Reading mode: Light Dark

one more question

Go to last post
W

WEC

Well-known member
Messages
143
Reaction score
0
Location
US
i am also interested in doing the dad thing and taking pictures during little league and soccer games. Is the 70 - 300 vr lens a worthwhile addition to my bag?

I have the 55 - 200 and the 18 - 105. I am not thrilled though with what I get from them.

Thanks,
 
WEC said:
I have the 55 - 200 and the 18 - 105. I am not thrilled though with what I get from them.
Click to expand...
What is it you don't like? IQ, speed, focussing?

My son plays little league football (soccer) and I find a 70~200 is perfect on the size of pitch he plays on. I'd much rather have a fast aperture lens than VR for sport, hence the 70~200 is much better than the 70~300 VR. It costs alot more of course!

If budget is a problem I'd suggest a fast zoom such as the Sigma 50~150 f2.8. If you can move around pitch-side as I do I think this would be long enough, and an f2.8 aperture vs f5.6 for the 70~300 will give you a much better chance of a fast enough shutter speed before you start pushing the ISO too high.
--
http://www.andrewsandersphotography.co.uk
 
Apparently, your 55-200 is not the VR version. I doubt the 70-300 could improve your stuff. I do not think the 70-300 is that great anyway.

The perfect lens for your situation is the 70-200 1:2.8 VR II, but that is a very expense option. I had the same problem as you, and saved my money until (It took me a year), two weeks ago I got the 70-200 VR II. It was worth the wait.
 
thanks. It is the 55 - 200 vr that I have. I find it too slow and never really gives me that crisp, frozen in time moment that I imagine i can squeeze out of one of these games.
 
Since you didn't mention which body you have, but have you considered one of the 80-200mm lenses? You may lose VR, but you gain a maximum aperture of f/2.8 and would have a pretty useful zoom range.

Now, if you have a body without a built-in motor, you'll have to locate an AF-S version or look for third-party lenses (like Sigma or Tamron).
 
WEC said:
i am also interested in doing the dad thing and taking pictures during little league and soccer games. Is the 70 - 300 vr lens a worthwhile addition to my bag?
Click to expand...
As others have pointed out to you the 70-300 is not really a sports lens. I agree if you can afford it you should get the 70-200/2.8 lens. I shoot minor league sports a lot and i'd be lost without that lens.

Regards
Terry













--
Graham Fine Art Photography
http://grahter.sasktelwebsite.net
http://gallery.reginaphotoclub.com/TGraham

Disclaimer: This e-mail is intended to impart a sense of humor. Given e-mail's inability to carry inflections, tone and facial expressions it may fail miserably in its intent. The sender acknowledges the limitations of the technology and assigns to the software in which this message was composed any ill feelings that may arise.
 
Since you need a high shutter speed to stop motion anyway, not having VR wouldn't be a big loss. As suggested, one of the 80-200 f/2.8 zooms would be a good choice. If you have an in-body motor, you could find a used example from someone like KEH for about the same price as a new 70-300. Of course, it would focus a bit slower, which might be important for sports.
 










--
Graham Fine Art Photography
http://grahter.sasktelwebsite.net
http://gallery.reginaphotoclub.com/TGraham

Disclaimer: This e-mail is intended to impart a sense of humor. Given e-mail's inability to carry inflections, tone and facial expressions it may fail miserably in its intent. The sender acknowledges the limitations of the technology and assigns to the software in which this message was composed any ill feelings that may arise.
 
Just down the road I shoot wild monkeys under a dark triple
canopy jungle. Very hot and humid conditions.
The monkeys never stop moving, the D50 and D300
with the 70-300VR works just fine.
Bought this lens in summer of 2006 and use it all the time.

My Flickr web is full of monkey shots many at 293mm on both cameras.

.
--
Jon in Thailand

http://www.flickr.com/photos/af2899/
.
 
thanks for the thoughts. I am using a d90 (not especially well, I might add, but i am working on it).

I had not thought about an 80 - 200 / 2.8 is there a specifi model to consider?

Thanks, all for your help.
 
I agree that VR won't stop action and it all comes down to shutter speed (and acceptable ISO), as I was trying to say that I wouldn't mind losing VR in order to get a fast f/2.8 lens.

In my case, I was able to swing the 70-200mm VR II, but there isn't anything wrong with the first-gen 70-200mm VR or the 80-200mm line. You'll get a wider aperture, great IQ and a pretty usable zoom range.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top