long prime with soccer and football

[Trenton Romulox]

I know your other thread seemed boasty trenton, but in this last post I can deffinitely see why you'd want to show off that gear and that beautiful 1.4 bokeh. I'm jealous!

As for the 180 being slow, you said that was for hocky, how do you think it'll fair for his on-field highschool photography outdoors? I'm in yearbook an dI know how important it can be to get the right shot, but I'd personally get the 180 and a x1.4 teleconverter if I were you because of money. Shoot with it for a year or two, then sell for the 70-200 2.8 VR later in life.

Yeah, my other thread did seem boasty. And I didn't really intend for that to happen, but maybe part of me wanted to boast, I'm not sure.

All right, so, let's talk 180mm here...first off, is it compatible with Nikon's 1.4x teleconverters, I'm not sure. I don't believe it would be with autofocus. Aren't Nikon's autofocus teleconverters only compatible with AF-S lenses? The 180mm is not an AF-S lens. I've not tried any teleconverters with it though, so I can't speak on that with 100% accuracy. The 180mm is a good lens, don't get me wrong, and if you are comfortable focusing manually, then by all means, do it up and I figure you'll be satisfied. And hey, maybe the autofocus will work fine for what you'll be shooting anyways. If you buy from Amazon and within 30 days are dissatisfied, they've got a decent return policy that'll get you your money back and a reimbursement for the shipping back to Amazon.

 

[Trenton Romulox]

I need to find out how fast focus is when not in lowlight.

I'd check out some reviews. Kenrockwell.com or naturfotograf.com, they both should have a review for that lens.

 

[S2K1]

My 70-200 at the race track(really close to the track) can be too short at 200 sometimes on a crop sensor unless the car is right in front of me. I think with sports, the longer the lens the better to a certain extent.

 

[Sw1tchFX]

All three of these I did using a D70s and 80-200 f/2.8D (the screwdriver, not AF-S one)

I also had an SB-600 on top.

nonetheless, if you have ISO 3200, good shooting habits, and enough light, you're golden.

If you can't afford the 70-200, find an 80-200 AF-S on craigslist, or get the 80-200 AF-D from your local pro shop or B&H. The AF-S 80-200 is the 70-200 w/o VR pretty much, and the 80-200 AF-D is the same thing with a slightly sluggish and loud AF system. If you're shooting with an F5, D1, D2, or D3, you have nothing to worry about as far as AF speed. If you shoot with a D200/300, the difference is negligible, and if it's a D50/70/80, you could have a tough time.

 

[Trenton Romulox]

At this point, I'd say the 80-200 at least, just because that zoom capability can be quite useful with sports. But, as someone who has shot sports with a prime, it certainly can be done, and lots of people do it because sometimes the primes are the only options available at longer lengths without losing low-light ability. So, with that said, I'd have to lean towards the 80-200 at the moment for you. But, you can look on eBay too, see what there is for older prime telephotos, just make sure they'll work on whatever camera it is you're using. I hope I've been helpful. Let us know what you end up going with. Good luck.

 

[Jeff Canes]

You’re going to need around a 100-400mm lens. You may want to look at Sigma, Tamron and Tokina, they have some lenses that would give you length you need in f4-6ish for under $800 US Or a maybe prime 200mm and 2x would be a better option