Nikon 200 f2 or 300 2.8 for sports???

[jimi1114]

I just rented a 300 f2.8, non-VR, and absolutely loved the lens. Shot some of my son's High School baseball and got some amazing captures. However, I will also be shooting football under really bad lighting so I was wondering if the 200 f2 with a tele, I have the 1.7, would be a more versatile option. Just looking for some feedback and opinions. Shooting with a D3s.

Thanks for the help.

 

[the iconic image]

If it were ME, given the parameters you have set up in your post and considering at least theoretically it's high school and you should be able to move closer to the action you're shooting to offset the lack of length, I'd choose the shorter F2 w/extender. Remember adding the extender is going to take you to F4 or so I forget, so at least for high school games bumping up ISO is just a necessary evil. I use the 500mm and based on economics alone, I do not recommend you rent one of those or you'll have to have one resulting in fights with your wife for years..

mike zukerman photography

 

[jimi1114]

Thanks for the reply. Yes it is HS football and I do have access to the field. I have been reading about the 200 and it seems that it might be a good alternative. The 500 is out of the budget... I will be doing extra chores around the house for years for the wife just for the D3s. It's worth it though.

If it were ME, given the parameters you have set up in your post and considering at least theoretically it's high school and you should be able to move closer to the action you're shooting to offset the lack of length, I'd choose the shorter F2 w/extender. Remember adding the extender is going to take you to F4 or so I forget, so at least for high school games bumping up ISO is just a necessary evil. I use the 500mm and based on economics alone, I do not recommend you rent one of those or you'll have to have one resulting in fights with your wife for years..

mike zukerman photography

 

[KmH]

I'm with mike, for field sports 500mm is where it's at and a second body with a shorter, fast 70 or 80-200 f/2.8 zoom lens for close in work.

I would go for reach and the speed of the 300mm f/2.8 over the inadequet reach of the 200mm with a 1.7x taking it to f/4.

You'll not only need the reach of the 300mm but that stop of aperture too.

 

[table1349]

Sports is my first photographic love and shoot for a local college. For football I would suggest that you go for the longest glass possible in your price range. My typical setup is two bodies, one with a 400 f2.8 attached and the second with a 70-200 f2.8 attached. I my vest is a 24-70 f2.8 when I am getting in close before or after the game.

Baseball 70-200 f2.8 and 300 f2.8 are the usual lenses due to the field I normally shoot. On the road it is usually the 70-200 and the 400 as I have a longer working distance.

Basketball, whole different thing. Longest glass is a 200 f2.

Track and field. Track 70-200 and 300. Field 70-200 and 400. ( I have no desire to be a discus, hammer or javelin catcher)

For sport, especially under the lights I am not a proponent of any tele-extender, no matter how good. With the 1.7 you lose and entire stop and with a 2X you loose two stops. Using one turns fast glass into medium speed or slow glass which just cranked you ISO way up.

Just my take on the matter.

 

[jimi1114]

Thanks for the feedback.. Makes sense. I actually have the 70-200 VR, so the 300 would be a great compliment. I will have to wait on a second body for now.

Sports is my first photographic love and shoot for a local college. For football I would suggest that you go for the longest glass possible in your price range. My typical setup is two bodies, one with a 400 f2.8 attached and the second with a 70-200 f2.8 attached. I my vest is a 24-70 f2.8 when I am getting in close before or after the game.

Baseball 70-200 f2.8 and 300 f2.8 are the usual lenses due to the field I normally shoot. On the road it is usually the 70-200 and the 400 as I have a longer working distance.

Basketball, whole different thing. Longest glass is a 200 f2.

Track and field. Track 70-200 and 300. Field 70-200 and 400. ( I have no desire to be a discus, hammer or javelin catcher)

For sport, especially under the lights I am not a proponent of any tele-extender, no matter how good. With the 1.7 you lose and entire stop and with a 2X you loose two stops. Using one turns fast glass into medium speed or slow glass which just cranked you ISO way up.

Just my take on the matter.

 

[JimmyO]

I wish i had that kinda crazy money. Oh well. Sports photographers will be sports photographers.

 

[table1349]

I wish i had that kinda crazy money. Oh well. Sports photographers will be sports photographers.

I could publish a peanut butter cookbook with all the recipes I have. That's how I saved money for that kind of glass. A whole lot of peanut butter. Just takes dedication. :mrgreen:

 

[KmH]

I wish i had that kinda crazy money. Oh well. Sports photographers will be sports photographers.

I could publish a peanut butter cookbook with all the recipes I have. That's how I saved money for that kind of glass. A whole lot of peanut butter. Just takes dedication. :mrgreen:

:thumbup:

Wishing NEVER works. :thumbdown:

 

[JimmyO]

I rephrase what i said. I think it would be fun to be able to seriously consider lenses like that while shooting as an amatuer

 

[kundalini]

^^ Could you rephrase that last response into an intelligible sentence?


To the OP......
Out of the two..... 300mm f/2.8. It's been on my wish list for some time. Keep a check on the used market for a longer lens.

 

[Dominantly]

He wishes he was related to Bill Gates, so he could have bitchen ****, without going broke purchasing it.

 

[Starkast]

thanks