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.

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%
the pic of the crane at 70mm

2007 Discovery 3 SE7 TDV6 2.7
2012 SZ Territory TX 2.7 TDCi
"Make the lie big, make it simple, keep saying it, and eventually they will believe it." -- a warning from Adolf Hitler
"If you don't have a sense of humour, you probably don't have any sense at all!" -- a wise observation by someone else
'If everyone colludes in believing that war is the norm, nobody will recognize the imperative of peace." -- Anne Deveson
“What you leave behind is not what is engraved in stone monuments, but what is woven into the lives of others.” - Pericles
"We can ignore reality, but we cannot ignore the consequences of ignoring reality.” – Ayn Rand
"The happiness of your life depends upon the quality of your thoughts." Marcus Aurelius
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.

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
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.
MY15 Discovery 4 SE SDV6
Past: 97 D1 Tdi, 03 D2a Td5, 08 Kimberley Kamper, 08 Defender 110 TDCi, 99 Defender 110 300Tdi[/SIZE]
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.
 ChatterBox
					
					
						ChatterBox
					
					
                                        
					
					
						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
 ChatterBox
					
					
						ChatterBox
					
					
                                        
					
					
						Hey Rob if you dont mind my asking how much did you end up paying for it?
and of course Rob, we need pics of the gear for gear junkies like myself

Carlos
1994 Land Rover Discovery 300tdi
1963 Land Rover Series 2a 88
Youtube Channel: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCu3...BtsNIuTyGkAo5w
Instagram: https://instagram.com/rover_tasmania/
 ChatterBox
					
					
						ChatterBox
					
					
                                        
					
					
						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
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.
| Search AULRO.com ONLY! | Search All the Web! | 
|---|
|  |  | 
Bookmarks