DSLRUsers.com

Fello Nikon Users,

I am really starting to get into the photography, and i want to move into action photography. I have the d70s with the 18-70mm and the 70-300g and I don't have such a high sucess rate with the 70-300mm handheld and when i do get it right, it just seems to be lacking sharpness.

I'd definately like a lens with VR so i can shoot handheld at longer focal lengths. I was wondering how the 18-70 compares to the 18-200 VR in the 18-70 range, and if it was worth the change just for the 70-200mm with VR with no increase in max apature.

I have been reading up and maybe it is worth just forking out once and getting the 70-200m VR and going for a teleconverter. As I assume that it would really be a heap better than the 18-200 in i that range, especially with f/2.8.

I was just wondering how say the 2x teleconverter would change the optical quality and how it would compare to the 80-400VR. I realise i wouldn't be able to use it well for stop action photography, but im sure it has its uses.

Sorry for the long post, theres just so many choices out there, and i really do want to make the right one.

Thank you everyone,
Matt

MattyO
You don't need VR for action shots. It does not help much and your money is better spent on a good monopod. I suggest an 80-200mm F2.8 and a for a bit of extra reach a Tamron 1.7X teleconvertor. If you need a lot more reach then the 80-400 VR is a very good lens for the money, but not quite as sharp as the former rig. The general rule in action photography is....use the shortest focal length lens that will do the job. This will give you the best quality imagery.

Matt O,

In terms of Matt K advice, start with the monopod, the 70-300 requires a reasonable amount of light and the monopod for little money will help with that lens or any other longer lens. For less than $100 you will notice the improvement. The 80-200 is a great lens for what it can be bought for these days. What budget are you thinking of?

Hi there fellow Perthian, I agree with the previous posts. The 80-200 2.8 is a fantastic lens and well worth the money. However there are rumours that Nikon is releasing a 80-300 2.8 which would be even better (just from the stats, we'll see if it can match the image quality of the 80-200).

I thought that you can't really use teleconverters with DSLRs???? They take away two F-stops and you lose some functions if I remember correctly...

Otherwise I'd be looking into one myself

Tim, you can use a TC with DSLR, here is a thread from today on them. Of the new TC I would recommend the 1.4 or 1.7. They take away the stop of the conversion number, eg a 1.4 takes away 1.4 stops, a 1.7 takes 1.7 stops

The 80-200 is $500-700 s/h, less than $1200 new, a 70-200 is over $2k, so I guess a 80-300 would be well over $3k.

Glen wrote:Tim, you can use a TC with DSLR, here is a thread from today on them. Of the new TC I would recommend the 1.4 or 1.7. They take away the stop of the conversion number, eg a 1.4 takes away 1.4 stops, a 1.7 takes 1.7 stops

The 80-200 is $500-700 s/h, less than $1200 new, a 70-200 is over $2k, so I guess a 80-300 would be well over $3k.

I think a 1.4x tc would take away only 1 stop - as it spreads the light over twice the area (1.4 x 1.4) and therefore halves the illumination. A 2x converter spreads the image over four times the area, so the intensity is one quarter, i.e. 2 stops.

Cheers

Glen wrote: The 80-200 is $500-700 s/h, less than $1200 new, a 70-200 is over $2k, so I guess a 80-300 would be well over $3k.

I can assure you it will be MUCH more than $3000. My Sigma 120-300 was $3200. Imagine if it had a nikon badge on it, I reckon over $4000 for that 'honour'....

Raskill wrote:

Glen wrote: The 80-200 is $500-700 s/h, less than $1200 new, a 70-200 is over $2k, so I guess a 80-300 would be well over $3k.

I can assure you it will be MUCH more than $3000. My Sigma 120-300 was $3200. Imagine if it had a nikon badge on it, I reckon over $4000 for that 'honour'....

Not only that... a 300mm/2.8 would need an aperture opening of 107mm!!

Seriously big bit of glass.

Anyway... to the original poster.. I can thoroughly recommend the 80-200/2.8 for sports. Lightning quick focusing and very sharp. Even better if you can combine it with a D200 or D2-series body (for faster, more accurate AF, more AF points, and 5 or 8 fps!!). Big big step up from a D70 + 70-300G. I know, I used to have that combo, and now have a 80-200 and D200!!!

If you can afford it, the 70-200 is even nicer. The 80-400 is great for reach, and the VR is fabbo for low light shooting.. but it is way too slow to shoot sports IMO. Might not be a bad option to opt for the 70-200VR + a 1.7 TC for the odd times you need the extra reach.

digitor wrote:

Glen wrote:Tim, you can use a TC with DSLR, here is a thread from today on them. Of the new TC I would recommend the 1.4 or 1.7. They take away the stop of the conversion number, eg a 1.4 takes away 1.4 stops, a 1.7 takes 1.7 stops

The 80-200 is $500-700 s/h, less than $1200 new, a 70-200 is over $2k, so I guess a 80-300 would be well over $3k.

I think a 1.4x tc would take away only 1 stop - as it spreads the light over twice the area (1.4 x 1.4) and therefore halves the illumination. A 2x converter spreads the image over four times the area, so the intensity is one quarter, i.e. 2 stops.

Cheers

Spot on Ian, your post jogged something in my memory about the 1.4 being lower, checked Nikon aus website which has next to no specs, checked international and you were dead right. I was 100% wrong.

80-300 2.8 would be a BEAST... a 300/2.8 is already very expensive and very large..

Would be at least 3K..

To echo the above... Get legs first...

My tele combo is the sigma 70-200 on top of some Gitzo legs and works fabulously
Legs=VR for ALL your lenses

Matt,

You have received some great advice about lenses. The 70-300 that you have is renowned for being soft particularly at the longer end with larger apertures. However, you should still be able to produce acceptably sharp images with this lens. To do so, you will need to think a little before pressing the shutter:

1. Make sure that you have the lens stopped down somewhere between f8 and f11. From what I've read, this is the sweet spot for this lens.
2. Make sure your shutter speed is at least the reciprocal of your focal length (eg at 200mm at least 1/200 of a second) if shooting hand held. The faster your shutter speed, the less chance of inducing softness from not holding the lens steady enough.
3. Try to avoid shooting at the extreme ends of the zooms capabilities (ie. don't shoot at 70mm or 300mm)
4. Check your technique. Make sure you are holding the lens correctly while shooting. Tuck your elbows in tightly against your body. Have a very steady stance, or brace yourself against a nearby sturdy structure. If possible, use a tripod, or monopod. Breathe out before taking your shot. Half way through exhaling hold your breath and gently squeeze the shutter button.

Obviously, you'll need to be shooting in pretty bright conditions, or with very high ISO to get the best out of this lens, but the fundamental techniques required to produce a sharp image with it are exactly the same techniques required with top glass. Go out and practice and most importantly, have fun

Andrew, Im not too bad with the camera shake.



this shot here was taken at 1/60s at about 250mm hand held.

I would like to budget not too much over 2500 at the max, as i really don't want to go overboard. I am really tossing up wether i do need the VR feature.

I like to do a lot of panning shots, like this



and decreasing the shutter speed gives more of a motion blur effect, however, VR wouldn't really help unless i could match the speed of the subject correctly i assume, so i suppose that just comes down to my technique.


As from what i have read, it is only going to help when taking pictures of non moving objects? Which i could just use a tripod for anyways? Is this correct? However, say the 80-200 with a teleconverter that'll give me a range of like 135-340mm at f/4.9? or 160-400mm at f/5.6, not really suitable for sports, unless i really bump up the iso, but for the little extra cost, its not a bad reach. How would both of those perform hand held, similar to the 70-300? Or would the VR feature be a very welcome addition in this combo?

Matty, I have a 80-200 2.8 and it's a beautiful lens. Sharp as a tack thru it's entire range. If I was spending about $2K on kit for the type of photography you do, I'd go for a 80-200 and a decent monopod. The 80-200 is just so sharp that I'd be reluctant to soften in with a TC, but if you did maybe just a 1.4X. You should be able to do a 80-200 and good monpod for under $2K with a bit of careful shopping. I also have a 80-400VR and IMHO it's nowhere near the 80-200 in terms of optical quality (but you get 400mm Vs 200mm). I use the 80-200 for motorsport and keep the 80-400 for things further away like birds. The 70-200VR is as good as the 80-200 optically (some say better), but you'll pay an extra $1K for it. I'd be inclined to save that $1K and get a SB800 or SB600 to get some decent light.

Cheers
John

Matty
If you can handhold 250mm @ 1/60sec. like that consistantly, you DONT need VR

Seriously, can I ask if you will be looking to print alot of the images you take and if so, what size you'd be thinking of printing them ? The reason I ask is that the optical quality of the 80-200 (or 70-200) should be sufficient to be able to crop during PP, if required...providing that you're not looking to make poster prints and "heavily crop" images.

I'd think that the loss of 100mm in focal length could easily be re-gained in cropping an image from the 80-200, giving you the FOV of a 300mm lens and resizing accordingly. The optical quality between your current lens and the 80-200 is worlds apart (and would make a significant difference....IMO).

I guess in my round-a-bout way, I'm saying that a cropped (and resized) image taken with the 80-200 should be sharper than using the 70-300 at 300mm.

Can anyone owning an 80-200 clarify if this would be/is the case ?

There's nothing wrong with your technique if you can keep an image that sharp at 1/60 @ 250mm.

I'd second what has been said to you about the 80-200. It's razor sharp the whole way through its zoom range and produced pleasing results even when wide open. It should give you enough reach at most motorsport events - if not, look at the teleconverter Matt recommended.

This is all a lot to think about. What sort of monopod would i be looking at? How does a monopod perform in comparison to VR?

Also, how much difference to image sharpness do teleconverters make? Would possibly look at the 1.4x or the 1.7x as they are both the same price. Do i go for a little more length at the expense of half a stop. But my main concern is that of losing image quality at its expense, and at 300mm im no better off from when i stated.

I already own a sb600 btw, i need to post more to update my sig as to what i have.

Thank you for the advice. I wouldn't get too excitied, as i probably just got lucky at 1/60 and 250mm but i suppose i was just showing it could be done.