Buy brandname wrote:
Tamron and Sigma are cr@p.
Buy Nikon for Nikon.
Make sure it has VR.
VR is useless for most sports photography. You're much better off buying a decent monopod with the extra money you'd spend for VR in a lens if you're buying used. Of course, if you're buying new, there really isn't any choice in the matter anymore.
bpence wrote:
Buy brandname wrote:Tamron and Sigma are cr@p.
Buy Nikon for Nikon.
Make sure it has VR.
VR is useless for most sports photography. You're much better off buying a decent monopod with the extra money you'd spend for VR in a lens if you're buying used. Of course, if you're buying new, there really isn't any choice in the matter anymore.
True' enuff, though not entirely. Shooting a super tele, such as a 400mm or 500mm, VR makes a big difference, even on a monopod or even tripod. With a 70-200mm, your s/s should be enough to keep it sharp.
The 70-200mm f4 is a GREAT alternative to the f2.8, and, for the most part, a sharper lens. It doesn't focus quite as fast, but it's plenty fast enough most of the time.
wtfunny wrote:
bpence wrote:VR is useless for most sports photography. You're much better off buying a decent monopod with the extra money you'd spend for VR in a lens if you're buying used. Of course, if you're buying new, there really isn't any choice in the matter anymore.
True' enuff, though not entirely. Shooting a super tele, such as a 400mm or 500mm, VR makes a big difference, even on a monopod or even tripod. With a 70-200mm, your s/s should be enough to keep it sharp.
The 70-200mm f4 is a GREAT alternative to the f2.8, and, for the most part, a sharper lens. It doesn't focus quite as fast, but it's plenty fast enough most of the time.
Correct on all accounts, VR is definitely useful. I use to own an 80-200 2.8 non-VR and a 70-200 2.8 VR, both lenses were equally sharp, but hand held, the difference was like night and day. There was even a difference when using a monopod. The 80-200 2.8 is a useful lens hand held, but you have to always have be thinking about steadiness, which is a good thing, but the VR cleans up in cases were you get a little shaky.
Also, I rented a 70-200mm f4 to shoot a large obstacle course event and at ISO 1600, the f4 was indistinguishable from the 2.8 and I didn't notice any focusing issues. And, the important thing for me was the f4's reduced weight, which makes a difference when you have to hold your camera for 3 hours straight. Obviously the 2.8 is a more versatile lens, but for outdoor sports photography, using a late model camera that does well with high ISOs, the Nikon 70-200mm f4 kicks but and if I didn't already own an f2.8, would buy one.
Back to the original topic, all things considered, the OP would be best served by picking up a Nikon 70-300 4.5-5.6 VR used from a place like Adorama or KEH for about $300. (This is coming from someone who really-really knows his way around the block.)
wtfunny wrote:
Sure. What kind of focal length are you looking for? What kind of photography do you want to use it for?
Tamron and Sigma make some great lenses, and some shi**y lenses. So do Nikon.
It would be used for taking pictures, preferably of things far away.
Thanks in advance for any advise.
The real pros at Sports Illustrated use manual focus which is 1000 times better than auto focus.
TrackCoach wrote:
Back to the original topic, all things considered, the OP would be best served by picking up a Nikon 70-300 4.5-5.6 VR used from a place like Adorama or KEH for about $300. (This is coming from someone who really-really knows his way around the block.)
The OP would be best served by outlining some details on the intended usage. Recommending any lens (or camera) without a whole bunch more info than given so far is somewhat pointless.
The OP is merely trolling.
Never buy from Adorama or B&H which repackage returned items and ship it to you as new in order to meet sales quotas. Only buy DSLR gear from Amazon.
wtfunny wrote:
TrackCoach wrote:Back to the original topic, all things considered, the OP would be best served by picking up a Nikon 70-300 4.5-5.6 VR used from a place like Adorama or KEH for about $300. (This is coming from someone who really-really knows his way around the block.)
The OP would be best served by outlining some details on the intended usage. Recommending any lens (or camera) without a whole bunch more info than given so far is somewhat pointless.
The OP is merely trolling.
I kind of forgot about this thread. I am amazed at the conversation that it started.
I am looking to shoot some car racing actually (Sports cars on road courses mainly) I have a 55-300mm lense which has a max aperture of f/4.5-5.6.
So it looks like I need to be able to get more light in (I am really really new to this stuff)
Do you have $75,000 in cash laying around the house? if not contact the university, race, marathon, or meet and use their gear. That's what the real working pros do. Alls they own themselves in a iPhone.
Tip for the Day wrote:
The real pros at Sports Illustrated use manual focus which is 1000 times better than auto focus.
Absolute rubbish !!!!
Listen Up dude wrote:
Do you have $75,000 in cash laying around the house? if not contact the university, race, marathon, or meet and use their gear. That's what the real working pros do. Alls they own themselves in a iPhone.
And that's absolute rubbish too .