Home · Register · Search · View Winners · Software · Hosting · Software · Join Upload & Sell

Moderated by: Fred Miranda
Username   Password

  New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site
  New Feature: SMS Notification alert
  New Feature: Buy & Sell Watchlist
  

FM Forums | Nikon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

  

Archive 2011 · Which way to go? Primes or Zoom
  
 
WestCoastSnapp
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #1 · Which way to go? Primes or Zoom


Hey there Y'All.

I do a lot of sports shooting. Primarily Ice Hockey and Softball. But I want to expand to the larger field type sports and wildlife.

I have a Nikkor 70 - 200 f2.8 VRII I use extensively. Have a 1.7 TC as well.

I'm in a real quandary where to go next......200 - 400 f4 or a 300 f2.8 prime? Also eventually may go for a 400 f2.8 as well.

I hear the arguments for the primes but I love the versatility of the zoom I have.

My daughter has 2 years of softball left and I want to capture home plate from the outfield.

Of course I'd like all 3 lenses but that's extravagance and I want a newer car next year.

Which way would you go or which would you buy 1st and 2nd?

Rugby, Soccer, Softball, Baseball, and Ice hockey is what I want to shoot for the most part.

Oh....D3s is my camera.

Thanks in advance.

R.



Nov 22, 2011 at 03:43 AM
Elan II
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #2 · Which way to go? Primes or Zoom


Such a simple question, I'm not sure why it wasn't answered already.

I'm not a sports shooter, so consider this an outside opinion. I would keep the 70-200 and get the 300 to go with it for its bright aperture and amazing focus speed. One 1.4x TC could be shared by both, but I really think you need some sort of a second body so both are ready to fire when the right shot comes.

I have a friend who shoots high school sports and he makes good money with this combo.






Nov 24, 2011 at 05:53 PM
Chris Langer
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #3 · Which way to go? Primes or Zoom


I would consider the 200 f/2. You could put a 2x converter on it and make it a 400 f/4. Or take it off and have a really nice 200 f/2. I think that's the most viable option to switch things up all the time. If I had the money, I would buy one right now. Maybe next year!


Nov 25, 2011 at 12:55 AM
 

Search in Used Dept. 



EltonTeng
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #4 · Which way to go? Primes or Zoom


The answer lies whether you need f2.8 all the time and unpredictably (get the primes), or you can get away with f4 predictably (get the 200-400/4).


Nov 25, 2011 at 12:56 AM
elkhornsun
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #5 · Which way to go? Primes or Zoom


Consider renting a lens or two before buying one. You will quickly learn whether it is a good choice for you. For sports you do not need VR so an older used non-VR telephoto would make a good buy.

Appreciate the weight difference between your 70-200mm as compared to a 400mm f2.8 or 500mm f4 for extended use and moving around. Pro shooters with a monopod are usually not allowed to move much so it is not a concern.

For general wildlife shooting most photographers favor the 500mm f4 as it provides excellent reach but can be used without a tripod. For sports a lens to consider is the 200-400mm f4 lens and VR I or VR II is not really going to make a difference in your pictures.



Dec 03, 2011 at 02:11 AM
kawasakiguy37
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #6 · Which way to go? Primes or Zoom


300 4.0 isnt bad either, and quite light.

Although if you are shooting sports and rely on AF, your going to want AFS.

Really this just depends on your budget. You already have a very nice setup, so if you do get another lens I would just go for the longest prime you can afford (400 2.8 certainly will not dissapoint!)

I have personally used the 300 2.8 AF-D though and the image quality is OUTSTANDING



Dec 03, 2011 at 03:28 AM





FM Forums | Nikon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

    
 

You are not logged in. Login or Register

Username   Password    Retrive password