nikon telephoto conundrum

[Oz_Beachside]

hello, looking to get some opinions from others in here that shoot people (portrait and sports) regarding prime telephoto lens choice.

I use a D200, and hardly take the 70-200 off that camera, with a 17-35mm on the other. My people shots are 80% in the focal range of 105-200 (on DX formal, crop factor of 1.5). I like this focal length range for its perspective, not its crop.

I might shoot sports 10% of the time, club motor racing, and gridiron football.

I had been looking at the 200mm f2.0 VR for some time. I buy lenses with a "lifetime outlook". I liked the fundamentals of a prime, available at f2, with a VR to allow shutter slow right down for ambient in the evening.

then, the D3 was released. not that I am looking to get a D3, but its now clear that with full frame nikon, no doubt I will have one in my lifetime. Therfore, with the 1.5 crop factor not a long term consideration, I'm wondering should I get somehting more like a 300mm 2.8 VR?

This gives me 300mm, which is not covered by my 70-200, but will I use it? I just got a TC1.7, so I can now experiment with this focal length on my D200, and think I will relaly enjoy the longer perspective, in a zoom. but oh, what to do in a prime? this is not somehting I am considering lightly, as a $4000 lens is not at all a small purchase

I guess focus speed is only important to me in action sports, which is 10%, so not a primary concern...

I know padey sung praise to the 200mm f2, and im still leaning that way, interested to hear from anyone, and examples would be great, that has shot people, or motorsports/football with the 300mm 2.8 VR, or who can provide some insight on either choice. I also like the idea of the 200mm with a TC 1.4 as a flexible option...

lots of things for me to consider, and now FX format may influence me to go longer focal length for the long term solution??? PS: thought about the 200-400mm for flexibility, but its much higher cost, and a bit long for my needs I think.

[PiroStitch]

I think you just answered your own question regarding the 200 f2. You already have that range covered with the 70-200 and the difference b/ween f2 and f2.8 will be minimal at best.

Given that you'll probably upgrade to the D3 eventually, why not the 300mm or 400 or 500?

[the foto fanatic]

I don't see the need to replicate the 200mm focal length for the sake of the F2.0 aperture.

I think a more sensible choice would be the 300mm. You have the TC, so you effectively have focal lengths up to 500mm covered if you go this way.

[gstark]

Bruce,

My people shots are 80% in the focal range of 105-200 (on DX formal, crop factor of 1.5). I like this focal length range for its perspective, not its crop.

What I'm seeing here is that you don't seem to have the 85 f/1.4.

My own experience is that anything much beyond 105 is less suited to portraiture, simply because of the greater distances that you're establishing between yourself and your subjects. I find that closer is better, as it permits better, and more intimate, communications.

And given the inexpensiveness of the 85 f/1.4, I'm surprised that this doesn't yet seem to be in your arsenal. I consider it to be Nikon's best, to the point where even images that I shoot look good when shot with this glass.

[Oz_Beachside]

agree Gary, I have the 85/1.4, and with its extra blades over the 1.8, spits out dreamy keeper after keeper. its by far the best value prime for portraits (the 50mm is ok too).

I guess to add to my needs, im thinking of a lens I can use for outdoor portraits where I can walk back 10-20 meters, and candids unknowingly shot from a distance (although these lenses are certainly not inconspicuous).

the extra reach is appreciated on the football field too. and the VR for low light non action (slower shutter...).

perhaps I should give myself some time to experiment with my new TC (first one ever), and see what the 70-200 with 1.7x gives me. how it handles VR, focus speed etc.

[Matt. K]

Bruce
300mm prime on a FF digital camera is not that useful for portraits. It becomes an awkward focal length useful only for sports. The prince of portraits lens is the 105 if you have the studio length or the 80mm F1.4. Even the 50mm begins to sing for full length portraits. You will notice a marked loss of DOF when you go to FF and this will become a problem at anything over 105mm focal length being used for portraits.