Sports Lens Question

tjl1388tjl1388 Registered Users Posts: 94 Big grins
edited January 19, 2011 in Sports
I have been renting forever and it's time to take the plunge.

I mainly shoot competitive cheerleading (80%), youth football(10%) and some portrait work(10%). I know all of the lenses listed below will shoot football and portrature work with no problem. Cheerleading is my main concern. Realy fast, really dark and only 3 minutes per team.

I am debating 3 lenses.

Nikon 70-200 2.8 VR (Used). I have rented this lens a TON and know what it will do. The downside is that used it's still $1600

Nikon 80-200 2.8 (Used). I have never used it and worry about the focus speed for cheerleading. On the plus side the lens is a BEAST and you can practically beat off a mugger with it. How does it compare to the 70-200VR? Do I really need the VR for fast moving subjects in extremely low light?

Sigma 70-200 2.8 non IS. I can get this lens new for around $800 so it is the cheapest option but I am really worried that I am going to get what I pay for and everything about the lens will be just a hair "off". I am worried about focus speed on this one as well.

Any and all suggestions and opinions are welcome.

Comments

  • slipkidslipkid Registered Users Posts: 231 Major grins
    edited January 14, 2011
    I could sell my 70-200VR ver 1 for what I paid for it 5 years ago, about $1250.00. I have not used the Sigma so I can't comment about it. The 80-200 would focus too slow in my opinion for sports. I am sure others have used the 80-200 for sports but you will be disappointed after using the 70-200 f2.8. It's a long term investment, go for the 70-200 f2.8 ver 1 or 2.
    Regards
    Steve
    www.slipkid.com
    "The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money". -- Margaret Thatcher
  • tjl1388tjl1388 Registered Users Posts: 94 Big grins
    edited January 14, 2011
    slipkid wrote: »
    I could sell my 70-200VR ver 1 for what I paid for it 5 years ago, about $1250.00. I have not used the Sigma so I can't comment about it. The 80-200 would focus too slow in my opinion for sports. I am sure others have used the 80-200 for sports but you will be disappointed after using the 70-200 f2.8. It's a long term investment, go for the 70-200 f2.8 ver 1 or 2.

    And if I could find one for $1250 I would be giddy as a school girl.
  • wvrockswvrocks Registered Users Posts: 39 Big grins
    edited January 14, 2011
    tjl1388 wrote: »
    And if I could find one for $1250 I would be giddy as a school girl.

    Pretty darn close... deal.gifhttp://www.borrowlenses.com/product/nikon_telephoto/Nikon_70-200_f2.8_VR
    Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups.
  • ian408ian408 Administrators Posts: 21,940 moderator
    edited January 14, 2011
    70-200VR is what you should get.
    Moderator Journeys/Sports/Big Picture :: Need some help with dgrin?
  • MileHighAkoMileHighAko Registered Users Posts: 413 Major grins
    edited January 14, 2011
    You didn't say what body you are using.

    I was in a similar situation, but instead of cheer it was gymnastics. I ended up biting the bullet and picked up the 70-200 VR II. Reason was that in my experience it seemed to focus a little faster for me than the VR I, and is an inch or so shorter. I use a D7000, so with the crop sensor I have plenty of reach and great low light performance.

    Good luck. I recommend the 70-200 VR or VR II.

    P.S. I never use the VR feature! Laughing.gif My shutter speeds are too fast to make a difference, but I guess it will come in handy some time.
    http://www.adamcartwright.com
  • nitewagnitewag Registered Users Posts: 31 Big grins
    edited January 14, 2011
    I went with the Sigma to use for HS and youth football, and now basketball. So far i have been very pleased with it's speed and focus. I like you was worried I might be throwing good money away, but so far I don't think that's the case.
    www.billyvaughan.smugmug.com
  • tjl1388tjl1388 Registered Users Posts: 94 Big grins
    edited January 14, 2011
    MileHighAko wrote: »
    You didn't say what body you are using.

    I was in a similar situation, but instead of cheer it was gymnastics. I ended up biting the bullet and picked up the 70-200 VR II. Reason was that in my experience it seemed to focus a little faster for me than the VR I, and is an inch or so shorter. I use a D7000, so with the crop sensor I have plenty of reach and great low light performance.

    Good luck. I recommend the 70-200 VR or VR II.

    P.S. I never use the VR feature! Laughing.gif My shutter speeds are too fast to make a difference, but I guess it will come in handy some time.

    Sorry, D300
  • munmimunmi Registered Users Posts: 28 Big grins
    edited January 14, 2011
    I have been using the Sigma 70-200/2.8 non IS for about two years shooting girls softball, youth baseball, snowmobile racing, and outdoor and nature stuff. Lens is mounted on Konica-Minolta 7D. Absolutely love this lens. No regrets whatsoever.
    Scott

    www.smitchellphotography.com
    Munising, Michigan
  • beetle8beetle8 Registered Users Posts: 677 Major grins
    edited January 14, 2011
    I have owned all of them at one point or another.
    the 70-200 VR is the best lens period. but you knew that. it's faster than the other two options, the VRII is even faster still.

    I didn't have issues with the Sigma other than the fact that it is definitely slower. A friend of mine however is on her 3rd after sending back for repairs, the speaks to the build quality and QC.
    The 80-200 is a great lens very beefy and would be a decent second choice over the Sigma if you need to get in under a budget.
    - Keith
    Keith Tharp.com - Champion Photo
  • slipkidslipkid Registered Users Posts: 231 Major grins
    edited January 15, 2011
    I don't however use the VR feature on my 70-200mm at all shooting sports. I do wish Nikon made one without VR to save cost and weight.
    Regards
    Steve
    www.slipkid.com
    "The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money". -- Margaret Thatcher
  • Mike JMike J Registered Users Posts: 1,029 Major grins
    edited January 15, 2011
    If I could have afforded the 70-200 VR1 a while back, it would have been my lens of choice for ski racing. I couldn't so I opted for the 80-200. Paired with a D300, I'm perfectly happy. I shoot bursts of 8-12 shots and have no problem tracking the racers.
    Mike J

    Comments and constructive criticism always welcome.
    www.mikejulianaphotography.com
    Facebook
  • dirtfan21dirtfan21 Registered Users Posts: 12 Big grins
    edited January 17, 2011
    I have a D300 and use the 70-200mm f2.8 VRI. I love it and its well worth the money I got mine for $1340 shipped to my door. Its very fast and I shoot auto racing and hockey. I have used in it in other things too (wildlife, wedding, portraits and other sports). I also have a TC17EII and I have used this on the lens and Im very happy with it. I didnt get the others cause of QC problems and the VRII is a update for the FX bodies and my is a DX body. Get the Nikon and you wont be sorry.
  • tjl1388tjl1388 Registered Users Posts: 94 Big grins
    edited January 17, 2011
    Thank You for all of the replies. I do think I am going to break out the big stick and buy the 70-200 VR 1st Gen.

    After shooting this weekend another Cheer event with a rental 70-200 2.8VR it solidified what I think I already knew.

    The focus speed on the Nikon is simply amazing as seen below from this weekend.

    1159717030_xWKj9-L.jpg

    1159733430_zYczw-L.jpg
  • b08rsab08rsa Registered Users Posts: 216 Major grins
    edited January 17, 2011
    tjl1388 wrote: »
    I have been renting forever and it's time to take the plunge.

    I mainly shoot competitive cheerleading (80%), youth football(10%) and some portrait work(10%). I know all of the lenses listed below will shoot football and portrature work with no problem. Cheerleading is my main concern. Realy fast, really dark and only 3 minutes per team.

    I am debating 3 lenses.

    Nikon 70-200 2.8 VR (Used). I have rented this lens a TON and know what it will do. The downside is that used it's still $1600

    Nikon 80-200 2.8 (Used). I have never used it and worry about the focus speed for cheerleading. On the plus side the lens is a BEAST and you can practically beat off a mugger with it. How does it compare to the 70-200VR? Do I really need the VR for fast moving subjects in extremely low light?

    Sigma 70-200 2.8 non IS. I can get this lens new for around $800 so it is the cheapest option but I am really worried that I am going to get what I pay for and everything about the lens will be just a hair "off". I am worried about focus speed on this one as well.

    Any and all suggestions and opinions are welcome.

    If you are worried about the speed of auto focus on the Sigma, I would shy away from it. I use this lense for youth soccer but I shoot in M mode, because the AF was just to slow.
    Sony A7ii, Sigma 24mm f/1.4 DG HSM Art Lens, Sony FE85mm f/1.8 Lens, Sony FE 28-70 mm F3.5-5.6 OSS Lens, Godox 860iiS Flash.
  • ThatCanonGuyThatCanonGuy Registered Users Posts: 1,778 Major grins
    edited January 17, 2011
    You mean you use manual focus?
  • b08rsab08rsa Registered Users Posts: 216 Major grins
    edited January 19, 2011
    ThatCanonGuy wrote: »
    You mean you use manual focus?

    Yes, I mean Manual Mode. Sorry about that.
    Sony A7ii, Sigma 24mm f/1.4 DG HSM Art Lens, Sony FE85mm f/1.8 Lens, Sony FE 28-70 mm F3.5-5.6 OSS Lens, Godox 860iiS Flash.
  • MileHighAkoMileHighAko Registered Users Posts: 413 Major grins
    edited January 19, 2011
    b08rsa wrote: »
    Yes, I mean Manual Mode. Sorry about that.

    Manual focus doesn't surprised me, at least not anymore but I used to not understand how a sports photog can use manual focus when the action moves so fast. Then I attended a webinar by long time sports illustrated photog Bill Frakes where he talked about how he often shoots manual focus when he's down on the field. It was very interesting, and as an amateur sports photog I learned a lot. You can find the archive of the webinar here: http://manfrottoschoolofxcellence.com/archives/, under "September 9: BILL FRAKES - Sport Photography: Understanding Motion and Emotion."
    http://www.adamcartwright.com
  • ThatCanonGuyThatCanonGuy Registered Users Posts: 1,778 Major grins
    edited January 19, 2011
    b08rsa wrote: »
    Yes, I mean Manual Mode. Sorry about that.

    I use manual mode too thumb.gif
  • b08rsab08rsa Registered Users Posts: 216 Major grins
    edited January 19, 2011
    MileHighAko wrote: »
    Manual focus doesn't surprised me, at least not anymore but I used to not understand how a sports photog can use manual focus when the action moves so fast. Then I attended a webinar by long time sports illustrated photog Bill Frakes where he talked about how he often shoots manual focus when he's down on the field. It was very interesting, and as an amateur sports photog I learned a lot. You can find the archive of the webinar here: http://manfrottoschoolofxcellence.com/archives/, under "September 9: BILL FRAKES - Sport Photography: Understanding Motion and Emotion."

    Thanks for the info. I first started out with the old Pentax K1000 many years ago. All manual camerea. After using the Sigma lense for a year plus, I pretty much gotten use to focusing this lens pretty quick. For the most part I do like it though.
    Sony A7ii, Sigma 24mm f/1.4 DG HSM Art Lens, Sony FE85mm f/1.8 Lens, Sony FE 28-70 mm F3.5-5.6 OSS Lens, Godox 860iiS Flash.
Sign In or Register to comment.