Lens choice, looking for some advice: My favorite thing to shoot is sports. This is a big year for me because my boy is in his senior year of football and I take the pictures for the...

Dexter56 Loc: Ohio

My favorite thing to shoot is sports. This is a big year for me because my boy is in his senior year of football and I take the pictures for the team on the sidelines on Friday nights. I have always used my 80-200 2.8 and have gotten some pretty good shots. Last year I bought a D750 (I couldn't wait any longer for the "D400", so don't you know the D500 came out)and I really like the combo. Just feel like I need a little more reach. I have been kicking around getting a used 300mm 2.8 AFS for around $2K. I guess the question is, in your opinion, is it worth spending the money on the new lens? or is that extra 100mm not worth the cost. Also, I lose the zoom ability which can come in handy when you are close to the action. Has anyone else out there been where I am? Not crazy about spending the money, but if were to make a big difference, I would do it. Thanks for any advice.

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

Dexter56 wrote:

My favorite thing to shoot is sports. This is a bi... (show quote)

Learn to do cropping with pixel enlargement or get a high MP crop frame body .......

DaveO Loc: Northeast CT

If it's a VR model,sounds like a really good price,but you may miss zoom capabilities. Where do you typically shoot from and think about how often you pull a focal length of less than 200 and than you may be able to decide if you can do without the 200-300 range. I have an 80-400 and a 200-500,but would prefer a 2.8 or 4 for sports or wildlife. Have fun!

DaveO Loc: Northeast CT

By the way,that's a handful of lens! Eat your Wheaties!

Dexter56 Loc: Ohio

DaveO wrote:

If it's a VR model,sounds like a really good price,but you may miss zoom capabilities. Where do you typically shoot from and think about how often you pull a focal length of less than 200 and than you may be able to decide if you can do without the 200-300 range. I have an 80-400 and a 200-500,but would prefer a 2.8 or 4 for sports or wildlife. Have fun!

_
Non-VR, but for what I would be using it for, wouldn't be a problem. I have the Tamron 150-600 which is great in full light, but for indoor and under the lights, has to be a 2.8. I know it is a handful, but always use a monopod.

DWU2 Loc: Phoenix Arizona area

How bout a new Sigma 150-600 for $989? f5/6.3, but with VR and pushing the ISO a little and using a monopod, should provide some great images.

DaveO Loc: Northeast CT

Dexter56 wrote:

_
Non-VR, but for what I would be using it for, wouldn't be a problem. I have the Tamron 150-600 which is great in full light, but for indoor and under the lights, has to be a 2.8. I know it is a handful, but always use a monopod.

Yes. I do the mono as well and know about the light! It appears that there are plenty to be had in the 2000.00 range.

Jim Bob

Dexter56 wrote:

My favorite thing to shoot is sports. This is a bi... (show quote)

Geesus man, only you can say whether it is worth it to you. If you can't answer that question for yourself you need more help than can be provided on a site such as this one. Don't mean to be harsh. But that's just the way it is.

Dexter56 Loc: Ohio

Jim Bob wrote:

Geesus man, only you can say whether it is worth it to you. If you can't answer that question for yourself you need more help than can be provided on a site such as this one. Don't mean to be harsh. But that's just the way it is.

you know, I was wondering if you would chime in. I was hoping you wouldn't. why do you bother getting on this site, anyway? I would love to meet a guy like you in person. trust me, you would not have a word to say to me. keyboard toughguy.

Jim Bob

Dexter56 wrote:

you know, I was wondering if you would chime in. I was hoping you wouldn't. why do you bother getting on this site, anyway? I would love to meet a guy like you in person. trust me, you would not have a word to say to me. keyboard toughguy.

Well a person who asks folks to make up his mind for him is the least of my concerns. You might more profitably spend your time with some mental exercises that assist in decision-making rather than issuing idle threats.

Bill_de Loc: US

With the higher useable ISO on the D500, the Nikkor 200 - 500 F5.6 is a good, affordable, option. Keep the 80 - 200 and you have some great coverage.

--

GPS Phil Loc: Dayton Ohio

Dexter56 wrote:

My favorite thing to shoot is sports. This is a bi... (show quote)

I will throw in my 2 cents Dexter, I purchased the new Nikon 300 f/4 VR (26 oz.). It is a very light, incredibly sharp, and the VR makes a huge difference with sports. It is pricey, and I will admit that I cried just a little when I bought it (2000.00) but got over it quickly after using it several weeks. It's a keeper!!

Phil

MtnMan Loc: ID

Dexter56 wrote:

My favorite thing to shoot is sports. This is a bi... (show quote)

Why not the 200-500? It is a fabulous lens with unmatched VR. Inexpensive vompared to Nikon f2.8s.

The D750, and more so D500, will do fine with a few stops higher ISO to compensate for lens speed (5.6).

2nefoto

The D750 works well in lower light. That may lessen your need for 2.8 lens. Why not rent a 200-400 f4 (expensive)' see how you like it. Your photo position, more than anything, will determine your lens need

jcboy3

Do you still have your previous camera? If so, then put the zoom on it and get the 300 f/2.8 for your D750. If the action gets too close, you can switch cameras.

Or, you can get a 200-400 f/4 used for under $3000. But you still have an issue if the action gets too close for 200mm.

Or, you can put a TC-14 on your 80-200. The D750 will support higher ISO so you can keep your shutter speed up.

Mostly depends on what range you need to shoot.