Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digital SLR and Interchangeable Lens Cameras > Nikon Lenses

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Mar 3, 2008, 5:58 PM   #1
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 22
Default

I have a D50 and like taking sports photos (mostly baseball and ice hockey). I have been snooping around on eBay and there are a number of 80-200mm lenes available. My current budget will only allow for about $600. I have noticed that the non-D lenses are about $100-150 cheaper than the D lenses. Since most of my photos will be without flash, will the non-D lense be ok? Is there a difference between the D and non-D lenses other than the push-pull zoom?

Thanks,
Mark
wall33 is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Mar 3, 2008, 6:19 PM   #2
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 22
Default

As a follow up, I just found an 80-200mm f2.8 Lens AF AT-X Tokina on eBay for $430. I have looked around, and found a few reviews that say this is a good lense. Has anyone tried it? Would you recommend it over a Nikkor 80-200? The eBay listing does not say how old this lense is, but I did notice the SD marking on the lense if that makes a difference.

Thanks,
Mark
wall33 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 3, 2008, 7:51 PM   #3
NHL
Senior Member
 
NHL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 39.18776, -77.311353333333
Posts: 11,547
Default

For sport or any action IMO you'll need AF-S or HSM (i.e. ultrasonic lenses)
IMO the Nikkor 80-200 f/2.8 is a wrong lens to compare against...

-> The lenses will be too slow in AF to capture actions (especially in low-light)!
http://forums.steves-digicams.com/fo...mp;forum_id=66
NHL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 3, 2008, 9:09 PM   #4
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 22
Default

NHL wrote:
Quote:
For sport or any action IMO you'll need AF-S or HSM (i.e. ultrasonic lenses)
IMO the Nikkor 80-200 f/2.8 is a wrong lens to compare against...

-> The lenses will be too slow in AF to capture actions (especially in low-light)!
http://forums.steves-digicams.com/fo...mp;forum_id=66
So, disregard the Tokina then... So, if I'm on a budget, would a new Sigma be better than a used Nikkor AF-S? They will probably both be close in price.
wall33 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 3, 2008, 10:15 PM   #5
NHL
Senior Member
 
NHL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 39.18776, -77.311353333333
Posts: 11,547
Default

If you find a used AF-S 70-200 f/2.8 close in price to a Sigma... Everyone here would like to hear about it (including me)! :-)
NHL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 4, 2008, 3:04 PM   #6
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 22
Default

How do I distinguish an AF-S version? There are a number of lenses on eBay right now, but I have only seen one that says its an AF-S lens.

Thanks,
Mark
wall33 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 4, 2008, 3:20 PM   #7
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 2,974
Default

You will only be able to distinguish it due to truth in advertising of what kind of lens it is. AF S or AF D. The Nikon AF S 80-200mm 2.8is not in production since 2004 and was selling new for over $1400. The 70-200 VR 2.8 pretty much replaced the 80-200mm 2.8 AF S model. Possibly one of the sharpest zooms made by Nikon and very fast for the type of shooting you are interested in.

Sports shooting with budget lenses will not yield a high ratio of quality shots.
vIZnquest is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 4, 2008, 3:25 PM   #8
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 22
Default

vIZnquest wrote:
Quote:
You will only be able to distinguish it due to truth in advertising of what kind of lens it is. AF S or AF D. The Nikon AF S 80-200mm 2.8is not in production since 2004 and was selling new for over $1400. The 70-200 VR 2.8 pretty much replaced the 80-200mm 2.8 AF S model. Possibly one of the sharpest zooms made by Nikon and very fast for the type of shooting you are interested in.

Sports shooting with budget lenses will not yield a high ratio of quality shots.
Yes, I have already found that out. I purchased a 50mm f/1.8 last week, and took it to the hockey rink. I was able to get access to the players bench, and as such was much closer to the ice and the players. I did get some very good shots with that lens!

I have since found two AF-S lenses on eBay. One is under $400 and the other just over $500. Hopefully they stay cheap. If not, then I will look at the Sigma lens.

Has anyone used both the AF-S and the Sigma lens? Any comments on the two different lenses?

Thanks!
wall33 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 4, 2008, 5:18 PM   #9
Senior Member
 
bluesman graham's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 894
Default

Hi, I have used both versions of the lens you are wanting and believe me the Sigma lens is well capable of holding it's own!!. Only in thelowest light does the Sigma fall down in "hunting" for focus.

here's s shot taken with the Sigma on a short burst comming straight at me!, no focusing speed let downs here!



Kind regards Graham.


bluesman graham is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 4, 2008, 5:40 PM   #10
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 22
Default

Nice shot bluseman! About how far away where you when you took that shot?

Has anyone tried the Sigma 50-150mm f/2.8? Just curious as I ran accross it during me research of the Sigma 70-200.

Thanks!
wall33 is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:16 AM.