BKKSW
Senior Member
ummm.... VR has nothing to do with faster focusing. Both the 70/200 and 80/200 have very similar AF speeds, though imo and use the 70/200 is a bit faster. Not enough to be significant though. What helps with focus in poor light is a wide aperture. I just got the SB-29 for my D2h, and with that attached it can focus in a dark closet..
I find fixed focal lengths very useful for sports if you are able to move around. Most pro sports are photographed with 500-600mm fixed focal length fast primes.. So it is workable.. maybe a change in technique?
BKKSW
I find fixed focal lengths very useful for sports if you are able to move around. Most pro sports are photographed with 500-600mm fixed focal length fast primes.. So it is workable.. maybe a change in technique?
BKKSW
I have the 85mm 1.8 which is fine for shots in front of the net if
I'm in a corner but the fixed focal length really is limiting. I
have even used my 50mm 1.4 but you can imagine the lack of reach
there. I have a 28-200 3.5-5.6D lens which is older and out of the
question for use at the longer focal length. 3.5 won't even cut it.
Maybe I'm just being too picky. The reason I'm leaning toward
the VR is that it's my understanding the VR on a D100 is quite a
bit faster focusing than the AF80-200 f/2.8D. I realize the VR
won't help on moving subjects but in other situations it would be
nice to shoot without a tripod. Is this all rationalization or am I
on the right track? I don't think I'll be able to convince every
hockey arena in the Twin Cities to boost their lighting up to
usable levels or add strobes for my convenience.
