Need lens for indoor Volleyball

[ProfJohn]

Am going to start taking pics of my nieces volleyball games and I need a high quality lens.

From what I am reading a typical 70-300mm zoom is not going to be fast enough.

So I am looking at a professional quality 80-200mm zoom from Nikon.


The question is: do I need the VR for an extra $600 or will the $1000 80-200 2.8 be fast enough for a school gym?

I could also go with the Sigma 70-200 2.8 for $799
or
the Tamron version for $729

Suggestions?

 

[whoiswes]

I'm not an expert, but here's my understanding of how VR would fit into your situation.

VR won't help you stop motion - in other words, it doesn't make the lens any faster, it simply reduces the effect of hand shake while taking the shot, in effect allowing you to shoot with a slower shutter than you would otherwise. If you want to be able get shots of the girls as they're spiking or blocking or whatnot, you'll need to shoot at a faster shutter speed, which means a larger aperture to let in more light.

VR, simply put, won't stop motion...so if that's what you're after, go for faster glass or a body that can shoot (cleanly) at a higher ISO.

experts, feel free to correct me if I have misspoken on any statement above.

 

[ProfJohn]

Good point... didn't think about that aspect.

If I use a monopod then the VR isn't going to make much difference.

 

[fuzzybabybunny]

Pretty much. VR helps only to correct motion blur caused by YOU. Having a wide aperture and a camera that can do high ISO with less noise will help you combat motion blur of the SUBJECT.

I would go for the f/2.8 without the VR, unless you feel like you'll need VR in the future for handholding and stuff.

 

[twistedlogic]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
The question is: do I need the VR for an extra $600 or will the $1000 80-200 2.8 be fast enough for a school gym?

Suggestions?

The Nikon 80-200 F/2.8 AF-S would work great, but is alittle heavier than the other two. The Sigma would do alright if you could find one without any focusing issues. The Tamron is said to be as sharp as the Nikon, but the focusing motor is too slow for sports.

Also, there are now two versions of the 70-200, with the newer version addressing the issue of vignetting on FX cameras. I assume your shooting DX?

 

[ProfJohn]

Yea, I am on a d70s now but am upgrading to a d90 soon.

The price of the FX cameras is way to high to be worth the move.

 

[xchangx]

You may want to check out the 85 1.8 or 1.4 prime lens or something a little longer. Not sure how your gyms are, but most highschool gyms have terrible lighting and you may need a faster lens.

 

[shocksyde]

I'd go for a prime faster than 2.8. I don't know Nikon lenses, but Canon's 85 1.8, 100 2 or 135 2 would probably do the trick. How far away are you from the action?

 

[randay]

Originally posted by: shocksyde
I'd go for a prime faster than 2.8. I don't know Nikon lenses, but Canon's 85 1.8, 100 2 or 135 2 would probably do the trick. How far away are you from the action?

Me too, I would go for something 2.0 or faster. 2.8 will work but not as well.

 

[ZetaEpyon]

Isn't the Nikkor 80-200mm f/2.8 an AF-D lens, not AF-S? Thus, doesn't have the ultrasonic focusing motor? (in addition to no VR)

I'm not sure how much slower it actually is, but it might be a consideration for indoor sports usage.

 

[twistedlogic]

Originally posted by: ZetaEpyon
Isn't the Nikkor 80-200mm f/2.8 an AF-D lens, not AF-S? Thus, doesn't have the ultrasonic focusing motor? (in addition to no VR)

There are many versions of the xx-200 f/2.8
Some I can think of

1. (1988) 80-200 2.8 ED MK I (push-pull version zoom)
2. (1992) 80-200 2.8D ED MK II
3. (1996) 80-200 2.8D ED MK III (Two ring version)
4. (1998) 80-200 2.8D IF-ED AF-S (two ring with silent wave motor)

Then of course the VR versions of 70-200
5. Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8G IF-ED AF-S VR MK I
6. Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8G IF-ED AF-S VRII MK II

 

[ZetaEpyon]

Yeah, after some more reading, it seems like only the newer ED version is still currently made (AF-S version replaced by the 70-200 VR), but it's very fast at focusing anyway.

So perhaps it's a non-issue after all.

 

[xchangx]

Originally posted by: ZetaEpyon
Yeah, after some more reading, it seems like only the newer ED version is still currently made (AF-S version replaced by the 70-200 VR), but it's very fast at focusing anyway.

So perhaps it's a non-issue after all.

Yeah, plus it's not like football when the player is running toward you at full speed, so it should be fine.

 

[ElFenix]

i'd go with a 50/1.8, 85/1.8 and maybe a 105/2. i'm not sure how slow nikon body AF is, but it can't possibly be that slow, can it? especially with those lightweight lenses?

 

[twistedlogic]

I think the AF speed of a screw-driven lens depends on how beefy the motor is in the body, which the OP has never mentioned.

I've read the older 80-200 AF-D is ~80% as fast as AF-S. But the new 50 1.4 AF-S is actually slower than the old 50 1.4D. The real advantage of AF-S is its ability to lock and track moving objects, ideal for kids and sports.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: twistedlogic
I think the AF speed of a screw-driven lens depends on how beefy the motor is in the body, which the OP has never mentioned.

I've read the older 80-200 AF-D is ~80% as fast as AF-S. But the new 50 1.4 AF-S is actually slower than the old 50 1.4D. The real advantage of AF-S is its ability to lock and track moving objects, ideal for kids and sports.

he said he's got a D70s and is thinking about a D90 soon

 

[ProfJohn]

I have a 50mm 1.8 already.

I think I will take it to a game to test its speed and then use my cheapo 70-300 to test distance and then look at whether I need a fast prime our can go with the 70-200 2.8.

The zoom would make more sense since I can use it for her soccer games as well. A prime is going to limit me a little.

BTW most of the soccer pics I take now are in the 170-200 range so maybe the 185? prime can do double duty.
Thanks for all the advice.

 

[soydios]

If you want to do sports right, get the 80-200mm f/2.8 lens. You depth of field is going to be so small as to be unworkable at apertures larger than f/2.8, IMO. A simple tip for sports: get a tight zoom on faces and balls. AF-S is required for fast sports, particularly in small arenas like gymnasiums.

 

[xchangx]

Originally posted by: soydios
If you want to do sports right, get the 80-200mm f/2.8 lens. You depth of field is going to be so small as to be unworkable at apertures larger than f/2.8, IMO. A simple tip for sports: get a tight zoom on faces and balls. AF-S is required for fast sports, particularly in small arenas like gymnasiums.

It depends on how close he is to the player and I'm guessing he won't be too close. There's a price you have to pay; motion blur and a lot of noise due to underexposing,low shutterspeed and high ISO, or a little bit narrower DOF, better noise and better exposed picture