Which lens should I purchase given the situation?

NewEraChild

So I'm relatively new to this forum as you can see from my posts count but I have a few questions for those of you who have been in the biz much longer than I have...

I'm looking to purchase a new piece of glass, telephoto, in the future. I can't purchase one now, and so I'm taking my time doing the research before I make my decision. I'd like to use the lens when I go off to college as a way to make money and as a hobby by taking pictures of sports at the school and either selling to newspapers or to the athletes themselves.

So my question is, can I purchase a Nikon AF-S 18-200mm DX VR Zoom-Nikkor F/3.5-5.6G IF-ED for roughly three quarters of a grand, and make a decent amount of quality pictures to the point where it justifies not saving my money longer and purchasing a Nikon AF-S 70-200mm VR Zoom-Nikkor F/2.8G IF-ED?

From who I've talked to (and the list isn't very long) I understand that purchasing glass is much more important than the body in most cases. So I'm a bit apprehensive about jumping the gun and purchasing the F/3.5-5.6G when the F/2.8 outstrips it completely.

I'd like to think that I could use the F/3.5-5.6G ($1000 cheaper as I've seen it so far) to make enough money to be able to purchase the F/2.8 more easily without hoarding my money for a longer period.

For reference:

• I am a Senior in High School
• I have been working at a Graphics Design Studio for four years so I am set when it comes to creating a corporate logo and establishing myself as a business for when I move off to college.
• I have enough marketing and advertisement knowledge to be able to sell the photos that I take.
• I will be using the lens with a Nikon D200 that I recently purchased used.

If you have another lens to recommend for my purposes, please do so as well.

Thanks

Shane422

NewEraChild wrote:

So my question is, can I purchase a Nikon AF-S 18-200mm DX VR Zoom-Nikkor F/3.5-5.6G IF-ED for roughly three quarters of a grand, and make a decent amount of quality pictures to the point where it justifies not saving my money longer and purchasing a Nikon AF-S 70-200mm VR Zoom-Nikkor F/2.8G IF-ED?

F

I'm shopping with the same budget and interests as you are. The exception might be that VR isn't something I'm too concerned with. Since in sports you need a faster shutter speed (1/250th at a minimum) , I am more concerned with getting a faster lens. The 18 - 200 won;t be fast enough for indoor shooting. So I'm waiting for the Tamron 70-200 f2.8. It is supposed to be out soon and will sell for $699. It is already listed here at Adorama. I have the Tamron 28-75 f2.8 and am very happy with it. So I'm hoping that it will be of similar quality. It is also a DI lens which means that it has the coatings for digital, but is still ready for full frame when that comes to all of us in a few years. You can also find used versions of the Sigma 70-200 f2.8, and the Nikon without VR in this price range.

NewEraChild

Shane422 wrote:

I'm shopping with the same budget and interests as you are. The exception might be that VR isn't something I'm too concerned with. Since in sports you need a faster shutter speed (1/250th at a minimum) , I am more concerned with getting a faster lens. The 18 - 200 won;t be fast enough for indoor shooting. So I'm waiting for the Tamron 70-200 f2.8. It is supposed to be out soon and will sell for $699. It is already listed here at Adorama. I have the Tamron 28-75 f2.8 and am very happy with it. So I'm hoping that it will be of similar quality. It is also a DI lens which means that it has the coatings for digital, but is still ready for full frame when that comes to all of us in a few years. You can also find used versions of the Sigma 70-200 f2.8, and the Nikon without VR in this price range.

Thanks for the feedback Shane, I have given not getting VR a thought, but once again that is something that also came highly recommended to purchase. The tamron does sound like a good solution, but once again I am stuck with the argument that it doesn't have VR, any arguments you can make against getting VR, or perhaps waiting on purchasing VR until I have more funds like i stated in my original post?

Shane422

VR is meant to remove vibration due to camera shake. Since you are wanting to shoot sports, you will be using shutter speeds greater than 1/250 to prevent subject motion blur. Camera shake is generally not a problem if you shoot at a shutter speed of 1/focal length. So at 200MM, if you shoot at 1/200th or faster you should not see a problem from camera shake, or much if any benefit from VR. If you get up to 1/400th, lack of VR won't be an issue at all for a 70-200 lens. That's not to say that I wouldn't love to have it so I could shoot at 1/60 at 200MM some times, but the $1K saved can go towards a D300, or other lenses.

That said, I did find the VR version on Adorama used for $1200. That's about the cheapest I've seen from a reputable source. THere are several non-VR versions there as well.

NewEraChild

Shane422 wrote:

VR is meant to remove vibration due to camera shake. Since you are wanting to shoot sports, you will be using shutter speeds greater than 1/250 to prevent subject motion blur. Camera shake is generally not a problem if you shoot at a shutter speed of 1/focal length. So at 200MM, if you shoot at 1/200th or faster you should not see a problem from camera shake, or much if any benefit from VR. If you get up to 1/400th, lack of VR won't be an issue at all for a 70-200 lens. That's not to say that I wouldn't love to have it so I could shoot at 1/60 at 200MM some times, but the $1K saved can go towards a D300, or other lenses.

That said, I did find the VR version on Adorama used for $1200. That's about the cheapest I've seen from a reputable source. THere are several non-VR versions there as well.

I'll take the time to seriously consider the non-VR version of the lens. I'm sure I'll survive considering that's all I'm used to, I get the feeling that once i make the jump to VR i won't go back so I should hold off on that expensive endeavor.

Thanks for the link, but I'm going to have to wait till I have the funds in order to make the purchase seeing as how I just used a good deal of money to purchase a D200.

Thanks.
Anyone else have a different opinion? Knowledge is power

Tommyboy

What do you intend to use the lens for? Is it the right lens for your intended application? Give us some more details. Money isn't really the issue. How are you going to use this lens?

BPerron

NewEraChild wrote:

So I'm relatively new to this forum as you can see from my posts count but I have a few questions for those of you who have been in the biz much longer than I have...

I'm looking to purchase a new piece of glass, telephoto, in the future. I can't purchase one now, and so I'm taking my time doing the research before I make my decision. I'd like to use the lens when I go off to college as a way to make money and as a hobby by taking pictures of sports at the school and either selling to newspapers or to the athletes themselves.

So my question is, can I purchase a Nikon AF-S 18-200mm DX VR Zoom-Nikkor F/3.5-5.6G IF-ED for roughly three quarters of a grand, and make a decent amount of quality pictures to the point where it justifies not saving my money longer and purchasing a Nikon AF-S 70-200mm VR Zoom-Nikkor F/2.8G IF-ED?

From who I've talked to (and the list isn't very long) I understand that purchasing glass is much more important than the body in most cases. So I'm a bit apprehensive about jumping the gun and purchasing the F/3.5-5.6G when the F/2.8 outstrips it completely.

I'd like to think that I could use the F/3.5-5.6G ($1000 cheaper as I've seen it so far) to make enough money to be able to purchase the F/2.8 more easily without hoarding my money for a longer period.

For reference:

• I am a Senior in High School
• I have been working at a Graphics Design Studio for four years so I am set when it comes to creating a corporate logo and establishing myself as a business for when I move off to college.
• I have enough marketing and advertisement knowledge to be able to sell the photos that I take.
• I will be using the lens with a Nikon D200 that I recently purchased used.

If you have another lens to recommend for my purposes, please do so as well.

Thanks

I debated between this for a very long time...the 18-200mm AF-S VR is one of the best purchases you can make i think, it is super veristile and gives amazing quality images. You will not need much more with this lens, unless you want to do macro, or some super wide angle lenses are into major nature/animal shots and need to get a shot from far away and in that case I would get the 70-300mm. I can tell you it is worth the money to not have to switch between leneses to get below 70mm...A buddy of mine bought the d40x kit that came with the two lenses (18-55mm & 55-200mm) and he is kicking him self for not listening to me when i told him to buy just the body and get the 18-200mm. Plus it is a very well built lens with great glass....

As for VR I highly recommend it especially on a lens that is 150mm+ you will get more vibration then you think.

I hope this helps...let me know if you have any more questions about it.

NewEraChild

Tommyboy wrote:

What do you intend to use the lens for? Is it the right lens for your intended application? Give us some more details. Money isn't really the issue. How are you going to use this lens?

like i said in my original quote, i hope to use the lens for sports photography when i get into college. i am the editor in chief of the yearbook at my high school and over the past two years i have become a decent sports photographer. it of course varies on the sport but i like to think that i tackled the toughest with volleyball & basketball (indoor) and football (night). I understand that only certain sports will really get me any income as well but all of the schools i applied to (except ucsb) have huge sports programs, so i'm sure i can market it properly.

Other than the income from sports i hope to generate I really enjoy landscape photography and architecture. neither of which really need a zoom lens...

My tastes are still developing however.

Telecorder

NewEraChild wrote:

like i said in my original quote, i hope to use the lens for sports photography when i get into college. i am the editor in chief of the yearbook at my high school and over the past two years i have become a decent sports photographer. it of course varies on the sport but i like to think that i tackled the toughest with volleyball & basketball (indoor) and football (night). I understand that only certain sports will really get me any income as well but all of the schools i applied to (except ucsb) have huge sports programs, so i'm sure i can market it properly.

Other than the income from sports i hope to generate I really enjoy landscape photography and architecture. neither of which really need a zoom lens...

My tastes are still developing however.

Well, if you've already experienced shooting indoor & HS football, you're well aware of the low light conditions affecting the need for a faster lens (apertures) to get the needed higher shutter speeds. Moving up to college sports will be better in that the venues usually will have a bit better lighting conditions than one typically finds in high schools.

Having said that, my suggestion is that you might look to something like a 70-200 f/2.8 VR + an 85 f/1.8. The 85 is a good performer for indoors BB/VB/Gymnastics where you don't need much reach and the 70-200 will be a good candidate for outdoors where a zoom will help in composing on larger fields. The IQ will also be there for both.

70-200 f2.8 VR
http://www.bythom.com/70200VRlens.htm
http://www.camerahobby.com/Review-70-200mmVR.htm
http://www.moose395.net/gear/mcb70200vr.html
http://www.digital-images.net/Lenses/AFS_VR/afs_vr.html
http://kenrockwell.com/nikon/70200vr.htm
http://www.naturfotograf.com/AFS70-200VR_rev00.html
http://www.graysofwestminster.co.uk/newsitem.php?id=35
http://www.imagepower.de/IMAGES/imgE...T/AFS70200.htm
http://www.olegnovikov.com/technical...00mmf28d.shtml
http://www.keiko-ni.com/keikosite/eq...mylenses2.html
http://www.weldonphoto.com/Reviews/70-200.htm
http://www.ephotozine.com/equipment/...fm?test_id=344
http://www.utopia-photography.ch/len...echlens01.html
http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showp...4/cat/6/page/1
http://www.wildlifephoto.net/reviews...ikon70200.html
http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/len...28vr/index.htm
http://www.nikongear.com/v3_70-200mmVR.htm
http://www.juanparmenides.com/Review..._200VR_en.html
http://www.dicksonphotography.co.uk/...0200%20VR.html
http://ryanbrenizer.livejournal.com/440337.html
http://www.eyeswitching.com/nikon_70_200_vr_.html
http://www.photographyreview.com/PRD...6_3128crx.aspx
http://www.sportsshooter.com/gear_profile.html?id=58