Speed of Focus question

tjl1388tjl1388 Registered Users Posts: 94 Big grins
edited March 28, 2011 in Sports
I shoot ALOT of competitive cheerleading, 85% cheer, 10% youth football, 5% portrait work

Looking at the 80-200 2.8 non AF-S.

I have always rented the 70-200VR.

Using a D300, I know the 70-200 is gonna focus faster ....but how much faster?

And does the AF-S make that much of a difference in focusing speed?

As always it is a cost issue. Around $750 for the 80-200 used vs. $1200+ for the 70-200VR.

Comments

  • IcebearIcebear Registered Users Posts: 4,015 Major grins
    edited March 28, 2011
    tjl1388 wrote: »
    I shoot ALOT of competitive cheerleading, 85% cheer, 10% youth football, 5% portrait work

    Looking at the 80-200 2.8 non AF-S.

    I have always rented the 70-200VR.

    Using a D300, I know the 70-200 is gonna focus faster ....but how much faster?

    And does the AF-S make that much of a difference in focusing speed?

    As always it is a cost issue. Around $750 for the 80-200 used vs. $1200+ for the 70-200VR.

    I assume you're talking about a used 70-200 also, right? 'Cause you better think another grand for a new one. I borrowed an 80-200 before I bought my 70-200 VRII so have done direct "field conditions" comparisons. The difference in focusing speed was enough to convince me to cough-up the extra money. VRII was an extra bonus that I really don't use that much for sports. It comes in handy for hand-held, natural-light portraiture though. If you have the money, buy the 70-200. If it's a problem, get the 80-200. It too is a great lens, as you prolly already know.
    John :
    Natural selection is responsible for every living thing that exists.
    D3s, D500, D5300, and way more glass than the wife knows about.
  • tjl1388tjl1388 Registered Users Posts: 94 Big grins
    edited March 28, 2011
    Icebear wrote: »
    I assume you're talking about a used 70-200 also, right? 'Cause you better think another grand for a new one. I borrowed an 80-200 before I bought my 70-200 VRII so have done direct "field conditions" comparisons. The difference in focusing speed was enough to convince me to cough-up the extra money. VRII was an extra bonus that I really don't use that much for sports. It comes in handy for hand-held, natural-light portraiture though. If you have the money, buy the 70-200. If it's a problem, get the 80-200. It too is a great lens, as you prolly already know.

    Yes, definetely a used 70-200. I think I am just getting antsy as I have the money saved up for an 80-200 but not quite there for the 70-200VR.

    Thanks for the advice.
Sign In or Register to comment.