New lens decision

[dk]

Ok. I've finally saved enough money (thank you eBay) to consider one of the following lenses. Bear in mind I will be shooting mainly sporting events (auto races, air races, motorcycles, snowmobiles, ATVs, etc.)

1. Nikon 80-200mm f/2.8ED AF Zoom

or

2. Nikon 80-400mm f/4.5D AF VR

Thanks a million.

dk

[Alpha_7]

dk,

I'd suggest using the search feature with this one will yield some very helpful results, there has been many threads waying up the pro's and cons of these lens and ones similar for sporting events etc so there is a wealth of information and opinions here already if you can find them.

I would highly recommend (if you can) test driving the lenses if you can, or atleast get some hands on play in a camera shop if you have one locally (and if they stock the lenses), although I've been known to buy blind when the price is right, I think prior experience and play, can help "hone" you expectations so you are disappointed.

[Oneputt]

dk I have both the Nikkor 70-200VR and the 80-400VR, and whilst both can and do get used for motor sport, the additional speed of the shorter lens makes it a winner where you can get reasonably close to the action.

BBJ will probably be along shortly

[gstark]

The question you're ultimately going to be facing is one of lens speed vs reach.

You will need to consider which of those features is paramount for the shooting that you're anticipating doing. I need the reach, and went for the 80-400VR, and have not been disappointed.

What's right for you is your decision to contemplate.

[BBJ]

DK, like oneput said, i rarely use my 80-400VR anymore. Ok it is a great lens and yes it is slow, but i have had some good results with this lens once you know what it can and cant do. I have taken some good shot of motorbikes with this lens but i found i dont need the reach as much as i need speed and this is the most important factor to consider. If you plan of using it for chasing bikes etc.. anything with some speed and can get rather close, not too close but thye speed of the AF is what you need to look at. The Nikon 80-200 2.8 would be the better choice, if you find you need some reach at some stage, get a teleconvertor. Pays to have good glass as i too thought the 80-400VR was good till i got an f2.8 Sigma 70-200 and this is my most used lens, i do all my shots with this lens 99% of the time. I also have a Nikon 300m F2.8 prime lens and only use it in some situations at the track when i want to get in there run of with are 2X TC so 600m.

They are both great but faster glass is alway better and the F2.8 will out perform the 80-400 in low light, so work out what you need and if you can try both but if it's speed you need go fast glass.

[ipv6ready]

Hi all,

In this context I presume we are talking about the AF speed rather then the normal F stop?

[Glen]

Ipv6, both. The 80-400 is 4.5 at the short end and 5.6 at the long. The 80-200 is 2.8 throughout. It should be pointed out that the AF80-200 is somewhere in between the AFS 70-200 and AF80-400 in focus speed.

I think Gary summed it up nicely.

[dk]

Thanks to all. I've determined that speed is essential to my needs and therefore am opting for fast glass.

As always your comments have been helpful.

Thanks a million.

dk