Nikon zoom Lens advice needed.

[RR5L]

Im currently looking for a new zoom lens for my Nikon D90. Ive taken alot of pleasure of taking shots of my son playing footy at our local club. The issue I have is that the Nikon AF-S DX VR Zoom-Nikkor 55-200mm f4-5.6G IF-ED Lens that came with it just doesnt reach all corners of the ground when I stand half way along the boundary line of the ground.

What would you recommend for such application remembering the ball could come as close to me or be as far away as mentioned?

Would a Nikon AF-S VR Zoom-Nikkor 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6G IF-ED Lens give me what I'm looking for or there better options?

I'm interested in peoples thoughts on this one.

[Chucaro]

Hello Rob

I have the Nikon 70-300VR and it is awesome, perhaps one of the best values considering that cost just under $1000.
I posted several insect images in this forum.

If you like I can go to the local oval and thake a shot from one end to the other on the soccer field.

If the reach it is not enough then I guess that you have to go for a Sigma or be prepared to pay several thousands for Nikon gear like the 200-400 zoom.

Cheers

[Chucaro]

Rob, the shots in THIS (http://www.aulro.com/afvb/camera-corner/103643-our-home-under-attack.html) thread are from the D300s and the 70-300VR ;)

[33chinacars]

Hi.
I have a D300 with a Nikon 18-200 [ better quallity than your current 55-200 and you don't have to swap lenses as much ]. Fantastic lense, stays on the camera 95% of the time. For something a bit longer try Tamron 18-270. Go to dpreview.com to check out lenses & camera's . Not much between these 2 lenses except Tamron a bit longer focal length. Both great Superzoom's. For something longer again I use an older Tamron 200-400 [ which is 300-600 on your D90 ]. Its a great lense but a bit on the heavy side to hand hold, use a mono pod or tripod if you have too.
The other opotion is to wait till your son is close to you to take photo's. Move around boundry line to get a different perspective.
I got my D300 kit as seperate items mostly from ebay.Cost about $4500 and everything was as new but second hand. Most could not be pick as S/H. RRP over $7000, saved heeps, you just have to be careful. I wont buy major camera items from OS , no or limited warranty or items have to be sent OS to be fixed.

Hope this helps

Gary

[flagg]

You could try a tele-converter, I use one with my 70-200VR and it is fantastic. Mine is a Nikon AF-S Teleconverter TC-17E II (1.7x zoom and +f1.5) there is also a 1.5/1.5 and a 2/2 but 1.7 gives you the most zoom for your available light ratio.

One thing to check, however is that your 55-200 can take a TC.. not all can :(

I paid about $400 on ebay, you can get them for $675 from ECS in Sydney.

EDIT: considering you can get the 70-300VR for less than that it wouldn't make much sense to get the TC - Sorry!

Dec

[greg-g]

I use a Nikor 80-400 VR on my D90 for Hockey and Rowing, results are excellent, but its rather heavy and is best used with a Monopod. Purchased on Ebay, but in excellent condition. My 18-200 was just to short.
Greg

[RR5L]

Hi All,
Time to dust off this old thread, I finally have the funds to go ahead and buy a new lense. Since starting this thread I have been searching whats around in the way of zoom lenses and a friend pointed me to a Nikon 70-200 F2.8 VR. I see that there is also a VR11 version of this lense as well. Im curious if any one has any experiences with these two and would like to share them with me. One thread I picked up on the was regarding the screw thread/lubricant problem with the VR11, does anyone know anything about this?

I also have seen that sigma offer a similar lense 70-200 f2.8 APO EX DG OS HSM that is considerably cheaper and with a plastic body which is considerably lighter. How does this compare agains the Nikon product?

In a nutshell what I want is a sharp fast zoom for my D90 to be used for kids sports and what ever else gets my interest. If you think of any other lense which would be better please let me know.

[Chucaro]

If you are going to use the lens in natural light and your images need a good DOF then the 70-200 which is an awesome lens is over to expensive for your application.
The Nikon 70-300 VR is as sharp as the 70-200 up to 200mm, only some copies are a tad soft @ 300mm F/5.6
If you go for the 70-300VR then you will finish with a lot of money in your pocket for a good flash unit or other lens like the awesome 50mm f/1/4

Test both lens at 200mm an let me know if you can pick up the diference ;)
Cheers

[dmdigital]

Arthur he's asking about the Sigma 70-200 not the Nikkor.

All I can say of the Sigma is their lenses can be slower to focus, I have no experience with this lens though. Probably the only real advantage of the 70-200 over the 70-300 is that the 70-200 can also take a 2x Tele-convertor which would extend it to 400mm. I'm not sure but I suspect the Sigma you have been quote is also their Macro 70-200 which has a closer focusing ability.

Personally I think if it was a toss up between 70-300 and 70-200 Nikkors I'd go the 70-200 and a 2x TC if the money wasn't an issue. The 70-200 is super fast at focusing even with the TC. However for the money I'd stick with the 70-300, which as Arthur points out is a very good lens.

[RR5L]

I was looking for info on both and others, as well as the thread issue on the nikkor 70-200.

The budget can deal with the expence what I dont want to do is over spend for marginal improvement.

[incisor]

i have the nikkor 70-300 vr and although i am a bunny i have to say i am impressed with the lense for the money paid.

when i first got the lense i took a series of pics of a crane on a building site that was a good 90-100 meters away at 70mm and then at 300mm on an overcast day and was floored when i looked at the 300mm pic and saw surface rust staining on the paint of the boom...

a crop of the 300mm pic at 100%

http://www.aulro.com/afvb/attachment.php?attachmentid=34664&stc=1&d=1301571056

the pic of the crane at 70mm

http://www.aulro.com/afvb/attachment.php?attachmentid=34665&stc=1&d=1301571201

[Chucaro]

This plane was about 300 meters from me and moving fast.
The shot is @ 300mm. I guess that is a good quality image and good enough for sport photography.

https://www.aulro.com/afvb/images/imported/2015/01/230.jpg

[C0L0N3L]

70-200 f2.8 is boss.

Not sure about your screw thread lubricant question.

Difference between the VR and the VR II i belive is an upgrade in VR and the VR II has less vignetting (which you won't notice on the D90 anway because of the crop sensor)

Sigma is pretty good, small and light. I didn't got sigma because I had heard lots of people complain about front or back focusing issues, also sigma isn't quite as sharp as nikon.

Tamron have the sharpest, but it has the worst AF in the world (incredibly slow and noisy).

You can look at some cheaper non VR or OS or IS whatever you want to call it. If your using it primarily for sports VR is just going to slow down focus and since your probably shooting at 1/500s or higher its not going to help sharpen your shots.

non vr lenses would be Nikon 80-200mm 2.8 AFS (what i've got)
Sigma also make a non OS 70-800mm.

In summary...
f2.8 or go home.
VR not necessary
No scew drive lenses AF-D (will be too slow on your D90)
Nikon over 3rd party lenses anyday... cept Zeiss.. Who wants to get me a 100mm f2 :angel:

[dmdigital]

I was looking for info on both and others, as well as the thread issue on the nikkor 70-200.

The budget can deal with the expence what I dont want to do is over spend for marginal improvement.

In that case I'd definitely look at the Nikkor 70-200 f/2.8G VRII or if you can pick one up still the older VR model. Put a TC on it and it is still sharp and fast.

Whilst the 70-300 is arguably as sharp for most of its range it is a slower lens with a variable aperture and definitely not as fast to focus.

[RR5L]

So, Ive gone and done it, I got a Nikon 70-200 f/2.8g VR of Ebay which is in almost new condition. Very happy with the first shots off it. Thanks to all who share thier thoughts.

[blitz]

Instead of suggesting a specific lense I will make a suggestion from a differnt angle.

Any of the F2.8 lenses are very fast, they can also be used in low light and still take good shots - this is why the pro's use them mostly for sport / action type photos, unfortunately they are also the most expensive.

If money, relatively speaking no object I would be looking very hard at the nikon 400mm VRII prime it's probably one of the best super telephoto made, or a bit slower but still an outstanding lense is the 200 400mm as mentioned the 400 prime can be hand held the zoom really needs a monopod, but if you can afford one of them (I can't but am working on it) then you will have an outstanding lense that will last for years and years.

Ooops missed the last post

[blitz]

Hey Rob if you dont mind my asking how much did you end up paying for it?

[Cap]

and of course Rob, we need pics of the gear for gear junkies like myself :D :rulez:

[blitz]

I am changing my thoughts on the type of lenses I get and this is going to be one of them once my finances are healthy again

[RR5L]

Hey Rob if you dont mind my asking how much did you end up paying for it?
Hey Blitz,

I picked mine up for $1600 which was in mint condition. Alot of money I know but when compared to what the VRII is selling for it seemed like a good deal.

I watched Ebay since and seen them go for more than that. It allowed me to pick up a Nikon 50mm 1.4 D for my kit and still come under my budget.

[blitz]

Hey Blitz,

I picked mine up for $1600 which was in mint condition. Alot of money I know but when compared to what the VRII is selling for it seemed like a good deal.

I watched Ebay since and seen them go for more than that. It allowed me to pick up a Nikon 50mm 1.4 D for my kit and still come under my budget.

I have been looking hard and they are out there at that price but you have to search for them, so have you tried it yet and happy with the results?

[RR5L]

so have you tried it yet and happy with the results?
I have tried it out on the last two footy games and very pleased with the results given that its a fast moving sport and being winter the light isnt always the greatest. I played around witht he F stops a bit and found at 2.8 I need to bang on with the focus on the subject to get a good shot. At 4-5.6 I seem to have a I higher hit rate of better shots.

[dmdigital]

As an example your DoF at 200mm on a focus point 30m away is approx 2.5m at f/2.8, 3.8m at f/4 and 5m at f/5.6

Online Depth of Field Calculator (http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html)