JPL

I tend to agree with those who recommend the Nikon 200-500 lens. It is said to be an excellent lens for the money. If you want some budget option you could also look at Nikon teleconverter TC1.4 or TC2.0 for longer reach. But if you are looking for longer reach from a new lens you will have to sacrifice the f2.8 aperture, unless you have bottomless pit of money to use on this. And if you are looking at more expensive lenses you could just as well get the D500 body. Then you will get similar results as with a longer lens but without the sacrifice of the 2.8 aperture plus you have a body that is perfect for your kind of shooting and spend a lot less than if you buy another 2.8 lens with longer reach. And it can be good to have 2 bodies. If not you can sell the D750. Those are your best choices.

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

I use a Kenko 1.4TC with that lens - no complaints. I also use the Nikon 28-300mm. Nice lens. As for the 300mm, you'd be paying $2,000 for 100mm. A D7200 body would give you a tele effect with your FX lenses. You can get one refurbished for a decent price, and you'd have two bodies. Then you get an OP/TECH Double Sling and carry one on each shoulder.

https://www.amazon.com/OP-TECH-USA-6501082-Double/dp/B004N622H6

joer Loc: Colorado/Illinois

I suspect that the D750 with 24mp is more than capable of enlarging an image taken at 200mm FL to an equivalent 300mm FL with out noticeable IQ loss. I do extreme crops with my D810.These images are posted all over this website and you have probably looked at some.

I'm not knocking pixel enlarging and happen to agree that it is a viable option to spending huge sums on exotic glass particularly if you already have the software and a good fast medium telephoto lens.

Here is a sample image that was enlarged to just under twice its original cropped size just to illustrate the technique. I used PS CC.

(Download)

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

A very popular zoom lens for sports is the Sigma 120-300 F2.8. Nikon no longer supports the AF-S with parts, and if you get an AF-S II, it's days are numbered as well. That's why they are so cheap.

billnikon Loc: Pennsylvania/Ohio/Florida/Maui/Oregon/Vermont

If it were me and you have $2000.00 to spend I would buy the D500 for that price and match it with my 80-200 ( which does not focus as fast as a 70-200) and then I would have a 120-300 2.8 lens with 10 FPS and a focusing system that is also on the D5.

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

I agree about the Sigma 120-300 2.8 - used pre-Sport versions can be suspect - but the Sport version offers the most reliabilities - not cheap, and still big and heavy !

If you're happy with the lens you have, the D500 will give the reach you seek.

wotsmith Loc: Nashville TN

The canon version of the 300mm f2.8 is fabulous; I would assume the Nikon version is the same. Get it and don't look back!

Dexter56 Loc: Ohio

Thanks for everyone's response. You all bring up very good points, and things that I have been thinking about. Except Jim Bob. He is just an idiot, as everyone knows. Several people mentioned getting the D500. I keep thinking about that option, but really the only big difference between it and the D750 is the faster frame rate. I know the focus system is a little better, but the D750 with the Nikon AFS 2.8 focuses great and is almost instant. Using my old camera (D200) along with my 750 was also something I was thinking about. And it was mentioned that just cropping my pictures would take the place of the longer reach of the 300mm. That is true too, seeing how nobody is printing murals with the photos I shoot. Several people buying the Nikon 200-500 and pushing the ISO of the camera. That got me thinking. Why not give my Tamron 150-600 a try. I have never tried it under the lights before. I will go ahead and push the ISO on the D750 until I can get the shutter speed I need. What's the worse that can happen? I thank all of you for your responses. You have given several things to think about. Except Jim Bob. He is just an idiot, as everyone knows.

wj cody Loc: springfield illinois

other than the fact that it is a beast of a lens, the 300mm f2.8 nikkor is an excellent choice. i would, however, make sure you have a sturdy tripod for sharp, infocus results.
good luck!

Arlene777 Loc: Central NJ

That was a very rude, condescending and uninformative remark. Why do you try to be so intimidating?

nikonkelly Loc: SE Michigan

I recently was in your position of needing more and sharper reach. I had the 70-200 f2.8, and the tamron 150-600. The 70-200 was great, the 150-600 was good, but it was a bright sunny day lens and I do a lot of low light wildlife and so needed a different lens. I rented a 300 f4 af-s not the new version and I also added a tc1.4 (Nikon) and with that combination I am very happy. It can be a bright sunny day lens as well, but I don't have to use the TC, and that in my opinion makes it an excellent choice. Would I like the 300 f 2.8? Not really... It is way too heavy for my type of shooting. If you can get over the weight, it is an excellent choice, but the 300 f4 is in my opinion an equal image quality choice with a good body. I am shooting the D800 and the images at 100% are tack sharp.... That is all that I can expect out of any lens. Consider renting the 300 f4 and see if it works for you!

cjc2 Loc: Hellertown PA

As a sports shooter, perhaps I can give some personal advice. To shoot sports really well, you need really expensive gear, especially if it's under the lights. That being said, the best camera/lens to use is the one you have with you. The more you practice, the better you become. There just is no better way to become experienced but to participate and practice, practice and practice some more. Normally, for football, I use a fixed focal length lens, not a zoom, so that I don't spend more time zooming than shooting photos. I find zooms distracting for sports action. That said, I normally carry an extra body with a 70-200/2.8 (and this is a great example of a situation where a 2.8 makes all the difference) that I can use when the play is close and there is no time to get into another position. Have not shot with a D750, but I always considered it a little brother to the D4s I did use, which would make it a perfect camera for this work. Something else you need, which many forget, is some knowledge of the sport, and the team. Both of these things will vastly improve your "money" shots! Today, with better sensors, I'm going to suggest that the new Nikon 300/F4 PF might fit this bill! I have one, and have not used it with night football yet, but I plan to experiment, possibly as soon as Friday. It does have VR, but VR is not needed for sports as the subject is moving and the VR system slows down focus acquisition. Normally, I shoot football with a Nikon 400/2.8 with a Nikon 1.4TC mounted. With my D5, I will shoot to ISO 25600! Where the light is really really poor, I dump the TC. Oh, your idea to get a good, used Nikon 2.8 is a great one as it will be better with a TC. ONLY buy a Nikon TC and make sure the model you buy is designed for the lens you plan to use it on. Check with Nikon BEFORE you buy if unsure. Again, night sports is not for the meek, but you seem fired up as well as having a good reason. So go out there, practice as much as you can, and get some fantastic shots of your son and his team! Oh, make sure you have a good monopod! Best of luck my friend!

rdgreenwood Loc: Kennett Square, Pennsylvania

I'm not a sports photographer, but I sure do love the range my Nikon 28-300 gives me on my D800E.

Dexter56 Loc: Ohio

That's what he does, Arlene. He is one of life's losers that sits behind his keyboard and criticizes others posts. We all know people like him. Kind of sad actually.

Dexter56 Loc: Ohio

"Normally, I shoot football with a Nikon 400/2.8" That is my dream lens, but the budget will not allow. I have heard a lot of votes for the Nikon 300 F4. Something I did not consider, but do now. You are right, shooting under the lights is not for the meek (or the poor). I think I need to push the ISO limit a little further with my 750. 25600. wow.