# Nikon Telephoto Lens Recommendation



## Dave 330i (Jan 4, 2002)

OK, I know festers know best. My problem... I am currently using a cheapo AF Zoom Nikkor 70-300mm f/4-5.6G Autofocus Lens on my D70s to take HS soccer at night under mercury vapor lamps. Of course, the lens is not fast enough, so 99% of the pictures come out looking like ****. Is there a faster telephoto lens that does not set me back a couple of paychecks? I'm willing to compromise with a fixed 200mm lens if there is such a thing.

Will a monopod help reduce the fuzziness? I avoid using it because it hampers my mobility.


----------



## Cliff (Apr 19, 2002)

You want this lens: http://nikonusa.com/Find-Your-Nikon/Product/Camera-Lenses/2161/AF-S-VR-Zoom-NIKKOR-70-300mm-f%252F4.5-5.6G-IF-ED.html

It's similar to the one you have, but with slightly better optics, and more importantly, vibration reduction (anti-shake) and a faster in-lens focus motor. You can get one for $500 here: The Fest appears to be censoring the link to b u y d i g dot c o m


----------



## Dave 330i (Jan 4, 2002)

Cliff said:


> You want this lens: http://nikonusa.com/Find-Your-Nikon/Product/Camera-Lenses/2161/AF-S-VR-Zoom-NIKKOR-70-300mm-f%252F4.5-5.6G-IF-ED.html
> 
> It's similar to the one you have, but with slightly better optics, and more importantly, vibration reduction (anti-shake) and a faster in-lens focus motor. You can get one for $500 here: The Fest appears to be censoring the link to b u y d i g dot c o m


I am considering it. Is the fuzzy due to vibration or players' motion in low light, requiring low shutter speed at 4.0 f stop? The cheapo is adequate for sunny outdoor HS sport shots.


----------



## Cliff (Apr 19, 2002)

Unfortunately, it looks like the EXIF information was removed from the photo you posted, so I can't evaluate it in the context of your shot settings: shutter speed, aperture, and ISO. VR will definitely allow you to shoot handheld at slower shutter speeds than you can with your existing lens, and would probably be of greater benefit to you than using a monopod.

Faster glass comes with trade-offs - reduced depth of field when shooting wide open, more weight, and more costly. The Nikon 80-200 f2.8 is double the price of the lens I recommended and since it depends on the autofocus motor in your camera body, is not going to acquire focus very quickly. The 70-200 VR is probably out of your price range at $1700.


----------



## BLT (Jan 30, 2006)

Cliff said:


> Unfortunately, it looks like the EXIF information was removed from the photo you posted, so I can't evaluate it in the context of your shot settings: shutter speed, aperture, and ISO. VR will definitely allow you to shoot handheld at slower shutter speeds than you can with your existing lens, and would probably be of greater benefit to you than using a monopod.
> 
> Faster glass comes with trade-offs - reduced depth of field when shooting wide open, more weight, and more costly. The Nikon 80-200 f2.8 is double the price of the lens I recommended and since it depends on the autofocus motor in your camera body, is not going to acquire focus very quickly. The 70-200 VR is probably out of your price range at $1700.


The Nikkor 300mm f2.8 will set you back between $3K and $4k, the slower 300mm f4 runs around $1k new.

The lens you are using is actually f5.6 at 300mm not f4. What ISO setting were you using for this shoot?


----------



## Dave 330i (Jan 4, 2002)

Cliff said:


> Unfortunately, it looks like the EXIF information was removed from the photo you posted, so I can't evaluate it in the context of your shot settings: shutter speed, aperture, and ISO. VR will definitely allow you to shoot handheld at slower shutter speeds than you can with your existing lens, and would probably be of greater benefit to you than using a monopod.
> 
> Faster glass comes with trade-offs - reduced depth of field when shooting wide open, more weight, and more costly. The Nikon 80-200 f2.8 is double the price of the lens I recommended and since it depends on the autofocus motor in your camera body, is not going to acquire focus very quickly. The 70-200 VR is probably out of your price range at $1700.


If VR solves the problem, I will definitely buy it. But, look, I'm shooting at 1/30 sec when the kids are running. Plus, I was on the sideline, which makes the shot more difficult than if were behind the endline.

Camera: Nikon D70s 
Exposure: 0.033 sec (1/30) 
Aperture: f/4.2 
Focal Length: 122 mm 
Exposure Bias: 0/6 EV 
Flash: Flash did not fire 
ISO Speed: 500

Orientation: Horizontal (normal) 
X-Resolution: 300 dpi 
Y-Resolution: 300 dpi 
Software: Ver.1.00 
Date and Time: 2009:01:14 20:30:32 
YCbCr Positioning: Co-Sited 
Date and Time (Original): 2009:01:14 20:30:32 
Date and Time (Digitized): 2009:01:14 20:30:32 
Compressed Bits per Pixel: 2 bits 
Maximum Lens Aperture: 41/10 
Metering Mode: Pattern 
Sub-Second Time: 10 
Sub-Second Time (Original): 10 
Sub-Second Time (Digitized): 10 
Color Space: sRGB 
Sensing Method: One-chip colour area sensor 
CFA Pattern: BLUE GREEN 
GREEN RED 
Digital Zoom Ratio: 1/1 
Focal Length In 35mm Film: 183 
Sharpness: Hard 
Compression: JPEG 
Quality: NORMAL 
White Balance: AUTO 
Sharpening: AUTO 
Focus Mode: AF-C 
Thumbnail IFD Offset: 1430 
ISO Speed Requested: 200 (May be different to Speed Used when Auto ISO is on) 
Photo corner coordinates: 0,
0,
2240,
1488 
AE Bracket Compensation Applied: 0/1 
Tone Compensation (Contrast): AUTO 
Lens Type: 6 
Lens Min/Max Focal Length, Min/Max Aperture: 700/10,
3000/10,
40/10,
56/10 
Bracketing & Shooting Mode: Shooting Mode: Continuous
AE/Flash Bracketing Off
White Balance Bracketing Off 
Colour Mode: MODE1a 
Lighting Type: COLORED 
Noise Reduction: OFF 
Tag::Nikon Type 3::0x009A: 78/10,
78/10 
Tag::Nikon Type 3::0x00A0: NO= 30056137 
Tag::Nikon Type 3::0x00A2: 859662 
Total Number of Shutter Releases for Camera: 6056 
Saturation: NORMAL 
Digital Vari-Program: SPORT 
Image Width: 2240 pixels 
Image Height: 1488 pixels


----------



## Cliff (Apr 19, 2002)

BLT said:


> The Nikkor 300mm f2.8 will set you back between $3K and $4k, the slower 300mm f4 runs around $1k new.
> 
> The lens you are using is actually f5.6 at 300mm not f4. What ISO setting were you using for this shoot?


That is assuming he's zooming all the way to 300. A new 300 f.28 is $4500 - a used non-VR copy is on my lust list and those sell for $3k+.


----------



## Cliff (Apr 19, 2002)

Dave 330i said:


> If VR solves the problem, I will definitely buy it. But, look, I'm shooting at 1/30 sec when the kids are running. Plus, I was on the sideline, which makes the shot more diffiult than if were behind the endline.
> 
> Camera: Nikon D70s
> *Exposure: 0.033 sec (1/30) *
> ...


And there's the source of the blur. A general rule of thumb is that your shutter speed should be the reciprocal of the focal length, so in this case 1/125 would be the minimum shutter speed you should use. VR can give you some leeway there. I am not too familiar with the D70s, but boosting ISO to 800 would be worth trying too.


----------



## Dave 330i (Jan 4, 2002)

Cliff said:


> And there's the source of the blur. A general rule of thumb is that your shutter speed should be the reciprocal of the focal length, so in this case 1/125 would be the minimum shutter speed you should use. VR can give you some leeway there. I am not too familiar with the D70s, but boosting ISO to 800 would be worth trying too.


Won't work, I've tried up to 1600. In sport mode, I can only shoot in ISO auto. Shooting in manual mode is not the way to go. I need one of those $8000 f 2.0 300mm 6 lb. lens.


----------



## Cliff (Apr 19, 2002)

Dave 330i said:


> Won't work. Shooting in manual mode is not the way to go. I need one of those $8000 f 2.0 300mm 6 lb. lens.


Choose shutter priority mode if you're normally in aperture priority. In this situation, the shutter speed is the priority. Also, it looks like you're using auto ISO - you can manually override that and generally speaking, you should. The camera chose ISO 500 - you should choose 640 or 800. VR would allow you to use a slower shutter speed since VR will compensate for the vibration introduced by the slower shutter.

It looks like I beat your edit. I am downloading a D70s manual. Sport mode is probably a scene mode and rather than enhancing your creativity, it would appear to be limiting it. I suggest you use shutter priority and override the ISO setting manually.


----------



## Dave 330i (Jan 4, 2002)

Cliff said:


> Choose shutter priority mode if you're normally in aperture priority. In this situation, the shutter speed is the priority. Also, it looks like you're using auto ISO - you can manually override that and generally speaking, you should. The camera chose ISO 500 - you should choose 640 or 800. VR would allow you to use a slower shutter speed since VR will compensate for the vibration introduced by the slower shutter.
> 
> It looks like I beat your edit. I am downloading a D70s manual. Sport mode is probably a scene mode and rather than enhancing your creativity, it would appear to be limiting it. I suggest you use shutter priority and override the ISO setting manually.


I tried both speed and aperture modes. I would have to post process the pictures using those two modes, which I refuse to do for this application. I'm going to try using a monopod and fixed myself at the endline to help reduce some of the fuzziness. The reason I have not is because I reasoned that shooting from the sideline allows for better lighting, being closer to the action, thus, allows me reduce the length of the telephoto and the associate f stop for the shots. But as you can see, the subject flies by too quickly for the speed (1/30) so the blurrs. Well, I've beaten the problem to death. The viewers are not interested in the technical issue at hand. They just figure the photographer doesn't know what he was doing. 

I'm also going to use a IR remote to release the shutter. Maybe that will help reduce the shake as well.


----------



## PropellerHead (Jan 3, 2002)

Dave 330i said:


> I am considering it. Is the fuzzy due to vibration or players' motion in low light, requiring low shutter speed at 4.0 f stop? The cheapo is adequate for sunny outdoor HS sport shots.


I have one of those I am wanting to sell. :eeps: Bought it last year. Probably has been fixed to the body less than 20 times. Let me check with my cousin who's been evaluating it for the last week. See if he's gonna buy.


----------



## e46Christian (Feb 27, 2003)

VR won't help you much in this case. The only cure for motion blur is faster shutter speeds. I'd guess minimum 1/320s.

I have the 80-200 2.8. On my D70s, AF speed under dim lighting is mediocre at best (on hawk sized birds, anyways). On the D300 however, it's a different animal.

One thing you can do is increase the ISO to about 800 or so, keep your aperture moderately wide (F4 or wider) and your shutter speeds at least 1/2 stop north of your focal length. On the D70s, I was able to get good results at those ISOs, but I had to shoot raw and clean up the noise in PP.

How far away are you from your subjects? A better investment might be an SB-800/900 and a better-beamer. That should enable you to get decent shutter speeds while keeping the ISO at the base 200.


----------



## Dave 330i (Jan 4, 2002)

e46Christian said:


> VR won't help you much in this case. The only cure for motion blur is faster shutter speeds. I'd guess minimum 1/320s.
> 
> I have the 80-200 2.8. On my D70s, AF speed under dim lighting is mediocre at best (on hawk sized birds, anyways). On the D300 however, it's a different animal.
> 
> ...


Thanks for your suggestions.


----------



## Jon Shafer (Dec 15, 2001)

I just picked up another fast lens that is amazing for low-light action - a 135mm f/2. If Nikon makes something like that you could use it and just crop a bit to pull in closer. F/2 is insane for telephoto.


----------



## LinkF1 (Apr 3, 2005)

I agree with Christian. There are two things I would recommend if you don't have the money for the glass:

1. SB-600/800/900 - It is amazing how much better your low light photography can get with a dedicated flash unit. You can use much more appropriate shutter speeds while freezing your subjects.
2. Upgrade the Body to a D90/D300, the sensors in these bodies make it an easy decision to just crank the ISO because of the low noise compared to the D70s. (Just made the upgrade from D70s to D90 over the holidays)


----------



## Patrick (Dec 23, 2001)

Jon S. said:


> I just picked up another fast lens that is amazing for low-light action - a 135mm f/2. If Nikon makes something like that you could use it and just crop a bit to pull in closer. F/2 is insane for telephoto.


A friend of mine in Seattle just got a mint condition EF 200mm f/1.8 L USM... 

I want to *KILL* him. :eeps:

.


----------



## Dave 330i (Jan 4, 2002)

LinkF1 said:


> I agree with Christian. There are two things I would recommend if you don't have the money for the glass:
> 
> 1. SB-600/800/900 - It is amazing how much better your low light photography can get with a dedicated flash unit. You can use much more appropriate shutter speeds while freezing your subjects.
> 2. Upgrade the Body to a D90/D300, the sensors in these bodies make it an easy decision to just crank the ISO because of the low noise compared to the D70s. (Just made the upgrade from D70s to D90 over the holidays)


The solution is a costly heavy fast lens, which I'm not going to invest for HS sports. If I had $1600 to burn...
Nikon Telephoto Zoom Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8D AF-S VR ED-IF


----------



## titan307 (Jan 31, 2009)

On a Nikon its called VR on Canon its called IS. I shoot Canon. Neither will help you with moving subjects,only fast shutter or flash will help out so you need fast glass to be able to open up the aperature. Your best bet, and they run around $700US is the Tamron 70-200 2.8. i have this lens for my canon. i shoot weddings,sports portraits,fashion/glamour This thing is great for all of it. especially portraits. My main buisness is weddings and fashion/glamour and i have yet to miss a shot i wanted.


----------



## Boile (Jul 5, 2005)

I've taken a lot of pictures in soccer fields. 
I lug my D300 with a 80-200mm f/2.8 and a 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6 with me, but find that I'm almost exclusively using the 80-200mm with a 1.4x teleconverter.

On a funny note, I recently saw a lady there with a D3 + 200-400mm f/4. 
Most people in soccer fields use something like in pic 1.
This lady, pic 2, had two cameras (forgot what her second camera was), and needed a stroller for all that equipment, pic 3. 
Way overdone.


----------



## Boile (Jul 5, 2005)

BLT said:


> OK if you use VR in direct or indirect sunlight (where VR does little or no good) actions shots are possible. Try taking either one of those shots in low light conditions and let me know if there is motion blur.


In low light conditions there will be more blur without VR.

VR off = motion blur + camera shake blur
VR on = motion blur


----------



## Dave 330i (Jan 4, 2002)

BLT said:


> OK if you use VR in direct or indirect sunlight (where VR does little or no good) actions shots are possible. Try taking either one of those shots in low light conditions and let me know if there is motion blur.


Here are two shots under HS stadium lights (not usually the best) and the results are the same. Only the subject is in focused at low f stop.

Handheld, existing light, ISO 3200, speed 1/250 sec, on D90 body.


----------



## Boile (Jul 5, 2005)




----------



## BLT (Jan 30, 2006)

Boile said:


> BLT went way over his head on that comment.
> VR helps *a lot* in low light situations. It's effect diminishes as the available light increases and the focal length decreases. That is all.


Your VR lens came with documentation please read it and get back to me. The camera body certainly knows when VR is on or off. VR is designed to allow you to shoot hand held at lower shutter speeds; it is cheaper for the manufactures to build lenses with VR than large apertures.

I would much rather have a 300 f2.8 than a 300 f4 with VR, your mileage may vary.


----------



## BLT (Jan 30, 2006)

Dave 330i said:


> Handheld with a 70-300 VR lens (active setting mode) on a D90 on a cloudy day...


There is no EXIF data so I can not tell what the shutter speeds where used etc. That being said I do not know if VR was a factor in those photos or not.


----------



## Boile (Jul 5, 2005)

BLT said:


> Your VR lens came with documentation please read it and get back to me. The camera body certainly knows when VR is on or off. VR is designed to allow you to shoot hand held at lower shutter speeds; it is cheaper for the manufactures to build lenses with VR than large apertures.
> 
> I would much rather have a 300 f2.8 than a 300 f4 with VR, your mileage may vary.


I was referring to your statement


BLT said:


> by design it automatically uses a slower shutter speed and compensates for the blur caused by camera shake.


What you said now has nothing to do with what I said.
Do the experiment I wrote in post #60 and get back to me.

Take a look at my samples
http://www.bimmerfest.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2472984&postcount=102
My shutter speed didn't change when I turned VR on. 
It doesn't matter how large the apperture is on your lens. At 300mm hand held you will experience hand shake blur.
Nothing prevents Nikon from putting VR on a f/2.8. In fact, they already have.


----------



## Dave 330i (Jan 4, 2002)

Boile, stop doctoring up the photos.


----------



## Boile (Jul 5, 2005)

Dave 330i said:


> Boile, stop doctering up the photos.


:eeps::rofl:
The only thing I did was crop and sharpen.
I could do all that in the camera settings (set a high sharpening). Would that be considered doctoring? :rofl:


----------



## Dave 330i (Jan 4, 2002)

BLT said:


> There is no EXIF data so I can not tell what the shutter speeds where used etc. That being said I do not know if VR was a factor in those photos or not.


Even with results that show the contrary, I know it's difficult to overcome your opinions that have been imbedded in you for so long. I'm not here to prove to you that you are wrong.


----------



## BLT (Jan 30, 2006)

Boile said:


> It doesn't matter how large the apperture is on your lens. At 300mm hand held you will experience hand shake blur.
> Nothing prevents Nikon from putting VR on a f/2.8. In fact, they already have.


Are you saying that a picture taken at 1/1000s or even 1/500s would have hand shake blurring because a 300mm lens was used? 

I think you are trying too hard.


----------



## Boile (Jul 5, 2005)

Dave 330i said:


> Handheld with a 70-300 VR lens (active setting mode) on a D90 on a cloudy day...


Eh, Dave, you may want to switch to Normal mode.
Active is for when you're inside a car.
Without the big jolts, Active may actually do more harm than good.
In fact, Nikon recommends turning VR off if you're using a tripod. Not sure if that contraption you made out of a curtain rod :bustingup: qualifies as a tripod. :eeps:


----------



## Boile (Jul 5, 2005)

BLT said:


> Are you saying that a picture taken at 1/1000s or even 1/5000s would have hand shake blurring because a 300mm lens was used?
> 
> I think you are trying too hard.


You will not be able to shoot 1/5000, not even 1/1000, after the sun goes down. 
That is when VR does its magic.

Let's get back to your statement... VR does not slow your shutter speed automatically. Show me the documentation where it says so.


----------



## BLT (Jan 30, 2006)

Boile said:


> You will not be able to shoot 1/5000, not even 1/1000, after the sun goes down.


None of the pictures that I referenced were shot in low light. You are chasing your tail here.


----------



## BLT (Jan 30, 2006)

Dave 330i said:


> Here are two shots under HS stadium lights (not usually the best) and the results are the same. Only the subject is in focused at low f stop.
> 
> Handheld, existing light, ISO 3200, speed 1/250 sec, on D90 body.


I take it back both of those shots look great and I have to say VR did help in reducing camera shake.

I would still rather have the extra 2 stops.


----------



## Dave 330i (Jan 4, 2002)

BLT said:


> I take it back both of those shots look great and I have to say VR did help in reducing camera shake.
> 
> *I would still rather have the extra 2 stops. *


Not for an extra $1000 you won't.

Nikon 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6G ED-IF AF-S VR NIKKOR Lens Abe's Price $ 472.96


----------



## BLT (Jan 30, 2006)

Dave 330i said:


> Not for an extra $1000 you won't.
> 
> Nikon 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6G ED-IF AF-S VR NIKKOR Lens Abe's Price $ 472.96


I am looking to buy a 300 AFS EDIF f4 right now. If I can find a good specimen for around $1k or maybe $1.2K I will go ahead and buy it. The 300 f2.8 is just too costly for me to justify.


----------



## Boile (Jul 5, 2005)

BLT said:


> None of the pictures that I referenced were shot in low light. You are chasing your tail here.


Post #62. :tsk:



boile said:


> Let's get back to your statement... VR does not slow your shutter speed automatically. Show me the documentation where it says so.


:dunno:


----------



## BLT (Jan 30, 2006)

You are not paying attention here are you?


----------



## Boile (Jul 5, 2005)

BLT said:


> I am looking to buy a 300 AFS EDIF f4 right now. If I can find a good specimen for around $1k or maybe $1.2K I will go ahead and buy it. The 300 f2.8 is just too costly for me to justify.


If you're talking about eliminating camera shake, VR will give you the equivalent of 4 stops. :rofl:


----------



## BLT (Jan 30, 2006)

Boile said:


> If you're talking about eliminating camera shake, VR will give you the equivalent of 4 stops. :rofl:


I have only one question... isn't your arm tired? That horse has been dead for quite a long time, there is no need to continue the beating.

4 whole complete stops? I guess you really do believe everything you read.


----------



## Est1974 (Jul 9, 2008)

dave
did you get a tele?

Try KEH.com they have an AFS 80-200 f/2.8 D around 1k or so. no VR but that lens in outta control good!!


----------



## mathjak107 (Apr 1, 2006)

make sure you turn vr off when using a tripod. it actually blurs slightly on a tripod


----------



## Dave 330i (Jan 4, 2002)

Est1974 said:


> dave
> did you get a tele?
> 
> Try KEH.com they have an AFS 80-200 f/2.8 D around 1k or so. no VR but that lens in outta control good!!


Yea, I got the 70-300 VR ($462) for HS sports for the reason that the people who see my pics in flickr don't care to know the difference. They want to see the facial hair on their 16 year old kid, and at 300x1.5=450mm you can certainly see that. For $462, I got more appreciations than money given to charities.


----------



## mathjak107 (Apr 1, 2006)

my wife is hinting she wants the 150-500mm for her birthday....as much as i like it too i dont think it would be to practical as its to big and heavy to just carry around....


----------



## Boile (Jul 5, 2005)

mathjak107 said:


> my wife is hinting she wants the 150-500mm for her birthday....as much as i like it too i dont think it would be to practical as its to big and heavy to just carry around....


Depending what she does with the lens, she'll look worse than this lady... :eeps:
http://www.bimmerfest.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3888167&postcount=20


----------



## mathjak107 (Apr 1, 2006)

EXACTLEY, unless your going to a zoo odds are you wont have it with you when you want it, its just toooooo big to carry around.


----------



## Dave 330i (Jan 4, 2002)

Boile said:


> I've taken a lot of pictures in soccer fields.
> I lug my D300 with a 80-200mm f/2.8 and a 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6 with me, but find that I'm almost exclusively using the 80-200mm with a 1.4x teleconverter.
> 
> On a funny note, I recently saw a lady there with a D3 + 200-400mm f/4.
> ...


Pic 3 :rofl:


----------

