What's more important for sports- larger aperture or VR?

[JustJazzie]

Spring is just around the corner, and I'm supposed to be able to get a sports lens for dirt biking season. My son has also mentioned an interest in football as well so I am currently considering those two sports in my decision, but they are young, so who knows what will be next! I'd like to choose soon, so that when I catch DH in the mood, I can snag it. ;-)

So I'm looking at:
70-200 f4 vr
80-200 2.8
Or the coveted 70-200 2.8

Honestly, while I CAN save up and get the 70-200 2.8 I'd like to avoid the cost if I can. (I think of all the speedlights I can rack up for that extra grand) and let's remember my tiny hands that prefers lighter gear......

So if you're still with me, what would be most important- VR or a larger aperture? Or is it really worth the extra cash and weight to get the 70-200 2.8?

 

[kundalini]

200mm is probably not enough. You need more cowbell.

 

[JustJazzie]

200mm is probably not enough. You need more cowbell.

For which job? No motocross allowed, so I can get pretty close for the dirt biking. Could I use a Tele converter for the football?

 

[goodguy]

Good question with easy answer.
If you can afford it and if you can hold it then getting the 70-200mm 2.8 is a huge benefit!!!
But having a VR is not so much the reason why when shooting sport, the fact you can shoot at F2.8 and bring more light in thus getting the fast shutter speed requred to freeze the action.
VR is helpful ONLY if you shoot slow shutter speed and preven camera shake.

So you have few options

1.Get the Tamron 70-200mm 2.8 VC
I own this camera shooting it on my Nikon, its just as sharp as the Nikon 70-200mm 2.8 VRII and its VC is even better even though its not a huge deal for sports as I said. This lens is about 1000$ cheaper then its Nikon equivalent and its just as good. I went with a new Tamron and I cant tell you enough what an amazing lens it is. If Nikon and Tamron were same price sure I would go with the Nikon but for 1000$ I think its a no brainer.
2.Get a used lens, you can get a second hand lens, Used Nikon VRII will go for about same as a new Tamron,
A used Tamron will be even cheaper and you can even get the Sigma 70-200mm 2.8 OS for less then 1000$ used. A good friend of mine owns the Sigma and its a great lens, he is very happy with it and I am very impressed with the results I see.

 

[goodguy]

200mm is probably not enough. You need more cowbell.

For which job? No motocross allowed, so I can get pretty close for the dirt biking. Could I use a Tele converter for the football?

Teleconverter on a lens will mean you will be forced to shoot at smaller aperture.
1.4 looses 1 F stop of light
1.7 1.5 F stop of light
2. is 2 full stops of light
You will also loos some IQ with telecoverters.
Teleconverters has their merits but for sports I would consider using them only if you have lots of light and on fast lenses like constant F2.8

 

[JustJazzie]

Good question with easy answer.
If you can afford it and if you can hold it then getting the 70-200mm 2.8 is a huge benefit!!!
But having a VR is not so much the reason why when shooting sport, the fact you can shoot at F2.8 and bring more light in thus getting the fast shutter speed requred to freeze the action.
VR is helpful ONLY if you shoot slow shutter speed and preven camera shake.

So you have few options

1.Get the Tamron 70-200mm 2.8 VC
I own this camera shooting it on my Nikon, its just as sharp as the Nikon 70-200mm 2.8 VRII and its VC is even better even though its not a huge deal for sports as I said. This lens is about 1000$ cheaper then its Nikon equivalent and its just as good. I went with a new Tamron and I cant tell you enough what an amazing lens it is. If Nikon and Tamron were same price sure I would go with the Nikon but for 1000$ I think its a no brainer.
2.Get a used lens, you can get a second hand lens, Used Nikon VRII will go for about same as a new Tamron,
A used Tamron will be even cheaper and you can even get the Sigma 70-200mm 2.8 OS for less then 1000$ used. A good friend of mine owns the Sigma and its a great lens, he is very happy with it and I am very impressed with the results I see.

Years ago I had a few (I thought it was tamron but my exif data says) tokina lens that were terribly soft. I suspect in heindsight it may have had backfocusing issues, but it makes me so leery about going with third party lens's!!

 

[goodguy]

Good question with easy answer.
If you can afford it and if you can hold it then getting the 70-200mm 2.8 is a huge benefit!!!
But having a VR is not so much the reason why when shooting sport, the fact you can shoot at F2.8 and bring more light in thus getting the fast shutter speed requred to freeze the action.
VR is helpful ONLY if you shoot slow shutter speed and preven camera shake.

So you have few options

1.Get the Tamron 70-200mm 2.8 VC
I own this camera shooting it on my Nikon, its just as sharp as the Nikon 70-200mm 2.8 VRII and its VC is even better even though its not a huge deal for sports as I said. This lens is about 1000$ cheaper then its Nikon equivalent and its just as good. I went with a new Tamron and I cant tell you enough what an amazing lens it is. If Nikon and Tamron were same price sure I would go with the Nikon but for 1000$ I think its a no brainer.
2.Get a used lens, you can get a second hand lens, Used Nikon VRII will go for about same as a new Tamron,
A used Tamron will be even cheaper and you can even get the Sigma 70-200mm 2.8 OS for less then 1000$ used. A good friend of mine owns the Sigma and its a great lens, he is very happy with it and I am very impressed with the results I see.

Years ago I had a few (I thought it was tamron but my exit says) tokina lens that were terribly soft. I suspect in heindsight it may have had backfocusing issues, but it makes me so leery about going with third party lens's!!

LOL, join the club, I was so uncomfortable with even considering Tamron or Sigma lenses but trust me modern Sigma and modern Tamron lenses are far, far from what their old sisters were years ago.
Today Sigma ART lenses are better then Nikon lenses!!!
I had the pleasure to speak with few pro shoots that said they either have the Tamron 70-200 2.8 VC or heard only good things about them from their peers.
I bought a new Nikon 50mm 1.8G new and it was soft so lemons are a possibility with both Nikon and third party.
At the end of the day it depends of how comfort you are buying a third party lens.

 

[JustJazzie]

Good question with easy answer.
If you can afford it and if you can hold it then getting the 70-200mm 2.8 is a huge benefit!!!
But having a VR is not so much the reason why when shooting sport, the fact you can shoot at F2.8 and bring more light in thus getting the fast shutter speed requred to freeze the action.
VR is helpful ONLY if you shoot slow shutter speed and preven camera shake.

So you have few options

1.Get the Tamron 70-200mm 2.8 VC
I own this camera shooting it on my Nikon, its just as sharp as the Nikon 70-200mm 2.8 VRII and its VC is even better even though its not a huge deal for sports as I said. This lens is about 1000$ cheaper then its Nikon equivalent and its just as good. I went with a new Tamron and I cant tell you enough what an amazing lens it is. If Nikon and Tamron were same price sure I would go with the Nikon but for 1000$ I think its a no brainer.
2.Get a used lens, you can get a second hand lens, Used Nikon VRII will go for about same as a new Tamron,
A used Tamron will be even cheaper and you can even get the Sigma 70-200mm 2.8 OS for less then 1000$ used. A good friend of mine owns the Sigma and its a great lens, he is very happy with it and I am very impressed with the results I see.

Years ago I had a few (I thought it was tamron but my exit says) tokina lens that were terribly soft. I suspect in heindsight it may have had backfocusing issues, but it makes me so leery about going with third party lens's!!

LOL, join the club, I was so uncomfortable with even considering Tamron or Sigma lenses but trust me modern Sigma and modern Tamron lenses are far, far from what their old sisters were years ago.
Today Sigma ART lenses are better then Nikon lenses!!!
I had the pleasure to speak with few pro shoots that said they either have the Tamron 70-200 2.8 VC or heard only good things about them from their peers.
I bought a new Nikon 50mm 1.8G new and it was soft so lemons are a possibility with both Nikon and third party.
At the end of the day it depends of how comfort you are buying a third party lens.

Hmm. I'll have to consult my tarot about adding them to the list!

 

[goodguy]

Good question with easy answer.
If you can afford it and if you can hold it then getting the 70-200mm 2.8 is a huge benefit!!!
But having a VR is not so much the reason why when shooting sport, the fact you can shoot at F2.8 and bring more light in thus getting the fast shutter speed requred to freeze the action.
VR is helpful ONLY if you shoot slow shutter speed and preven camera shake.

So you have few options

1.Get the Tamron 70-200mm 2.8 VC
I own this camera shooting it on my Nikon, its just as sharp as the Nikon 70-200mm 2.8 VRII and its VC is even better even though its not a huge deal for sports as I said. This lens is about 1000$ cheaper then its Nikon equivalent and its just as good. I went with a new Tamron and I cant tell you enough what an amazing lens it is. If Nikon and Tamron were same price sure I would go with the Nikon but for 1000$ I think its a no brainer.
2.Get a used lens, you can get a second hand lens, Used Nikon VRII will go for about same as a new Tamron,
A used Tamron will be even cheaper and you can even get the Sigma 70-200mm 2.8 OS for less then 1000$ used. A good friend of mine owns the Sigma and its a great lens, he is very happy with it and I am very impressed with the results I see.

Years ago I had a few (I thought it was tamron but my exit says) tokina lens that were terribly soft. I suspect in heindsight it may have had backfocusing issues, but it makes me so leery about going with third party lens's!!

LOL, join the club, I was so uncomfortable with even considering Tamron or Sigma lenses but trust me modern Sigma and modern Tamron lenses are far, far from what their old sisters were years ago.
Today Sigma ART lenses are better then Nikon lenses!!!
I had the pleasure to speak with few pro shoots that said they either have the Tamron 70-200 2.8 VC or heard only good things about them from their peers.
I bought a new Nikon 50mm 1.8G new and it was soft so lemons are a possibility with both Nikon and third party.
At the end of the day it depends of how comfort you are buying a third party lens.

Hmm. I'll have to consult my tarot about adding them to the list!

Just post a thread asking people what they think of their modern Sigmas and Tamrons, it might give you more input and confidence.
I also believe you can rent these lenses so you can try it and see how you like it.

 

[table1349]

Unless you are willing to spring for one of these: NIKON 400MM F2.8 | B&H Photo Video
Then the 70--200 f2.8 is your best bet. Shoot to crop. Freezing the action for sports is only half the shot. The other half is isolating the action. That requires wide apertures with narrow DOF.


And yes, before you ask. I own the Canon equivalent 400 f2.8 as well as a 300 f2.8. The trusty 70-200 is always on one of my bodies.

 

[runnah]

Well those lenses you listed all have tripod feet so you can eliminate the need for VR by using a monopod.

Anyways, VR will get you more stops at lower shutter speeds but that isn't very useful when shooting sports. So larger apreture is what I'd go for.

I also second the tamron 70-200 2.8. It comes with VC anyways so the question is a bit moot.

 

[KmH]

See rule #1 and rule #2:
Nikon VR explained

1/500 is about the slowest shutter speed you can use to shoot action sports indoor or outdoor, day or night.
So you don't need VR.

 

[TreeofLifeStairs]

My gut was to go with the VR but others make some good points about being able to open up more to be able to increase your shutter speed. This would help with a fast moving subject and camera shake. The VR only helps the camera shake. For the most part you'll be far away enough that the shallower depth of field won't be as much of an issue.

 

[Gary A.]

For sports/action photography, the faster the lens and the higher the usable ISO, the better off you are. Generally, with the exception of the rare pan shot, there isn't any need for VR. The high shutter speeds required to stop action are more than sufficient to eliminate handshake. VR hasn't any affect on subject motion.

 

[weepete]

F2.8 all the way for sports, as others have mentioned VR is not in the mix as your shutter speed will need to be fast anyway. When I was going to the local basketball games I was aiming to get a SS as close to 1/800th sec as I could which wasn't always possible with an f4-5.6.