Action photography low light is it time for an upgrade

Opie

Opie

Messages
19
Name
Rosalyn
Edit My Images
Yes
Hi all have had my Nikon D200 and 70-300 F/4.5 VR lens for three years and have been very satisfied with the quality and sharpness of action photographs when the lighting is optimal, and with stills and portraits with poorer lighting . However I am disatisfied with the quality of image of my action shots when the skies are dull, overcast and grey and getting tired of always having to wait for bright days to do my photoshoots. :(

So the questions I want to ask, are, would investing in one or two new lenses improve on the sharpness of my action shots in poor lighting with my existing camera, or should I upgrade the body and keep my exisiting lens or should I invest in the D7000 plus exisiting lens or invest in the D7000 and the new lenses?

The two lenses I was thinking of are the:

AF-S NIKKOR 28-300mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR

and the

AF-S NIKKOR 70-200mm f/2.8G ED VR II (2.9x)

The less spent the better ;) TIA :)
 
Get the D7000 and the 70-200mm vrII and be done with it. It will save you in the long run and give you results that you would previously think not possible. (y)
I've got both lenses you are thinking of. Do you realise that the 28-300mm is an FX lens? Unless you mean the D700!! Then that would be even better!

Kev.
 
Last edited:
I use the the 70 -200 f2.8 Vr Lens with my D200 for some great low light shots, but even better with my D700.
 
I had a similar problem a while back. Just remember the VR helps for things that aren't moving but is not a great help for things that are.

I ended up swapping the D200 for a D90 (Less of a camera but better iso) and combining that with an oldish Nikon 80-200 F2.8. Can shoot up to iso 1600 on the D90. That combined with the F2.8 is proving to be a whole new ball park. :)
 
an f4.5 lens in poor light isn't going to be much use with any camera to be honest
 
KIPAX said:
an f4.5 lens in poor light isn't going to be much use with any camera to be honest
Click to expand...

that was my first thought as well :|
 
kevshore said:
Get the D7000 and the 70-200mm vrII and be done with it. It will save you in the long run and give you results that you would previously think not possible. (y)
I've got both lenses you are thinking of. Do you realise that the 28-300mm is an FX lens? Unless you mean the D700!! Then that would be even better!

Kev.
Click to expand...

no wasnt aware that is was an FX lens and don't know what the difference is either :shrug: do please explain.. I didint choose what I have a good freind set me up with what she thought was best at the time but now I'm having to make my own decisions and my brains frazzled taking in all the info reviews opinions... :bonk:

Thanks Kipax that's kind of what I thought.. so it might be worth while starting with the 70 -200 f2.8 Vr to see how I get on then upgrade the body if it's still not enough.

craiginuk
Just remember the VR helps for things that aren't moving but is not a great help for things that are.
Click to expand...

why is that? am a total novice at the techno side of things and looking forwards to learning more with everyone's help :)
 
VR allows hand holding a lens at slower shutter speeds than would otherwise be possible - it does not compensate for subject movement.
 
Irrespective of the body manufacturer, 70-200/2.8 lenses are the thing to have for low light action photography. Mine (Sony, since my camera is) is my most used lens by a factor of loads.

edit - shoudl say, if the focal length is appropriate for your needs of course.
 
Fx is full frame and DX is cropped sensor on a Nikon.

I tried the 28-300mm on a D7000 at Nikon's Pro Seminar on Wednesday and shooting in the hotel I wondered what was wrong with it at first. Stuck it on manual, tried to dial in my "usual" settings and it would not do it! Hang on a mo.......what is going on here.....Oh it's a 28-300 and at this length it's f5.6 max aperture. No wonder I can't get it to behave!

The D7000 is a great little beast but it still needs good glass in front of it, as do all cameras. The 28-300mm was a serious mistake TBH, it would have been much better to show it off with an f2.8 of some sort (24-70 would have excelled)
 
get the 70-200, you need the aperture for AF and hell just to get usable shutter speeds

also super zooms are ghey
 
ok so the general consensus is to invest in the 70-200/2.8 lens and would everyone agree that the 70-300 4-5 VR is as good as I am going to get for the longer distance shots and hope for good light?

still not sure what the difference between DX and FX is :shrug:

and can you explain why the D700 would be preferable over the D7000 sorry for all the questions... I'm blonde :help:
 
The 70-300mm and the 70-200mm f/2.8 are not in the same class!
 
awp said:
The 70-300mm and the 70-200mm f/2.8 are not in the same class!
Click to expand...

no I doubt they are but am I right in thinking that there isn't anything available for a longer range?
 
Opie said:
no I doubt they are but am I right in thinking that there isn't anything available for a longer range?
Click to expand...

Do Nikon do a 300/4? (or a 300/2.8, although that would be a lot more expensive)
 
onomatopoeia said:
Do Nikon do a 300/4? (or a 300/2.8, although that would be a lot more expensive)
Click to expand...

yes they do both - check the link above! Nothing to stop you using an FX lens on a DX body - doesn't work the other way round.
 
Well I've just got back from a night game with my D300s and an 80-200 f2.8

ISO 6400 and 1/320th Shutter speed.... dreading seeing the results


Was one guy shooting with a canon and an L f4... dread to think what he was getting
 
awp said:
yes they do both - check the link above! Nothing to stop you using an FX lens on a DX body - doesn't work the other way round.
Click to expand...

right got ya, so if I went with the 7000 I would loose the use of my two DX lenses? so would be better to go with the d700 or d300s?
 
neil_1980 said:
Well I've just got back from a night game with my D300s and an 80-200 f2.8

ISO 6400 and 1/320th Shutter speed.... dreading seeing the results


Was one guy shooting with a canon and an L f4... dread to think what he was getting
Click to expand...

feel your pain.. if theres an indoor evening event I don't even bother getting my camera out with my 70-300 f4.5

good luck :D
 
Opie said:
right got ya, so if I went with the 7000 I would loose the use of my two DX lenses? so would be better to go with the d700 or d300s?
Click to expand...

Think you got that the wrong way around - D7000, D300, etc, are DX (crop sensor) - D700 is FX (full frame). You can't use DX lenses on FX, but you can use FX lenses on DX.

Personally I don't think you need a full frame body (a la D700) - I'd also say go for a D300 or D300s.
 
Last edited:
OK.. forget anything with a max aperture that isn't F2.8, you need that big aperture in low light, so the 28-300 is out as is the 70-300, neither will do what you need in low light.

You can get larger lenses but they are expensive, nikon do a 300mm F2.8 and a 400mm F2.8.

Most people use the 70-200 F2.8 and if they need extra reach use a 1.4X teleconvertor, this makes the lens a 280mm F4.

Camera wise you have a choice between two sensor sizes, the FX or full frame sensor, in this the sensor is the same size as a frame of 35mm film, or DX, other wise known as a crop sensor, this is around 2/3rds the size of the DX sensor.

The more surface area a sensor has the more light it can collect, so a camera with an FX or full frame sensor works better in low light.
The smaller sensor ads apparent magnification as it see's a smaller image, so its like the camera is pre zoomed by a factor of 1.5x, ie if you had both the D7000 and the D700 with the same lens on each and aimed at a person, looking through the D7000 the person would appear to be 1.5X closer than when looking through the D700.

So you have to decide between the better low light performance of the D700 or the help the smaller sensor on the D7000 gives in making things appear closer.

Which ever you choose partnering it with an F2.8 lens is the sensible choice.
 
ok thanks so much for everyones help.

So I really really need this lens no matter what route I go down in the future?

Nikon 70-200mm AF-S Nikkor f2.8G ED VR II Lens
 
If you're using a D200/D300 you could get away with the 80-200 f2.8. Doesn't have VR and you lose 10mm on the wide end but is just as fast and a whole lot cheaper.

Though if you go for 2nd hand make sure its a newer one as apparently the older ones are really slow to AF
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top