I have a 55-200mm Telephoto AF Nikkor VR lens. I think is great but find that 200mm is too small for sport action shots. What will be a good Telephoto Lens to add that is good value? Any help will be appreciated.
Welcome to Nikonians! The answer will depend on your budget! If you are shooting outdoors in good light: If you are looking for a zoom with a longer range, the Nikkor 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6G ED IF AF-S VR (about $500.00) would be a good choice. For a true telephoto prime, the Nikkor 300mm f/4D ED IF AF-S ($1200.00)is an excellent choice as well. The longer the focal length the higher the price of the lens. When you get to the fast telephoto primes and zooms the price jump is by orders of magnatude. 300mm f/2.8G ED IF AF-S VR (about $4800.00), 200-400mm f/4G ED IF AF-S VR (about $5700.00), 400mm f/2.8G ED AF-S VR (about $8800.00). There are also third party alternative with less sticker shock. If you fill us in on your budget and specific sports and lighting conditions (eg.:night football games under the lights, soccer in daylight conditions ect.) we can give you a more specific answer taylored to your specific requirements. Good Luck and Enjoy your Nikons!
Got it a week or two ago and it has been a good lens, some say it is soft at the 200-300 setting which would be a concern but i cannot see it myself, not the quickest but in good light i have no issused with blur outside of user error... no VR/IS but at 124... its a good deal IMO... hth
Hello VertigoVO2... I just picked up a Sigma 70-300mm f/4.0-5.6 DG APO MACRO. This particular lens has the built in motor for the Nikon D40/D40X/D60 so they can auto-focus. but no lens stabilization (VR) around $190. Good build quality...very happy with the results thus far. I would have loved to get a Nikon 300mm but the price was prohibitive. This Sigma lens is very good bang for the buck. Good luck
If you're buying one of these Sigmas, be sure you get a model with the built-in motor to AF on your body. There are many versions of these lenses and older ones did not include a motor. Of these I'd recommend the APO (I own the older APO DG Macro without the motor) but it's mainly used by my wife for macro shooting.
The Nikkor is a great lens and an outstanding value. You will spend over $1000 to find a better 300mm lens, and over $2000 to find a better 300mm lens with VR. The main drawback is it won't be great in low light, but you'll spend many thousands trying to improve on that. I own this lens as well, and it gets a lot of use shooting birds when I need to be very mobile.
I recently purchased the Nikkor 70-300 AF-S VR along with another wide angle Nikkor zoom and have taken many soccer game pictures (with good stadium lighting)in the last three weeks. The difference between the 70-300 and the 55-200 Nikkor lens is worth the extra money spent. Most of these game shots were taken with a tri-pod with VR on and off. At full speed and well into the evenings I have bumped up the ISO to 800 - 1600.
Before the new lens arrived I took many game pictures with the 55-200 and the difference is time spent post picture time on the computer with Capture NX2 and most of the latest pics are ready to go with minor checking of player/action and focus mis-haps. The (DX) 1.5 multiplier gives me a 105-450mm range as compared with the full-sized camera/lens combinations. My day time game pictures have really increased in sharpness and stopping the action. This is not a professional lens, but it was a great step up for me.
Thank you guys....Yes I have the 55-200mm Nikkor VR. Its a great lens and workd fine, but the other day at my daoughter Soccer game I found out that I need addtional zoom. Specially shooting action from the oposite side of the field. I want some thing that could give the 200mm zoom potential plus 35% more. I see the prices list above...so a 70-300mm is better zoom than 55-200mm....haw mjuch better....how much bbigger the zoom./
I have the Sigma 70-300 APO DG and I use it mainly with my D60. It is quite a decent lens but can not compete with the excellent Nikon 70-300 AF-S ED VR. If you can afford the Nikon then go for it and do not look any further..
If you can wait (i.e. save a bit more), then get the 70-300 AF-S ED VR. I've taken shots of animals in zoo (check out my gallery too if you like) to see it. All of those were taken with the 70-300mm AF-S ED VR. My friend was using the Sigma and confirmed that the Nikkor was much better (VR and quality).
If you cannot wait (urgent use) then go for the Sigma. If you have friends who have the Nikkor, and could borrow, then you could borrow first and continue to save for the 70 - 300mm AF-S ED VR. Just make sure you get the one with the VR (there's also a 70-300mm non-VR version...wwwaaayy cheaper but not good).
I have to concur with Chewie on trying out these lenses, and I would suggest finding a good local professional camera supply shop and see if you can rent one. I own the 70-300 AF-S ED VR and have never been sorry I bought it. Remember that teleconvertors will decrease the speed of your lens, and shouldn't be a problem ouitside in sunlight. I'm getting one myself. ______________________________________________________________________________
Keep it on continuous, it's digital! _______________________________________ _______________________________________