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

[greybeard35 8]

To the OP, "What is more important for sports Large Aperture or VR, definitely Large Aperture is most important as it allows for faster shutter speeds and better isolation of subjects. I don't have a fast zoom so I use my 105 macro at f2.8. It more than gets the job done for no more than I need a sports lens.

 

[Braineack]

but it makes me so leery about going with third party lens's!!

I love my Tamron lenses. And Girlie, as far as you're concerned, I am the messiah of TPF.

the 200 is a bit short on your DF for some sports, but it's such a fun lens to have.

 

[astroNikon]

I love my Tamron lenses. And Girlie, as far as you're concerned, I am the messiah of TPF..

someone please splatter oil all over his sensor ....

 

[runnah]

200mm is pretty short of a full frame.

I was normally at 400mm and above when shooting football. Never shot motocross so I don't know.

This was with a D300 and a 55-300mm
sled9 by runnah555, on Flickr

 

[waday]

I love my Tamron lenses. And Girlie, as far as you're concerned, I am the messiah of TPF..

someone please splatter oil all over his sensor ....

Doesn't he already have a Nikon?

 

[Braineack]

I can't believe none of you got the Clueless reference.

 

[runnah]

I can't believe none of you got the Clueless reference.

I can't believe you made a Clueless reference.

 

[astroNikon]

I can't believe none of you got the Clueless reference.

I'm a bit short on what you mean ?

 

[Braineack]

I try to make at least one a day.

 

[sm4him]

I'll second (or third, or eighth, whatever we're up to now) the Tamron 70-200 f/2.8 option. I bought one used. I was a bit concerned, even though I've got a stellar Sigma 50mm f/1.4 and Tokina 100mm macro to boost my confidence in the third-party route. On the other hand, I figured the Tammy was the ONLY way I was going to get a 70-200 into my bag, and it was a really great deal, so I jumped. Glad I did; it is really a sweet lens! I haven't shot any sports with it, and yes, 200mm might be a little short, but it's such a versatile lens, and at least for me, I figured having to crop a good bit on 200mm fast glass was still better than trying to use my Sigma 15-500mm on sports in low light, where my ISO usually ended up so high controlling the noise was a huge factor.
Now, I can use the Sigma in the daytime and the 70-200 if the need arises to shoot sports under the lights. Not likely to get anything Sports Illustrated will come calling for, but then I'm not aiming for that, either.

 

[JustJazzie]

200mm is pretty short of a full frame.

I was normally at 400mm and above when shooting football. Never shot motocross so I don't know.

This was with a D300 and a 55-300mm
sled9 by runnah555, on Flickr

So, what you're saying is that I can get the tamron and spend the $1,000 saved on a d7100 and just let DH think I got the nikon lens? He'll never know the difference anyways. :giggle:

I can't believe none of you got the Clueless reference.

I didn't get it either. Though, I did watch that quite a bit growing up. Too bad all my adolescent fun killed half my memory cells.

I'll second (or third, or eighth, whatever we're up to now) the Tamron 70-200 f/2.8 option. I bought one used. I was a bit concerned, even though I've got a stellar Sigma 50mm f/1.4 and Tokina 100mm macro to boost my confidence in the third-party route. On the other hand, I figured the Tammy was the ONLY way I was going to get a 70-200 into my bag, and it was a really great deal, so I jumped. Glad I did; it is really a sweet lens! I haven't shot any sports with it, and yes, 200mm might be a little short, but it's such a versatile lens, and at least for me, I figured having to crop a good bit on 200mm fast glass was still better than trying to use my Sigma 15-500mm on sports in low light, where my ISO usually ended up so high controlling the noise was a huge factor.
Now, I can use the Sigma in the daytime and the 70-200 if the need arises to shoot sports under the lights. Not likely to get anything Sports Illustrated will come calling for, but then I'm not aiming for that, either.

okay, you guys have convinced me to look into it! Though I can get an old used 70-200 vri in ex. Condition for the same price. So I suppose I should be comparing those.

 

[JustJazzie]

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.

That lens does look pretty sweet! If I find I like sports (doubt it) then maybe I'll try to talk DH into it. (Doubt it would work)

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.

thanks! Great article, I will note it.