded but nearly twice the price. the VR would limit some 'handling' issues for sport but with correct panning and focussing techiniques with the 80 - 200 I should still achieve excellent results (with practice!)

Interested in anyones feedback.
thanx R2

for sports you should be using a fast enough shutter speed that the VR function would be pointless

I've never shot sports but I'd tend to agree with Jerrysk8...

VR will only stop camera shake not subject movement so you'd have to have a fairly high shutter speed for sports like footy, baseball etc.

If you DID want a VR lens then I"d recommend AGAINST the 18-200. From the reports I've heard it's very flimsy and doubt it would stand up to much. Also I believe it's a pretty slow lens (f5.6 @ 200mm?) so you wouldn't be able to get the higher shutter speeds you need.

The 70-200 is highly recommended by most who own it (I don't)

Paul

You can easily need the VR function in sports photography, in particular, motor sports. Using shutter speeds as slow as 1/125 gives a very good sensation of speed, with wheel and background blur. As you pan, very slight movements will make the image less clear, resulting in a slighlty blurred image. The VR function can assist in overcoming this, however it is only there to assist. Good technique is paramount.

I have seen, and taken, sharp images with the Sigma 70-200mm, and also seen, and taken numerous, soft images taken with the Nikkor 70-200 VR. It really does all come down to technique.

If you are concerned about a budget (and we all are) then maybe go for the sigma 70-200mm F/2.8 and if you feel it isnt up to scratch or you do need the VR function after all, flog the Sigma off on Ebay and buy the VR. I sold my sigma 70-200mm on ebay for what I paid for it, assisting me to buy the VR.

I would stick with the focal length of 70-200mm, rather than the 18-200. Generally, the greater the focal length differecne, the less image quality you will get out of a zoom, such as the Sigma 50-500mm. I haven't used it, but I know some people are less than impressed.

I stand corrected

Rookie, don't discount the AFS of the 70-200 over the AF of the 80-200. Much, much faster auto focus (faster again if driven by a D2H or D2X body).

Don't even consider the 18-200, you want 2.8 for sports

jerrysk8 wrote:for sports you should be using a fast enough shutter speed that the VR function would be pointless

No, not really. Not all sports action requires a super-high shutter speed in order to capture the action, and Raskill's post very ncely describes one such circumstance.

Taking his point, and adding to it the rule that you should not handhold a lens at anything slower than a shutter speed that's the reciprocal of the focal length in use, let's now use the 70-200VR plus the 1.7, which gives you a focal length of 340mm and a desired shutter speed of about 1/340, yet you still have a need - in order to get the image you're seeking - to shoot at 1/125.

VR can, does, and should provide an ample measure of assitance in this situation, but, and again as Raskill points out, technique is everything. If the photographer is incompetent, and/or doesn't know how to best utilise his gear, then you're still going to get images that are way short of spectacular.

Glen wrote:Don't even consider the 18-200, you want 2.8 for sports

Well, certainly the extra speed of the glass can be useful, but again, a good photographer (good technique) can use a slower lens to great effect.

But the possible need to sometimes shoot in conditions little better than starlight - if that's a circumstance that the OP might be facing - must also be taken into account.

And finally, the f/2.8 could also be useful if shallow DoF is one of your targets, such as when you might want to isolate the subject from the background.

jerrysk8 wrote:for sports you should be using a fast enough shutter speed that the VR function would be pointless

For sports, a VR and constant 2.8 glass will help a lot.
The 70-200VR is fast with AF-S and lot better than the 80-200 AF-D.
Of course, it's more expensive.

I got the 70-200 VR. I mainly shoot showjumping and for this I turn the VR off as it can lead to some shutter lag. However there are many sporting shots where VR would be an advantage, like when shooting from an unstable platform..such as a boat. For sporting shots AFS gives you the oppotunity to get a wider range of shots than AF, owing to the faster focus speed. Having said that I've never used the 80 -200 AF so I can't really tell how much slower it focuses.

Its also a great lens for low light situations like concerts (VR on).

FWIW you hardly ever see used 70-200 VRs on ebay. Must be because most owners do not want to sell them.

I was experimenting with my panning technique a couple of hours ago!
70-200VR at pretty much full reach at 1/30 sec:

Russell,

I like how your panning technique even managed to stretch the image frame lengthwise a little.

Seriously, nice, that's a good example of good panning technique. The thrill of the chase, eh?

Fab shot Russell - everything is moving except for the police boat

Russell,
Great works with your first tries, hope you're happy with the outcome.
What's next?

R2: VR for sports is pretty much the same as for anything else. Maybe 95% of the time you won't need it; you pay all that money for that 5% of times when it's invaluable. FWIW I shoot most of my motorsport shots with VR turned off, but occasionally it comes in handy. If you can afford it, the 70-200 VR is a brilliant lens that will not disappoint. The Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 and its Nikkor counterpart are probably better value for money, but will lose out in those 5% situations where the going gets tough.

thaddeus wrote:I was experimenting with my panning technique a couple of hours ago!
70-200VR at pretty much full reach at 1/30 sec:

hahah I thought I was the only one here that practiced panning on boats.

My 70-200 VR is a corker! Takes a bit of getting used to but when it smokes it really smokes.
Jethro

your at no disadvantage with either the 80-200 or 70-200vr. although the vr will help in areas you can't use a monopod mud, water, holey floors.
most sports you will find that you will need something along the lines of 300mm or more to get close enough to your subject.

such as mallala and winton racetrack it good example of this.
baseball is ok with a mid range zoom but you would like something longer to cover bases

have you considered a 80-400vr?

rookie2 mentioned stick and ball sports like footy and basketball and that's what i based my comment on not motorsports like Raskill mentioned. you need a fast shutter speed to freeze fast arm, body and ball movements which aren't going to be frozen with VR.

but then i have the canon 70-200mm 2.8 IS and the only reason i got the IS version was for the weathersealing for wakeboarding shots. me thinks i should downgrade and put the extra grand on something else like a rainhood and more flashes.

thanks all for the feedback.

I am currently in borneo and had opportunity to handle a d200 and look at (not allowed to try) a 70 - 200 VR plus the 105 VR .

loved the d200 and used it wioth the 105 VR - WOW!!

quick and sharp but a waste of the VR for macro really.

anyway just about to head home where with a clear head I will weigh up the options and then get something through birddog.

main thing is I have the OK from my better half so this trip has been a great buttering up exrcise that has paid dividends.

VERY tempted to get the D200 body here but will wait!!

see y'all back in OZ soon.

cheers

R2

VR tech reduces the focus performance of the lens and makes the images softer
long ago way before VR technology people have been taking razor sharp sports photos with lenses without VR, with nailed down technique
i think vr is good in certain low light hand holding situations when you just don't have the time to fiddle with settings

wendellt wrote:VR tech reduces the focus performance of the lens and makes the images softer

I beg to differ Wendellt
The image quality with my VR makes no difference whether VR is on OR off.
Same SHARP images either way, perhaps you should get yours seen to

Cheers
Marc

I shoot both the shute shield and tooheys new cup each year with a 300mm f4. as the others have said it really does come down to practice and to this day I still get some blur even with the d2x at high crop mode. The type of sport u are shooting may also be a factor as most shooters at the footy do not use anything under 300mm except for the "trophy" shots.
I have yet to see anyone with a 300mm 2.8 vr at a game, most of the pros have there 600mm guns but I can safely say it wont be long?
cheers jez

wendellt wrote:VR tech reduces the focus performance of the lens and makes the images softer

Perhaps your 70-200VR was wendelled! after you dropped it on the concrete floor

VR tech improve and give you more keeper than none, and also depending on the guy behind the viewfinder.

does the current version 80 - 200 2.8 (n) have the large & solid tripod collar that rotates or is this something one needs to purchase to replace a flimsier version?

I saw one of these big collars on a lens in KL but shop wasnt open.

I would mainly be using this lens on a monopod.

thanx

R2

birddog114 wrote:

wendellt wrote:VR tech reduces the focus performance of the lens and makes the images softer

Perhaps your 70-200VR was wendelled! after you dropped it on the concrete floor

VR tech improve and give you more keeper than none, and also depending on the guy behind the viewfinder.

Birdy your the one who told me explicitly that VR softens the image slightly
you are right and most pro's agree as well

So Wendell
You don't even own one??
Trust your OWN eyes and NO ONE else's.
Then make up your OWN mind

Raskill is right on the money regards VR being very useful for panning shots. Its also handy when you have reasonable shutter-speeds but are doing grab shots and havent got time to get yourself stablised.

The VR does slow down the AF a bit, it takes longer to lock focus. And Ive seen some tests that suggest that it does reduce image quality slightly if you use it when you dont need it.

Ive got the 80-200 AFD and the VR (must put the 80-200 on trademe).

On my D70 I far prefer the VR to the AFD. Theres not a huge difference in AF speed, though I do think the VR hunts a little less. One of the big differences is noise, the VR is basically silent, whereas the AFD is comparatively quite loud. The VR is heavier (i think), but handles nicer for me and I find the focus hold buttons on the front of the lens very useful at times too.

To me, the VR is also noticeably sharper, especially near minimum focus distance and wide apertures, but i have my suspicions that the 80-200 I have isnt a particularly sharp example.