Greetings everybody!

My first posting, although I've already lost quite a bit of sleep reading the forums here...... thank you!! :D

Looks like I'm a fairly familiar story... I dabbled a bit with 35mm film, years ago... and currently a variety of P&S cameras and now I'm interested in getting into a good dSLR because I'm finding myself trying to do more and more indoor sports action shots. Specifically, swimming (avg distance about 100 ft, in average, to poor indoor lighting), volleyball (avg distance: 25 - 60 ft, typical gym lighting) and gymnastics (avg dist: 50 - 75 ft ). I haven't found a P&S that would even come close for the swimming distances.

So I'm trying to decide between the D40 and the D80 (leaning to D80, of course). But my bigger question is (drum roll) VR.

I'm trying to figure out a good base 2 lens setup, and I'm wondering if anyone can shed some light on their experiences with the Nikon VR functionality with regards to indoor sports action shots. I can definitely see the benefits of VR for more "still" shots. But what about swimming, volleyball, gymnastics or other indoor sports?

My delimma is over the 70 - 200 f/2.8 VR or the 80 - 200 f/2.8 AF-D which is half the cost. I've read reviews on both and gather the 80 - 200 is just about as good but lacking VR. I'm trying to figure out if it is really worth dropping another $800 on the 70 - 200 VR.... or adding that "extra cash" toward an "upgraded" general, walking around lens for example the 18 - 200 f/3.5-5.6 VR.... otherwise, my budet will only allow one of the lens kits, where I'd consider the 18 - 135.... I think..

Your thoughts are greatly appreciated!!

Greetings everybody!

My first posting, although I've already lost quite a bit of sleep reading the forums here...... thank you!! :D

Looks like I'm a fairly familiar story... I dabbled a bit with 35mm film, years ago... and currently a variety of P&S cameras and now I'm interested in getting into a good dSLR because I'm finding myself trying to do more and more indoor sports action shots. Specifically, swimming (avg distance about 100 ft, in average, to poor indoor lighting), volleyball (avg distance: 25 - 60 ft, typical gym lighting) and gymnastics (avg dist: 50 - 75 ft ). I haven't found a P&S that would even come close for the swimming distances.

So I'm trying to decide between the D40 and the D80 (leaning to D80, of course). But my bigger question is (drum roll) VR.

I'm trying to figure out a good base 2 lens setup, and I'm wondering if anyone can shed some light on their experiences with the Nikon VR functionality with regards to indoor sports action shots. I can definitely see the benefits of VR for more "still" shots. But what about swimming, volleyball, gymnastics or other indoor sports?

My delimma is over the 70 - 200 f/2.8 VR or the 80 - 200 f/2.8 AF-D which is half the cost. I've read reviews on both and gather the 80 - 200 is just about as good but lacking VR. I'm trying to figure out if it is really worth dropping another $800 on the 70 - 200 VR.... or adding that "extra cash" toward an "upgraded" general, walking around lens for example the 18 - 200 f/3.5-5.6 VR.... otherwise, my budet will only allow one of the lens kits, where I'd consider the 18 - 135.... I think..

Your thoughts are greatly appreciated!!

I have the 80-200 f2.8 AF-S and the 18-200 VR. For fast-moving action you have to use a high shutter speed so I don't think that the VR would be of any great help. It would be useful at moments when the subject is immobile. However I get better results than expected at slow shutter speeds with the 80-200, probably because it is so heavy.

The 18-200 VR is an excellent choice for most occasions (apart from when I need f2.8, in fact). It stays on the camera all the time and stops dust getting on the sensor. I used my f2.8 lenses last night for the first time in months - sure they're better than the 18-200 but the difference is hardly noticable.

Note: If you get the D40 make sure you're looking at the 80-200 AF-S. It won't focus on the non-AF-S version.

Charles

ps. I just included an image I shot last night with the 80-200 AF-S. I screwed up. I set the D200 to Aperture priority f2.8 counting on the flash to freeze the subject. The camera understood that the flash was there to do a bit of fill-in and let the shutter speed descend to 1/60s - with the lens set to 100mm in this case (that's a 150mm in film terms). Normally a guarantee for a blurry image but actually most of them are fairly sharp, probably due to the weight of the lens.

What I should have done was set Shutter Priority with 1/180s and the camera would have corrected the underexposure with the flash

I would say the 70-200 VR has some very real advantages over both the 80-200AF-D and AF-S. The AF-S is basically on par optically and build and focus-wise, but I prefer the ergonomics of the 70-200 VR and the VR, and the 'Bokeh' of the 70-200 versus the 80-200.

The 80-200 AF-D is IMHO an overall weaker lens, plus won't autofocus on a D40 or D40x.

The 70-200 VR is excellent, but there are times where your shutter speed can stop the motion of the subject but not necessarily your camera shake. VR still comes in handy there, and it also helps because it detects panning and helps stabilize you while panning and reframing.

Thank you very much for your comments.

I thought I had made my decision to buy a Nikon D80 with the 18 - 135 lens ($1225). Or maybe just buy the body and pick up the 18 - 200 VR (approx. $1820). And to complete my kit, I was going for the 70 - 200 mm f/2.8, for the more difficult indoor shots. My thinking was these two lens should cover everything I need (for now anyway)

So I head into the local camera shop (a well regarded "mom & pop" shop in my area) to discuss these buying options. After I tell the owner what I want to do with the camera, he mentions that Canon now has a new kit, that is only a couple hundred dollars more than the Nikon 18-135 kit.... and a couple hundred dollars less than buying the Nikon body and the 18-200 VR.

The Canon kit he is referring to is:

Canon EOS-30D Digital SLR Camera Body Kit with EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM Image Stabilized Zoom Lens - USA Warranty for $1500.

He said that it has faster shutter speeds and faster fps which would make it a better choice of indoor sports shooting. Especially, if my shooting range was 50 feet to 150 feet... maybe even further. The kit comes with a $400 IS lens.... and, of course, I'd have to buy the equivilant 70-200 f/2.8 IS lens.

I'm pretty sure he was just being helpful and not trying to bait-n-switch me to a higher priced camera, because the D80 / 18-200VR combo was more expensive, and he did have everything in stock, except the 18 - 200 VR lens.

So now I am completely perplexed!! Were we really comparing apples to apples with these kit combos. Thanks in advance for your thoughts.

He said that it has faster shutter speeds

Probably not, at least in a practical standpoint. I'm not a sports shooter but I can probably count on one hand the times I've used 1/2000 or faster. Any of the cameras you mention should do that. In a low light situation - which an indoor pool would be - having both a fast maximum aperture like f2.8, a camera that shoots clean files at about ISO800 and VR would be my choice. High frame rate (fps) is nice, but I'll defer that to the sports guy. Mainly, I wouldn't trade a fast lens without VR (or IS) for a slower lens like f5.6 with this. For a lot of situations the 28-135 or 18-200 VR lenses will probably be very handy, but low light and action are very demanding situations of camera equipment (note that 28mm is not very wide at all on a DSLR - for Canon that's a 45mm equivalent).

I don't own any VR lenses but have played with them. I've heard that at least with Nikon, not all VR lenses are equal. Their 24-120's VR probably won't perform like their 70-200's VR. Great tool to have though.

Framerates are less important indoors than making sure your focus is good and shutter speeds are high enough. The 30D works with the same light, gives you the same exposure- no real difference on those two conditions indoors. The 28-135 is a *decent* lens but on digital you're losing a HUGE portion of your wide end that you'll miss terribly.

If you're getting the 70-200, the 18-135 will be plenty. The 18-200 is IMHO too expensive and hard to find to justify with that amount of overlap with such a superior lens.

Thanks,

I would think either camera should be able to shoot clean files at ISO800... I'm not sure how significant Canon's 5 fps vs Nikon's 3 fps really is to me. So, I guess I'm trying to decide if the Nikon 18-200mm F/3.5-5.6G ED-IF AF-S DX VR is worth the extra money over Canon's 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM, oddly, enough it is just a few dollars more than the stand-alone cost of the Nikon 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6G ED-IF AF-S DX.

Framerates are less important indoors than making sure your focus is good and shutter speeds are high enough. The 30D works with the same light, gives you the same exposure- no real difference on those two conditions indoors. The 28-135 is a *decent* lens but on digital you're losing a HUGE portion of your wide end that you'll miss terribly.

If you're getting the 70-200, the 18-135 will be plenty. The 18-200 is IMHO too expensive and hard to find to justify with that amount of overlap with such a superior lens.


Thanks deckcadet,

So you don't think a VR lens in the 18-135 range would be that helpful? I'm thinking the 18-135 would be on the camera more than the 70-200... I guess I'm coming full circle questioning the value of VR. :confused:

Well it depends again on what you're using it for. IMHO the 18-200 VR is a nice walkaround lens, but VR's effectiveness depends on the situation 100% of the time.

In the end it is really up to you. For some people, I would suggest the 18-200 alongside the 70-200 unquestioningly- it really just depends on you. Actually, since you've been considering the EOS-30D, which is closer in some features to the D200, the 18-135 vs. 18-200 can mean D200+18-135 vs. D80 +18-200.

Complicates it even more, I know :)

LOL, yes it does complicate things more... but in a good way. I've caught myself slowly creeping up the model / feature / price chain. Started with a D40... and now looking at a D200!! :D I went back into the store and we pulled out both cameras and lenses. My first impression of the 30D... "man, this thing is a brick!".... he let me try the Nikon D80 & D200 with the 18-135 lens (which I gotta say... the zoom felt really plastic and.. well cheap) and the 70-200 f/2.8 VR........ as well as the 30D with it's stock kit lens and their 70 - 200 f/2.8 L IS USM.... Both big lenses were lightening fast... But I have to say I really preferred the Nikon 70-200 f/2.8 VR lens. It's thinner and the zoom ring is in a much better location on the lens (for me).

So I think I'm leaning back to the D80. I really liked the D200, but that's just too much camera for my skills and wallet.

Now about that good walking around lens? Any thoughts on the new 55 - 200 mm VR? along with a kit lens 18-55? Of course, that means I really have 2 "walking around" lenses. Or is that 18-135 really my best general lens option under $500. Obviously, would love the 18-200mm VR, but can't swing the $900 gouging right now. I plan to use this walking around lens for just about everything non-sports related indoors and outdoors, mostly portraits, family shots, etc.

Regardless of that lens, I need to start saving my lunch money for the real deal... the 70-200 f/2.8 VR lens!

Thanks again for your advice!

Vibration Reduction is a very, very valuable feature. For more reasons than you might think.

Check out the Image Stabilization Guide (http://www.photographyreview.com/imagestabilizationcrx.aspx) in the Learn Section.

It was written just for you :)

What about the 70-300 VR @ $500.00 it looks real nice.

The 18-135 lense is very poor, has gotten many bad reviews.Steer clear of this "kit lense" As the D80 goes...It's a nice rig. I enjoy mine, donot regret the purchase.
Rick

What about the 70-300 VR @ $500.00 it looks real nice.

I think so too, and have thought about one of those myself. It's a pretty slow lens (maximum aperture) and I would definitely choose an 80-200 f2.8 without VR over this for action. A used AF-D version in decent shape is about this price too - I've got this lens and it's very good.

And the answer is "Limelight"... What do I win? :)

I would get the D80, 18-135 and the 80-200 2.8. I have a D80, and am saving for the 80-200 right now.