Time for some input......

[FredT]

First, some background. I've been shooting sports on and off for about 36 years. Heavily in college in the 70's, (Made a hell of a lot of money from proud parents of collegiate athletes as well as regional papers) then again starting about 10 years ago when my daughter hit high school.

In 03 I dropped the dime and bought a D-100, and fell in love with sports photography all over again, and am now shooting for two weekly papers, a couple of yearbooks, and of course myself (Last son is a HS senior on his way to playing college LAX.) Understand though that this is still STRICTLY a hobby, with no $$ involved. (Although every editor seems to think I am some sort of indebted servant.....)

So, All is good until last week when our home gets broken into and EVERYTHING stolen. After a lot of swearing and police reports I am beginning to realize that there is a silver lining in the clouds. I had never been happy with the autofocus with the D-100, and had been eyeing an upgrade to a D-300 anyway. Sooooooo....

Here are my questions. What lenses? First, while I had been happy with the 70-300 for the field sports, I keep hearing whispers that the best sports lens around right now is the Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8G ED-IF AF-S VR . I love the 2.8 part (More and more high school events are going "under the lights") but i'm concerned with loosing that extra 100 mm.

On the other end, I'm leaning to keeping it REALLY simple for the indoor events, and staying with a fixed 50 mm 1.4 for BB and Volleyball. (Thats what I have been using as I am one of those old fashioned purists who HATE flashes on the court.....) It works for me, but I'm always open to suggestions.

Oh yeah, while I won't say it to a salesperson, price is not all THAT much of an issue here. While I'm not going to spring for a D-3...... the cost of the lens is not a real determining factor.

So.... Help? Opinions?? Comments???

FredT

[dhyravy]

With the crop factor (1.5x) on the D300, you would get an effective 105-300mm from the 70-200 2.8. I use the 80-200 2.8 more than probably anything else I have for football, basketball, track, etc. I also like the 18-50mm 2.8 Sigma for basketball since it gives me a little room to work when under the basket. I use strobes as well though, so the 50 1.4 would probably be a better bet without them. For field sports, I have been looking at the 120-300mm 2.8 Sigma to get the extra reach for football, baseball, and soccer.

[gryphonslair99]

FredT,

Although I lived ate and breathed Nikon for 30+ years in the film world, alas I have jumped ship to Canon for the exact type of photography that you are talking about, sports. I am a serious hobbist so keep that in mind in this post. My first question would be how much are you willing to spend? With your previous sports experience I'm sure you realize how demanding sports photography is.

For outdoor track and field sports I am mostly shooting a 24-70 f2.8L on my back up body, a 70-200 f2.8L on my main body. I'm shooting collage event with sideline passes. I choose faster glass over something like a 70-300 or Canons 100-400 as I want faster glass to keep my ISO down when it gets dark. My next lens purchase towards this is Canon's 400mm f2.8. I use one now off and on depending on the game but I want a full time, my very own lens instead of having to rent or borrow.

For indoors. I prefer primes over zooms again for the light, or more importantly the lack there of. My basic basketball, volleyball, wrestling, gymnastics lenses consist of a 50mm f1.4, 85mm f1.8, 135mm f2.0L and a 200mm f2.8L. In the Canon line these are all fast focusing lenses. I will pull out the 70-200 on occasion or a 17-50 2.8 Tamron, but it is very rare that I do.

For me IQ and the resulting ISO gains from faster glass are the top deciders. Canons 100-400 while a good lens at a good price is slow and the IQ is not as good in the 100-200 range as the 70-200 f2.8L so I gave up range for IQ. Just means I walk the sidelines a lot more that the guy with the 400mm. If I really need more range I can slap my 1.4 X II converter on the 200 f2.8 and get really sharp shots.

From all that I have heard the Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8G ED-IF AF-S VR is a real sweet lens for sports. Great IQ, fast glass and of course it is a top quality Nikkor lens. I don't know if this helps or not, just my take on sports lenses and shooting, and you did mention that money was not really a consideration. Good luck and enjoy the new gear.

[FredT]

gryphonslair99 & dhyravy:

Thanks for the words. I think I'll stick with the Nikon simply because I already KNOW the Nikon... (And I have my kids program the VCR too!) As far as the rest goes, you seem to be validating my views. (Primes over zooms, fast glass being a decider....)

My only worry is if I'll be happy with that max 200 mm (even given the crop factor) But I noticed one thing you mentioned: "If I really need more range I can slap my 1.4 X II converter on the 200 f2.8 and get really sharp shots. " My only experience with converters was cerca 1975, a 2x adapter I had for an old Tameron.... (And I was not happy with it). Your opinion? worth the time of day? (And most importantly, how do they effect the autofocus?)

FredT

[JSPhoto]

Don't worry about the extra 100mm go with the 70-200mm. It's the Nikon sports shooters best friend as the canon 70-200 is to them.A 50mm really won't do much for you unless your really close and then it's too close!

JS

[gryphonslair99]

gryphonslair99 & dhyravy:

Thanks for the words. I think I'll stick with the Nikon simply because I already KNOW the Nikon... (And I have my kids program the VCR too!) As far as the rest goes, you seem to be validating my views. (Primes over zooms, fast glass being a decider....)

My only worry is if I'll be happy with that max 200 mm (even given the crop factor) But I noticed one thing you mentioned: "If I really need more range I can slap my 1.4 X II converter on the 200 f2.8 and get really sharp shots. " My only experience with converters was cerca 1975, a 2x adapter I had for an old Tameron.... (And I was not happy with it). Your opinion? worth the time of day? (And most importantly, how do they effect the autofocus?)

FredT

If I were in your position I would stick with Nikon as well. It's not like they are some poor uncle in the photography world. When I switched to digital, Canon beat Nikon hands down in high ISO performance. Nikon took notice and has made great strides in that area. One thing that made my switch easier was I was coming from F and F2 bodies. I loved them so much and hated the F3 as much, so I never up geared my Nikon bodies, just my glass. When I went digital I knew I was starting from scratch so the switch wasn't any more painful to the wallet than sticking with Nikon would have been.

As for the teleconverter, I think 30 years ago we had the same one. Mine was a Nikkor but it still was not an outstanding addition. The only thing I hated more was the first zoom lens I bought about the same time. A stove pipe with glass window panes in it. What a piece of junk.

The Canon 1.4 X II is an outstanding piece of optics designed for specific Canon lenses. With it on my 200 f2.8 prime I am getting as sharp an image as I would with my 70-200 f2.8, which is one of Canons sharpest zooms. I have used the Canon 2 X II and don't really like the results. Maybe on a 600mm it would be alright but it is not good on a lens in the 200mm range IMO.

I would think that Nikon makes a 1.4 converter that is of high quality these days. If not, I have also used a Kinko 1.4 DG300 pro converter. It is quite comperable to the Canon 1.4 and only about $225 instead of $300 for the Canon. I would think that the Nikon mount version from Kinko would be just as sharp as the Canon version. Plus, since Nikon still embraces black lens bodies the Kinko will blend right in.

Edit: 1055 hrs, 3/2/08: This looks like it would do the trick. Just make sure you have one of the lenses on the list.
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produc...erter_for.html