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 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.