Here is the full frame of the above...

And, these cars are moving all over the place, so in a way it is like shooting a sports event where the direction of travel of the subject is not always known. I think for the price of USD $3000, the TC and 70-200 works very well.

OK, here is a crop from the 70-200mm f/2.8 VRII with the TC-20EIII. This is about 15% of the entire FX image. And it is shot at 1/400 sec, f/5.6 (wide open) with -0.7 ev. ISO 12,800.

The car was moving over 100mph and is about 600 feet from the camera.....

IMO, even with the 400mm f/2.8, at this distance one would not see a great difference, the only big factor is the sharpness would be higher as a result of lower ISO shooting at f/2.8 or using the TC-20EIII on the 400 would bring it up closer.

Thanks all for replying.

After giving it much thought I don't think a TC would cut it with D800/soccer, lacrosse use because of multiple player density in a relatively small area (as opposed to a big car moving in almost predefined path with no arms, legs, goalnet, and sticks); unless I use manual focus, which I don't 80% of the time.

As suggested by many, I am leaning towards a fast fixed lense, but don't need to upgrade till spring next year.

In the meantime am hoping for nikon to upgrade their 80-400 or 300f4, in which case I will buy either one (most likely 300) and keep the 80-200 for indoors/night use.

El_Pickerel suggested a non vr used 300/2.8, this will work very well; but they (AF-S D versions) are still 3k, to afford that I may have to sell 80-200 (probably get ~$650 to $500) and be left without an indoor/night time lense. I have the 85/1.8g but that doesn't serve the purpose all the times.

Maybe my financial situation would change, and I can buy 300 vr, still have 5 months to save.

I wish I'd hung on a bit longer for a 300/2.8 (I'd really prefer a 400 if I had a choice). A mint used one (400) was offered to me a few weeks ago and I didn't have the cash available so I started to sell off all of my Pentax gear but someone bought it the day I called to buy.. The 300/4 is a nice lens but doesn't grab my imagination for some reason. I really like the 14E II though.. I'd never use a 2x on these lenses.. I did buy one but couldn't return it quick enough when it turned my 70-200 VR2 to mush.

Nikoner said:
Advise wanted on D800+fast tele+tc

1) I wonder how a 70-200 vr2 with a teleconverter fare for soccer?

this is not a good combination with the D800. The 70 -200 is a fabulous lens, the D800 a brilliant high resolution camera

The x 2 converter will magnify any defects in the 70-200
and with a D800 those defects will show
You will not be much better off than simply cropping
The answer is one of the expensive super teles
300 f 2.8 + 1.4 converter
200 -400 f4
400 f 2.8 + 1.4; 1.7 and x2 converters

http://nikonrumors.com/forum/topic.php?id=8053

Yes they are expensive, and sorry, if you want high, IQ you are going to pay for it

@ PaulR

Information has it that Leica built a one-off APO-Telyt-R 1:5.6/1600mm lens and it cost $2,064,500.

To see the photo http://nikonrumors.com/forum/topic.php?id=8053&page=3

I moved up to the Mk 111 converter quite a while ago.I now use it with a 300 2.8 =600 and a V1 2.7 crop factor = 1620. Needless to say this cannot be hand held but I shudder to think if Nikon made a lens this big what would it cost
When used with the V1 video mode , I am amazed at the quality, Ok I don't use this converter everyday but I would not be without it

@ bossa

No argument about the D800 having greater resolution characteristics....

So, if one wants good resolution, 300mm f/2.8, 400mm f/2.8, 500mm f/4 are the lenses of choice, used as suggested by El_Pickerel. And, the question for me is aways just how large does one want to go in the final print? I tend to be very pragmatic about all this.

For the money, I am still of the opinion the teleconverter is the best option.

msmoto said:
I have shot hundreds of race cars, some at high shutter speeds, some at slower shutter speeds. And, with the D90 and with the D4, I have no complaints with the 70-200mm f/2.8 VRII with either the TC-20EIII or TC-14EII. I wonder if the lens/
TC, camera body needs to be fine turned in cases where there is a problem. Now, shooting wide open with the TC...this may be where problems show up. I have not tested this out, but will be doing this in about three days shooting the World of Outlaws at Charlotte, north Carolina at night . I will use the 70-200 with TC 20EIII and try to remember to shoot some wide open.
But, the alternative to a 70-200 with teleconverter is a 200-400mm f/4.0 for nearly $7,000......or a couple of non-pro zooms to 300mm

Of course the 300mm f/2.8 with a TC-14EII would be a nice lens.

With due respect the OP is asking about use with a D800 and I doubt a D90 or D4 qualifies as an answer in this regard. The D800 will show up every fault in the optics if you zoom in to 100%. And why wouldn't you? You may as well buy a D4 or D90 if all you wanted was Lo-res. ;-P

Nikoner said:
Advise wanted on D800+fast tele+tc

I shoot sports indoors, outdoors, and at night under the lights.
Use a D800 as primary and D90 as backup.

I had bought the 80-200 2.8D as a stopgap measure till I can afford the 70-200 vr2, indoors I can get by with it, but for outdoors sports like soccer/lacrosse/baseball the tele end is limiting.

If you are shooting sports, I imagine the VR is not the greatest concern for you as you are stopping motion anyways. Maybe you can look at older pre-VR telephotos. The demand is much lower for these lenses - for example you could get an older 300mm f/2.8 lens for a steal.

I have shot hundreds of race cars, some at high shutter speeds, some at slower shutter speeds. And, with the D90 and with the D4, I have no complaints with the 70-200mm f/2.8 VRII with either the TC-20EIII or TC-14EII. I wonder if the lens/
TC, camera body needs to be fine turned in cases where there is a problem. Now, shooting wide open with the TC...this may be where problems show up. I have not tested this out, but will be doing this in about three days shooting the World of Outlaws at Charlotte, north Carolina at night . I will use the 70-200 with TC 20EIII and try to remember to shoot some wide open.
But, the alternative to a 70-200 with teleconverter is a 200-400mm f/4.0 for nearly $7,000......or a couple of non-pro zooms to 300mm

Of course the 300mm f/2.8 with a TC-14EII would be a nice lens.

My 70-200 VR2 was woefull with th e TC20 series 3 but great with the 14E II..as is my 300/4. The viewfinder is very dark with the converter and the 300/4 though. Keep in mind that a f/2.8 lens becomes a f/4 lens with a TC14 and 2 stops slower with the 20E III.

Advise wanted on D800+fast tele+tc

I shoot sports indoors, outdoors, and at night under the lights.
Use a D800 as primary and D90 as backup.

I had bought the 80-200 2.8D as a stopgap measure till I can afford the 70-200 vr2, indoors I can get by with it, but for outdoors sports like soccer/lacrosse/baseball the tele end is limiting.

I am thinking of trading it in for a fixed, fast lense.

I tried 300 af-s 2.8 vr2 it is magnificent indoors & out, and totally out of my reach at 6k.

300 f4 will not give desired shutter speed indoors and like 300/2.8 also be a bit long for inside use.

1) I wonder how a 70-200 vr2 with a teleconverter fare for soccer?

or

2) I wish there was something like a 200/2.8 vr3 @ ~ $2k in the pipes? (I cant afford the f2)

or

3) Keep the 80-200 and buy a 80-400 for outdoors day sports, when they upgrade it?

@ Gitzo Grat story... getting the last bid in on eBay and such is always a game...

Interestingly enough I am in the process of thinking about changing from Manfrotto quick release to Arca-Swiss....but the cost for four tripod heads is a bit high at present so I might have to look at eBay...

Inasmuch as I shoot from a tripod much of the time, (and I never could stand "screwing" the camera to the tripod, then "unscrewing" it when I finished, I have become a firm believer in quick release plates; as I usually use my tripod with an Arca-Swiss ball head, I have Arca style QR plates on everything; the one plate I have always wanted, but never have been able to find a bargain on, is an "L" plate designed to fit my D-300s; I've had a regular "bottom" plate on the 300s ever since I've had it, (which is just great when you're shooting in landscape format, but when you need to shoot in portrait format, you have to rotate the ball head all the way over to the side, putting the camera body off to the side of the tripod, and it's a "pain in the butt"; the best way to solve this problem, is by having an "L" plate on the camera, rather than a "bottom plate"; the only problem with "L" plates is.........they cost like $150 ! So......I have been trying for months now to buy a "like new" "L" plate on eBay.

I had the perfect opportunity about 10 days ago, as there was a "Really Right Stuff" L plate up for auction, (made to custom fit a 300 body), and it had no bids on it up to the day before the ending; the next day, I had to go to Terre Haute, didn't get home in time, the auction ended, and some lucky bidder snagged my L plate for $43 ! ( I had very seldom seen them fetch less than around a hundred bucks before) As they always say, "when you snooze you lose"! Damn! Now I had to start all over again; fortunately, there was another RRS plate up for auction, that ended in 3 days; some schmuck bid it up to $30, with 4 days to go; (which is clearly ignorant;) this time, I was ready ! as the auction was within a few hours of ending, the thing was already up to $55; (which made last week's winner look very lucky) this time I was DETERMINED........with 20m seconds to go, I confirmed my "max" bid......$ 101.59; when the clock ended, there was a few seconds of furious "back and forth" bidding, but I ended up winning, getting my plate for $81, + $10 shipping; not nearly as good as the previous auction, but still not bad.

What made it a little better, I had messaged the seller, asking him if he would "combine" shipping if I won two items, and he agreed to do so; (he was also selling a EN-EL3e Li-on battery for a D-300 ), ( $35 to $40 on Amazon) The battery had NO bids, right up to the last minute, and only a $1 opening bid; it looked like I was gonna score it for a buck, but not wishing to "lose a golden opportunity, I entered a "max bid" of $10.25 (just in case !) It was a good thing I did..........again.....last second, there must have been 2 or 3 bidders, but they set their "max" too low, and I got my battery for the very decent price of $6.26 (and no shipping ), thanks to my message to the seller. Nothing like winning an auction, after you have employed a bit of "strategy" !

SquamishPhoto said:
The funny thing here is that tcole recently purchased the perfect lens for portraits on DX, the 300mm f4. Got try it with a model standing on a small hill and even a full body shot will have a wonderfully washed background.

+1

This is where experience trumps assumptions. If you have the space to separate your subject, Telephotos are great - they slim the subject as well.

Too many new photographers stand too far away and don't pay attention to the background until they get home. Good Bokeh is achieved by being able to see in your mind what the photo will look like before you press the button. It is just being aware of the total environment.

Larger formats help for sure, but you can achieve excellent bokeh with even a digicam if you take the time to learn the system you are using. I think too many don't actually take the time to learn the system, and then assume moving to a larger format or a different lens will solve their dilemma. They are just tools. Dilemma resides in the person choosing to do what it takes to become a craftsman or continuing to be an apprentice.

SquamishPhoto said:
The funny thing here is that tcole recently purchased the perfect lens for portraits on DX, the 300mm f4. Got try it with a model standing on a small hill and even a full body shot will have a wonderfully washed background.

:) I have taken some of my daughter that have turned out pretty well with it.

Edit: And the 105 F2.8 seems to work very well I think...if you don't want to be in the next county while shooting ;)

The funny thing here is that tcole recently purchased the perfect lens for portraits on DX, the 300mm f4. Got try it with a model standing on a small hill and even a full body shot will have a wonderfully washed background.

trevisthomas said:
Other than something like the Brenizer method (http://www.slrlounge.com/the-brenizer-method-ryan-brenizer-photography-tutorial) what else could be done to get a more shallow dof on a dx with enough fov to shoot head to toe? The fastest lens i ever shot is f1.4 and in a single dx frame the dof never really got me what i wanted at the distance needed for shooting a person full length. Are you thinking bokeh plugin's in post?

Nope...just the suggestions previously in this thread (although some are post processing options). It can be done with a lens though. Mostly being mindful of the distance to the background. It might not always be easy, but it can be done is all I am saying. The photographer the OP mentions does just that. All the body shots are outside in open areas where there is lots of distance behind them. Obviously it is easier for head or upper body shots when you can be closer to the subject, but it isn't impossible for a single body shot. If you have a group or something like that then it might make it near impossible or if you are inside, but that isn't the case that the OP was referring to in the photographer they pointed out.

tcole1983 said:
It might be easier with FX, but it isn't as impossible as you make it sound with DX. Might take a little technique, but doesn't all photography?

Other than something like the Brenizer method (http://www.slrlounge.com/the-brenizer-method-ryan-brenizer-photography-tutorial) what else could be done to get a more shallow dof on a dx with enough fov to shoot head to toe? The fastest lens i ever shot is f1.4 and in a single dx frame the dof never really got me what i wanted at the distance needed for shooting a person full length. Are you thinking bokeh plugin's in post?

trevisthomas said:
amelaj,

You are feeling the pain and frustration that that drove me to Nikon. I'd been shooting and loving my pentax gear until getting serious about portrature last year. I tried to solve the problem by throwing dof at it. (buying more and more faster, longer primes) but no matter how fast and long i got DoF on crop sensor cameras just sucks. Head and shoulders, it's gorgeous and creamy. At 3/4 length it's deteriorated to the point that i don't want the shot anymore. as Gareth and others have pointed out, Full Frame is the route to getting the look that you're after. Longer lenses, and distance to between subject and background also play a role in it, but FF brings it home. Do a goodle search for Full Frame fov and dof for some explanations of why this happens.

I just picked up the Nikon D600 and i'm now getting used to the FF dof characteristics. For the first time i feel like it's possible to have too little dof at portrait distances. Even as "wide" as f4 can be creamy and gorgeous.

It might be easier with FX, but it isn't as impossible as you make it sound with DX. Might take a little technique, but doesn't all photography?

trevis thomas said:
amelaj,

Full Frame is the route to getting the look that you're after. Longer lenses, and distance to between subject and background also play a role in it, but FF brings it home.

if you want to go the whole hog get a Hasselblad and the 210mm f/4.0
( no I cant afford one ether)

amelaj,

You are feeling the pain and frustration that that drove me to Nikon. I'd been shooting and loving my pentax gear until getting serious about portrature last year. I tried to solve the problem by throwing dof at it. (buying more and more faster, longer primes) but no matter how fast and long i got DoF on crop sensor cameras just sucks. Head and shoulders, it's gorgeous and creamy. At 3/4 length it's deteriorated to the point that i don't want the shot anymore. as Gareth and others have pointed out, Full Frame is the route to getting the look that you're after. Longer lenses, and distance to between subject and background also play a role in it, but FF brings it home. Do a goodle search for Full Frame fov and dof for some explanations of why this happens.

I just picked up the Nikon D600 and i'm now getting used to the FF dof characteristics. For the first time i feel like it's possible to have too little dof at portrait distances. Even as "wide" as f4 can be creamy and gorgeous.

Looking at Audrey Woulard Photography confirmed what I thought - medium tele with a lot of distance behind the subject.

I did see some photoshop or maybe one of the "Bokeh" software work in some images. Very tastefully done but almost all of the images did utilize the subject separation from the background.

msmoto said:
Oh, this is a member on NRF, but will remain anonymous at this time.

My vote is that it's NikoDoby. Man of mystery.