It is designed to remove "camera shake"

If you think you will have camera shake, then turn it on.

It will run down the battery on your camera, that is give you less shots per charge if left on, or used all the time.

I can hand hold without shake at 1/250 all the time and 1/125 if I pay attention, 1/60 if I take time to steady myself and control my breathing, however VR has spoiled me, and I am becoming lazy, so under 1/250 I use it.

It is a tool to be used and as with any tool, should you take time to learn to use it properly, then, you will get better results.

alchse said:
One other question regarding shooting sports

I read you should turn VR off over 1/1000 sec.

Whats the harm in leaving it on?

Actually VR should be turned off at speeds over 1/500 since the sampling rate of the VR system can't resolve over that speed. I have found this to be true shooting at kids soccer games as I have found my photos are consistently sharper with the VR off at 1/500 to 1/1000 shutter speeds. If you read Thom Hogan's article "All About VR" on his website, it will explain a lot.

I'm shocked with the answers to your question here.

Personally, I'm not a fan of using 1.7x or 2.0x TC's due to their light loss and image quality degradation. Wide open in low-light or poor light quality they can appear hazy and/or soft IMHO. And I'm not really a pixel peeper most of the time, but it's quite noticeable to my humble eyes.

I'd think your best option would be several factors:
- most versatility
- fast aperture (to allow fast shutter speeds)
- longest focal length for a 'reasonable' budget
- fast focusing

The only solution in the Nikon brand I'd consider fitting the bill is the 300mm f/4 with a 1.4x TC. From my experiences, focus going thru a thick 1.7x or 2.0x is s-l-o-w, but thru a 1.4x can be nearly as fast as without a TC attached.

You'd be gaining a LOT of versatility. For really low light conditions (rain/fog, night games) you could take off the TC and shoot at 450mm equiv @ f/4. And you can easily shoot at ISO 1250 (to get 1/400 or faster shutter) with high quality results IMHO.

For daytime or bright conditions, you can add the 1.4x TC and get 300mm x 1.5x crop x 1.4x TC for a total of 630mm @f/5. Compared to the 70-200/2.8 + 1.7x TC images at 510mm equiv @ f/5 you will be in CLOSER and have higher quality images and faster focusing/overall performance. Heck, you want super sharp & crisp images? Add a high-quality circular polarizer for shooting on the pitch (soccer field) and the 77mm size can likely be used on some of your other quality lenses too.

Plus, you have a very good set-up for other things like birding or wildlife, or going to the zoo. A very high quality 300mm lens (450mm equiv) and a *high* quality 420mm lens w/ 1.4x TC (630mm equiv).

No way does the 70-300 VR or 80-400 VR perform for sports IMHO. The focus will hunt and not lock fast enough for fast action. It will if you go to a car race (or maybe swim meet or cycling race) and can *track* your subjects from L-to-R, but not when they are moving in three dimensions. The 70-200/2.8 VR w/ a 1.7x TC can certainly work for some situations. It adds the versatility of carrying a small TC to add focal length- and that's a nice plus without BIG expense (like a new $1400-$6000 lens) or size/weight in a backpack.

The now discontinued Sigma 100-300/4 and 120-300/2.8 can both be great performers too. Both can take a Sigma 1.4x TC well but (again) I don't recommend using 1.7x TC's if it's at all possible to avoid them. I think the quality control of the 100-300/4 lenses was a bit inconsistent, some are VERY SHARP; others are only so-so to 'good' sharp. The Sigma TC has a different pin configuration, and won't work on Nikon glass and vice-versa.

The Sigma 100-300/4 is about the same price as a Nikon 300/4, if you can still find a new one. The range of 100-300mm can be great for pets and kids running around. But *BEWARE* if you want to use a CPL filter it will cost you big time as it has 82mmm threads! I got a B+W Kaeseman multi-coated CPL 82mm and it cost me maybe $250 a few years ago.

----------------------

My suggestion would be Nikon 300/4 + Nikon 1.4x TC
Add the Heliopan multi-coated circular polarizer in 77mm
and consider a decent monopod/head to ease your fatigue on the side touch lines or bleachers.

Why do I recommend Heliopan when I bought the B+W 82mm? I have own & have experience with both and feel the Heliopan multi-coated circular polarizer filters are the absolute best quality made. They don't lock-up (freeze/thread-lock) nearly as easily and they are supremely durable. The markings on the notched ring helps to 'reference' the ring rotation, for example if you are bringing the camera up to your eye. Or if you ever shoot vertical ('portrait'), it is easier to know where to 'set' the CPL without having to tinker for a couple seconds. What a high-quality CPL can do for skies/clouds and fields of grass and reducing glare on shiny soccer uni's is tremendous and shouldn't be underestimated IMHO.

Yeah, not as cheap as a single TC. But we ALL want faster lenses and longer focal lengths. IMHO, you'd also be adding well to your kit- and serving this specific purpose.

Dunno if this helps. Cheers.

alchse said:
So do lower apertures focus faster?

On the the Nikon 70-200 f 2.8 the Auto focuse is blisteringly fast, but add a x2 coverter, you lose two stops , so an F2.8 lens becomes an f 5.6 lens, although the autofocus still works, it is slow

put the x 2 coverter on an f 4 lens and Auto foucus no longer works

TaoTeJared said:
+1 on Tcole1983

99% of the time people are referencing the aperture as in "it is a fast lens". The other time it is the AF speed.

So do lower apertures focus faster?

Or does the term have nothing to do with focus speed (when used in this context)

edit - quick wiki search answered my own question

lower aperture = more light hitting the sensor = the ability to ramp up the shutter speed

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lens_speed

hoviss1 said:
I need more reach for my sons soccer games, am i wasting my money on a Nikon TC 1.7X or should i forgo my the college education fund for my children and go for the nikon 200 - 400?

I was compelled to join the forum to participate in this discussion as it's near and dear to my heart, shooting youth soccer games.

I've tried using a Kenko 1.4 teleconverter attached to a 80-200 AF-D to get more reach and never liked the results. It seems the images are a shade soft for my liking. Now, everytime I reach for the converter I stop and remember how much I dislike the results and I put it down.

Since I'm unwilling to spend additional bucks for a different lens I've changed my shooting strategy. If I seperate the field into 3 swim lanes, I'll leave the far 3rd alone and just watch and "enjoy the game", I'll figure the players will switch to the near third during the 2nd half. I'll sometimes take shots of players in the middle third but usually figure anyone further than halfway across will be a so-so shot. Most of my "good" shots are in the near third of the field , and I'll usually stay between the 18 yrd boxes as I can capture defenders tackling the attackers, midfielders winning the ball in the air or forwards making runs.

I rarely stand at the ends of the fields trying to shoot goals as they happen infrequently at my kid's level of play (High School) and quite honestly, a picture of a kid shoot for a goal is kind of boring unless they are being tackled at the same time.

I'm intrigue a bit with the 70-300 afs vr but I'm unwilling to give up 2 stops at the long end as I shoot soccer year round. Up here in the PNW, it means shooting at dusk under the lights, in the rain and sleet and I need to keep the shutter speed up. I've convinced myself that part of my unhappiness with the teleconver is that in some situations, the rain and sleet between the lens and subject degrade the image.

alchse said:
question....what adds to the speed of a lens?

is it aperture? afs motor? quality of glass? all of the above?

+1 on Tcole1983

99% of the time people are referencing the aperture as in "it is a fast lens". The other time it is the AF speed.

The 70-200 + TC17 is a very effective combination. Add it to a DX body and it should serve your needs. One note.....get a vertical grip for your camera. Balance is nightmare without it.

alchse said:
question....what adds to the speed of a lens?

is it aperture? afs motor? quality of glass? all of the above?

In the case of older lenses such as the 80-400 they could be referring to focusing speed. But generally faster lenses are considered to be lower aperture numbers such as F1.8 or F2.8. Lol everyone seems to use the term interchangeably though. I don't know of any AF-S lenses that are too slow focusing though (some are faster than others, but I haven't used one that I consider slow...especially after using some of the other camera brand lenses), but since the 80-400 is AF and F4.5-F5.6 I would have to guess both might be true.

question....what adds to the speed of a lens?

is it aperture? afs motor? quality of glass? all of the above?

Davey

I agree with you. nice post.

YOu have to use a monopod, just to tote that weight around and rest the arms, with those monsters.

70-300 is a nice balance of everything, if it were faster it would bigger and heavier.

I have tried many of the Nikkor lens for field telephoto use. I vastly prefer the 70-300VR however I am also of the belief that when the 80-400VR gets renewed I will buy one of those. Right now the current 80-400VR is in my opinion just too slow. If I could justify the weight and mass I'd go to the 200-400. But that lens is a noose around your neck. I do have places that I would use it and want one. For what it is worth I'd buy it used from B&H when I do get one. It does have a shallow depth of field which is not an advantage to me in most cases. Sometimes the shallow depth of field is OK., even desirable. That lens also demands a tripod in my experience. I prefer a lens that is sharp without a tripod. But if you are shooting at a subject that you know is your point of focus a tripod is fine. VR seems to work best without a tripod by most experts assessment. I sold my 70-200 and my 80-200. I don't miss them a bit.

I eventually came to the same problem as you mentioned hoviss1. I bought the TC 1.7 and it was good although you lose a lot of speed and autofocus gets fooled more easily. The 80-400mm VR is something you might want to consider although it focuses slowly as it uses the older AF system of Nikkor yesteryear. In my view this is the Nikkor most due for a refresh out of any lense in the current lineup but I have been saying this on this forum for the last 3 years...

I imagine this combination would be great for kids soccer.

I have used the 70-200 with a tc-20eiii on my d700 for soccer, that was before i got the 300. as i said, it was sharp from f/8.

I have a d300s too and like the 70-200 more on that than the d700 because of the crop for sports and long tele shots.

the d7000 has more pixels for cropping than the d300s and has better high ISO.

put your d7000 on spot metering auto iso capped at 1600. you will effectively have a 200-600mm!

the main advantage to the big expensive lenses is shallow DOF. that is where you need a 500 or 600 f/4 for soccer. it is very hard to get uncluttered backgrounds at a kids match. to counter this position yourself where the background of your shot will have nice light and a clear background, say OOF grass (only) or an OOF wall/sky etc. you may have to change your angle of shooting to get off shooting straight at the kids.

don't be afraid to get shots of just a part of a player. the closer you are the more detail you will have on the player and the more blurred the background will be.

maybe buy a grip if you don't have one, to shoot portrait shots. i shoot portrait when the kids are close and landscape when they are further away.

Why are you asking the same question in two threads? Stick to one. Also do a forum search as the Nikon TCs have been discussed in several other threads.
http://nikonrumors.com/forum/topic.php?id=3714&replies=4&message=closed

Thanks everyone for the great feedback, I think i will try the TC 1.7, stopping down with the 2X seems a bit too much. Maybe I will rent both and see how it works. Again thanks for all the great advice. I am shooting with a D7000 DX camera.

One other question regarding shooting sports

I read you should turn VR off over 1/1000 sec.

Whats the harm in leaving it on?

You guys ever shoot from the stands of a stadium?

Was thinking of hitting up a preseason NFL game to see if I can get some good shots but not sure if my 70-300 will get me close enough to the action

I agree with TaoTeJared.

position yourself next to the goal your kid will be shooting towards, get the action shots there.

or on the side they are defending, depending on wether the kid is defending or attacking.

mid field photos are not interesting. get action shots.

Also, as TTJ mentioned, you did not let us know which camera you are using, FX or DX.

DX will have the crop factor, t/4 300 will be 450.

FX you can shoot raw, D7000 shoot raw and them crop, unless you are doing 20x40 prints.

also, including some of the action around the kid adds intrest to your composition.

the reason for the fantatic Nikon 70-200 f2.8 is the speed. anyhow you look at it, the speed is the reason for this lens, and shooting sports and using a TC is spoiling the advantage of the lens.

get closer.

Another vote for the TC-20E III. Its sharpest at f8, but with soccer you might be better off with a higher shutter speed and f5.6 . I have not used it for sports photography ( just wild life) but my photographs improved dramatically after I bought A calumet gimbal head, in their sale

For kids soccer? If you have the dough and want to impress people, what the hell, go for the 200-400mm. ;)

You didn't mention what camera you are using, DX or FX or body model?

Personally unless I was making $5-6k a year from that lens, I would never buy it. It is just too huge. Personally I have the 70-200mm and use the Nikon TC 1.7X and it works great. I also have the 70-300mm and have used both the TC-20s and the 80-400mm. Any of those options I think are much better. Sigma has some long zooms as well but tend to fall beyond the f/6.3 where the camera will struggle to AF.

It really comes down to how much more zoom do you need or how far away you are. When it comes down to it, your feet are the cheapest zoom.

rent the TC-20E III and stop it down to f/8 to get sharp pics.

if you can't get the pics you want then maybe look longer.

the 300 2.8 is not really long enough for soccer on FX. the 200-400 would be great for soccer on a dx body.

in fact i would love one for soccer instead of my 300 2.8. but it is a serious monster and you WILL look like TURBO DAD if you get it out at a kids match and aren't getting payed.

i would suggest renting for the big matches if you are in the US.

the 80-400 is too slow for af soccer matches.

Try the TC-20E III. That will give you 140-400mm@5.6. Works very well.

hoviss1 said:
...should i forgo my the college education fund for my children and go for the nikon 200 - 400?

That depends. How smart are your kids? How good are they at soccer?

hoviss1 said:
I need more reach for my sons soccer games, am i wasting my money on a Nikon TC 1.7X or should i forgo my the college education fund for my children and go for the nikon 200 - 400?

Another great choice is the N 80-400mm 4.5-5.6 VR. It's not very fast and doesn't focus very fast, but it's a damn sharp lens and has some serious reach. As long as you are shooting in good light(or w/ a D7000 - D3s) and use focus limiter, you should be good. I love my 80-400 when I need a lot of reach.

Welcome to Nikon Rumors, btw!