You can crop a well-exposed D2h image pretty radically and still have plenty of resolution. Here's an original and my final crop, which I printed at 13x19. It looks great!
Nikkor 200/2.0 looks like a pretty nice chunk of glass. I just now had a look at the price at B&H - erp! - I paid just a little more for my "Twex" a couple months ago.
I know it's irrational, but I can justify that kind of money for a body more easily than for a lens. The lens should outlast several generations of digital bodies, after all.
Having said that, I find 200mm pretty short for football... I bought a Nikkor 300 f/2.8 AF-S II earlier this year, works great with a 1.4 TC to give me a fast 420mm. I then use the Sigma 120-300 f/2.8 on another body.
I went the glass glass glass route and I am estatic I went that path. Sure my 2 D70 bodies are a bit slow for sports and flying wildlife, but I am getting some great shots with the lenses. Just my thoughts.
Well, I would not be buying the 200VR for just football. The 200VR would be very nice for night games under crappy lights when you need high frame counts. I like to avoide flash unless I need it for affect. The 200VR seems to me to be a very unique animal that has more to offer than just VR. Im still shpping so who knows. I may go the 300VR way. I just want versatility and the 200VR has that with a TC in the bag. The big question is will I want to keep my 70-200
Mike nice crop, I have not cropped my shots with my D2H but that looks great.
Maybe i will hold off on the D2X. Well considering I bought 4 lenses this year, I better cool my heels, and start taking some pictures
Christopher Dayan
Christian, bodies come and go, and they depreciate like crazy. Why don't you rent a D2X for the weekend. Heck of a way to test it out for minimal investment.
I would go for the glass, it is so great when you can get the shot you want, because you have the right lens. Christopher Dayan
I am not sure I am really qualified to answer your dilemma. I shoot my grandson and his team a lot during their seasons. I prefer my D2h to the D2x. The reason is that I rarely ever crop those shots, also the fact that I take a lot of action and may get only a few of each sequence that really tell the story of a play. If I were using the D2x I simply would have to limit the amount of shots due to the size of memory required and how quickly I can view and edit the amount of pictures taken. I just came back from a NASACAR race where I used both cameras. Except for the portraits of the drivers my H would have been more than enough, while my lens selection was more important than the camera used. I think deep down in your heart you want the 200 f/2 and that is where I would spend my money. As has been mentioned, glass is always a better investment.
Man, this really helps guys. Im thinking I can push my 300f4 for a while for day shooting which it requires more light anyway. With the TC I have a very nice working lens for wild life. I mostly want the D2X for portrait, fine art and landscape. For now Im having fun making money and the D2 X will come in time. I could still get the D2X and use my D2H but then I would need to wait on the 200VR or faster 300. Im still twisted about it all and only have a hard time paying 4g's for a lens. I really know nothing about the 200VR but if it is close to the 70-200VR and is faster I may be right on with my desire to have it. My D2H twins are my working buddies and I may just keep them together for even longer. They get the job done! It might be good that the one I have up for sale did not sell
