Grant most look good a couple look hot in spots. But man you must have some decent lite in that place.
I went from Canon to Nikon a year ago. And let me tell you there is very little I miss about canon, besides the 135F2 lens. I loved that thing. But since I just picked up a 200MM F2 I'm trying to make that a thing of the past too.
I might suggest to you picking up a D3 instead of the D700. I have found the AF to be way more accurate and zippy on my D3 and D3s then it ever was on my D700.
Matt OHarver wrote:
Grant most look good a couple look hot in spots. But man you must have some decent lite in that place.
I went from Canon to Nikon a year ago. And let me tell you there is very little I miss about canon, besides the 135F2 lens. I loved that thing. But since I just picked up a 200MM F2 I'm trying to make that a thing of the past too.
I might suggest to you picking up a D3 instead of the D700. I have found the AF to be way more accurate and zippy on my D3 and D3s then it ever was on my D700.
The lighting doesn't look too bad for a high school hockey game. For ice hockey I shot at least 1/1000 , some of your photos had some blur. Shooting sports is about action and reaction, hits and goals are great but a great celebration is what you always need. The 200 2.8 looks like some beautiful piece of glass. They don't look that bad if you don't shoot hockey often. I shoot a lot of college hockey in Boston and shooting fast pace sports will only make you a better photographer.
