D90 Tele Zoom or swap to Canon?

R

Roxy John

Suspended / Banned
Messages
10
Edit My Images
No
Hi all, I would be most grateful of some advice on a lens upgrade. I love my D90 and am looking to upgrade my 55-200 f4-5.6 to use for my local football team pics. I have scoured this site and internet reviews, but it seems as if the favourite would be the 70-300VR, but even this doesn't seem too well suited according to reviews, which do not rate performance at the upper zoom range. I want something that has quick focus and is good & sharp at max zoom.

My budget is up to £750ish for the right lens, but it would have to be a pearler!

Is there anything out there or do I need to sell up and move across to Canon?

Any comments most welcome.
 
Welcome to the forum.

If you like your d90 then there is no need to change. Your best bet IMHO is a 70 or 80-200mm f2.8 zoom, and you may have 3 options to start with.

First would be a used nikon 70-200mm f2.8 version 1. This will push your budget to the max, but if you search hard enough you may drop lucky. Cracking lens.

Second up would be an older Nikon 80-200mm f2.8. Very sharp, but look for the af-s version rather than the af-d, due to the better focussing speed.

Thirdly, a sigma 70-200 f 2.8 is well within budget, numerous versions, but i believe the latest OS version is excellent. Plenty of people like the HSM versions as well.

There are other options as well, but one of the above would be a very good stating point.

Hope that helps a bit

Mike
 
Mike, many thanks for your suggestions, which I have already started to look into - I don't mind pushing the budget boundaries if it means gaining some corking glass. My immediate thought is that I was really after a 300mm max zoom, but I suppose the greater quality of the 70-200 f2.8 would afford the ability to crop tighter anyway in PP.

Does anyone have comments on the ability of the 70-200 f2.8 to perform?

Thanks very much
 
When it comes to football you can get a lot of shots with 200mm.

Remember, with the crop factor you're shooting with the equivalent of a 300mm lens, which is plenty for football as long as you're patient enough to wait for the action to come within range.
 
I have used the sigma 70-200 2.8 non os with a d90 on several occasions for football rugby and even some motorsport. Af is pretty quick I find mine very good at 2.8 in the right light conditions. I would recommend one. With your budget I think you could find a nice one with os if you look in all the right places.
 
Roxy John said:
Does anyone have comments on the ability of the 70-200 f2.8 to perform?

Thanks very much
Click to expand...

Basically it is one of Nikon's finest, that and the mark 2, both are tack sharp and fast to focus, if you want something similar in 300mm you will be going way above your budget. What are you looking to use it for ? as i have had the 70-300mm vr and i think it's a great lens, i wish i had never sold it. Not used it myself but i have heard varying reviews about the Sigma 70-200mm and sometimes Sigma do tend to have problems with QC.
 
The other day I had the "pleasure" of playing with a Sigma 120-400 on my D300s... wow!

From what I could see, sharp everywhere and focus was very fast. Beautiful build - and heavy!


The shop asked ~£750
scratch2.gif
 
Many thanks for your replies - I am now on the hunt for a Nikon 70-200 f2.8 and am extremely grateful for your input. Very much looking forward to the search and can't wait to give it a go!
 
Could I trouble you for a little further advice...?! Have now been looking at lenses and it appears that second hand we are looking at £1000ish and new £1400ish. I am prepared to buy new if necessary, (blowing my earlier guide budget, but having read comments on here and other reviews, I think it will be worth it!) but would you guys risk a 2nd hand buy at £1000?
 
Roxy John said:
Could I trouble you for a little further advice...?! Have now been looking at lenses and it appears that second hand we are looking at £1000ish and new £1400ish. I am prepared to buy new if necessary, (blowing my earlier guide budget, but having read comments on here and other reviews, I think it will be worth it!) but would you guys risk a 2nd hand buy at £1000?
Click to expand...

I bought a 70-200 vr1 from this forum and its one of the best purchases I've made. I'm finding I'm using it more and more now and its fantastic too. I think buying used depends on whether you feel the risks are worth it. At the price I bought mine used for I couldn't justify the extra for either new or used vr2. Many second hand stores do warranties so that is also a possible way to reduce the risks if you do decide to go used. Buying new has the advantage of nikon warranty plus you are the first owner, if its a lens you going to keep for many years then buying new may be cost effective.
 
Roxy John said:
Could I trouble you for a little further advice...?! Have now been looking at lenses and it appears that second hand we are looking at £1000ish and new £1400ish. I am prepared to buy new if necessary, (blowing my earlier guide budget, but having read comments on here and other reviews, I think it will be worth it!) but would you guys risk a 2nd hand buy at £1000?
Click to expand...

I know its another lump of cash to find but I'd probably go for the new if I could find a way to afford it, that warranty and being the first owner gives a lot of peace of mind.
If however there was no way I could afford the new one then I'd go secondhand and make sure I had it covered on insurance.

The final option would be to go for the Nikon 70-200 ED VR F4, a cracking, sharp lens even wide open but you lose a stop of light over the F2.8 and gain a lot lighter lens. It can be picked up for under £1000 new.
 
Last edited:
I'm resurrecting this again....! I was all set to place an order for a 70-200 f2.8 VRII, but suddenly the 70-200 VR f4 seems a whole bundle more attractive! I could still be swayed towards the 2.8, but my thinking now is that another £500 or so for one stop of light is a hell of a lot to pay, particularly when the 2.8 is considerably heavier. It's mainly going to be used for football, some motorsport and candid family pics. Can I trouble anyone for thoughts to sway me either way...??!!
 
Roxy John said:
I'm resurrecting this again....! I was all set to place an order for a 70-200 f2.8 VRII, but suddenly the 70-200 VR f4 seems a whole bundle more attractive! I could still be swayed towards the 2.8, but my thinking now is that another £500 or so for one stop of light is a hell of a lot to pay, particularly when the 2.8 is considerably heavier. It's mainly going to be used for football, some motorsport and candid family pics. Can I trouble anyone for thoughts to sway me either way...??!!
Click to expand...

Tough call. £500 is a lot of money. The big thing in favour of the 2.8 for your usage is being able to achieve higher shutter speeds in like for like conditions vs. an f/4 lens. For sports this can be a huge benefit particularly in poor light. Oddly for motorsport it's not always as important as if you're panning at lower shutter speeds you may find you're having to stop the aperture down a fair bit to get the shutter speed down. I've shot panning shots at f/16 before.

But on the flip side, if you want a sharp shot of racing car heading towards you at high speed you may need a shutter speed of 1/2000 or faster. In good light that's easily achievable at f/4 especially if you're prepared to bump the iso up a little. In fading or poor light, it's a whole different ball game and you'll be grateful for every scrap of aperture available.

For the family stuff, or pretty much anything where your shutter speeds are down below 1/500, the f/4 would be excellent, particularly with it's highly regarded VR system.
 
Roxy John said:
I could still be swayed towards the 2.8, but my thinking now is that another £500 or so for one stop of light is a hell of a lot to pay....
Click to expand...
Don't forget it's not just one stop of light. It's also the ability to shoot with a shallower depth of field. That could be handy for sports photos, because backgrounds are often very busy and being able to isolate the subject is important.
 
Forget anything else but f/2.8 lenses because as soon as this heatwave goes and darker nights start creeping in you'll seriously regret not getting an f/2.8 lens

Buy once, buy right.
 
StewartR said:
Don't forget it's not just one stop of light. It's also the ability to shoot with a shallower depth of field. That could be handy for sports photos, because backgrounds are often very busy and being able to isolate the subject is important.
Click to expand...

The native iso of a D90 is 200 as opposed to 100 on many cameras which makes up for the one stop of light, DOF at 100ft 8 ish feet for f2.8 and 12 ish for f4, is that difference worth £500 to you
 
Ive got a D90 and using a 70-200 2.8VRII and i love it, use it several times a week
Click to expand...
- cracking shots there Starkey, but I'm just weighing up whether those pics would look identical if you had shot them through a 70-200 f4...? Clearly, the f2.8 has low light advantages, but are they worth the extra weight and (significant) cost? I really am erring towards the f4 now, even though my heart still says f2.8...!! God this is doing my head in now!!
 
Roxy John said:
...I'm just weighing up whether those pics would look identical if you had shot them through a 70-200 f4...?
Click to expand...
No, they would be sharper! :D

Top shot is at f4 and second f5.6, so 2.8 doesn't matter here.

Choice wise, you can't really go wrong. Whichever lens, you choose, is a legend.


Happy shooting! :thumbs:
 
Choice wise, you can't really go wrong. Whichever lens, you choose, is a legend.
Click to expand...
Thanks Jan - I have now placed an order for a 2.8...! Final thinking was that if I went for the f4, I would always be wishing I'd gone for the 2.8. Can't wait for it to arrive now and get it nailed to the front of the D90. Thank you all for your comments!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top