A&P I need a new lens for Little League Baseball

Discussion in 'Lifestyle' started by one66stang, Dec 15, 2006.

  1. one66stang

    one66stang Haters.com

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2001
    Messages:
    13,248
    Likes Received:
    6
    Location:
    Midland Texas
    Nikon D70


    I`m torn between the 70-200 2.8 or the 18-200 VR.

    The 18-200 would be a better all carry lens but the 70-200 2.8 is going to be better for low light.


    What would you do?
     
  2. Derrict

    Derrict No, I am not Amish OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2003
    Messages:
    9,484
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    Amish Country, PA
    70-200 is good for the infield section. you may find the 200mm to be a bit short for shots in the outfield without a tc (depending on the size of the field being used). if you can afford it, go with the 70 200 if you don't mind switching out to a wide angle lens when you need it.
     
  3. one66stang

    one66stang Haters.com

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2001
    Messages:
    13,248
    Likes Received:
    6
    Location:
    Midland Texas
    come on people give me your opinions
     
  4. ( * )( * )

    ( * )( * ) OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2002
    Messages:
    4,518
    Likes Received:
    0
    70-200 2.8
     
  5. Hua

    Hua AZN photographer crew

    Joined:
    May 5, 2000
    Messages:
    2,689
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Columbus, OH
    Since you will need to use it in a low light situation, the 18-200 isn't even really an option.
     
  6. Tedrzz

    Tedrzz New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2005
    Messages:
    1,578
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Brooklyn, NY
    another vote for 70-200 vr
     
  7. hsubaru

    hsubaru New Member

    Joined:
    May 1, 2006
    Messages:
    301
    Likes Received:
    0
    This shouldn't even be a question. If you have the money, 70-200. It is far superior in any way besides super zoom and size as compared to the 18-200 which has, in many MANY cases, a bad case of zoom creep (point the thing down, and it zooms in, point it up, and it zooms out). The 18-200 isn't much more than a (expensive) walkaround. In the interest of disclosure, my mom has one, and yes, I've used it.

    In short, 70-200 :big grin:
     
  8. MrGone

    MrGone New Member

    Joined:
    May 9, 2003
    Messages:
    6,376
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Issaquah, WA
    70-200 2.8 hands down

    far sharper (especially towards 200) and better performance

    +1 to what Derrict said
     
  9. mobbarley

    mobbarley Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2005
    Messages:
    9,256
    Likes Received:
    2
    Location:
    Sydney
    70-200. you'll have much better results than with the 18-200, particulary when people are people moving.
     
  10. ( * )( * )

    ( * )( * ) OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2002
    Messages:
    4,518
    Likes Received:
    0
    I'm going to have to say 70-200 2.8.
     
  11. Redliner7

    Redliner7 New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2005
    Messages:
    740
    Likes Received:
    0
    +1 for 70-200 F2.8 -- this is such an amazing lens.
     
  12. Mr_Penut

    Mr_Penut Elitist Member OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2005
    Messages:
    30,664
    Likes Received:
    16
    Location:
    kanadia
  13. Tedrzz

    Tedrzz New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2005
    Messages:
    1,578
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Brooklyn, NY
    i'll vote twice, 70-200
     
  14. one66stang

    one66stang Haters.com

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2001
    Messages:
    13,248
    Likes Received:
    6
    Location:
    Midland Texas
    cool


    thanks people
     
  15. Nullius

    Nullius New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2005
    Messages:
    8,259
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Maranda
    i have the 17-55 f2.8 IS. if you can afford it definately do the 70 200 2.8 IS. my lens is great in low light, it just lacks the range for what you're looking for. the 2.8 + the IS will allow you to capture the quick shots required for action even on those cloudy crappy days. the range is also very very good for DOF portrait shots
     
  16. hash browns

    hash browns lolcathlon champion OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2004
    Messages:
    95,387
    Likes Received:
    84
    Location:
    Manhattan Beach, CA
    i'm going to note here that most of the people on OT have no idea of what they're talking about and have never done sports photography, let alone baseball or little league
     
  17. mobbarley

    mobbarley Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2005
    Messages:
    9,256
    Likes Received:
    2
    Location:
    Sydney
    :dirkon:
     
  18. 1992 240SX

    1992 240SX New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2004
    Messages:
    2,601
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Long Beach, CA
    You didn't answer the question. Regardless of how much better you think you are than the rest of OT A&P you can't deny the fact that for his uses the 70-200 is FAR superior to the 18-200.
     
  19. one66stang

    one66stang Haters.com

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2001
    Messages:
    13,248
    Likes Received:
    6
    Location:
    Midland Texas

    what lens would you recommend?
     
  20. Mr_Penut

    Mr_Penut Elitist Member OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2005
    Messages:
    30,664
    Likes Received:
    16
    Location:
    kanadia
  21. tenplanescrashing

    tenplanescrashing Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2005
    Messages:
    9,287
    Likes Received:
    0
    if you have the money, the 70-200 is a great investment. If you're on a tight budget and will be shooting these for fun, i'd look into other zoom options like the 18-200 or even the sigma 28-300. Im also guessing that these little league games are during the day on saturdays and will rarely be at night (unless its major league). if this is the case, the *need* for a f/2.8 won't be there but it is nice to have another stop from time to time.
     
  22. i'm a canon guy but for nikon I do know that the 18-200 is good for going on trips where you don't want to bring an assortment of lenses. if you want image quality get the 70-200
     
  23. Stemby

    Stemby Whoooose House? COOOOOOOOOOOOGS HOUSE!

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2004
    Messages:
    3,465
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Houston,Tx
    70-200 2.8

    i want to get this lens to bad i'm poor right now
     


  24. wrong the 18-200 has more uses, look at the focal length... But if you want quality you have to sacrafice focal length. This is why the 70-200 is better.


    Example

    For canon if you want a long zoom lens that is useful and you wanted to choose between a 100-400mm f/4.5 or a 400mm.
    Doesn't mean the 400mm is a bad lens just that the 100-400 is more useful and you're willing to sacrafice usefulness over quality.
    And would anyone get a 400mm over a 100-400mm if they had the money? Yep, same with the 18-200 vs 70-200

    I would continue on to wide angle but I don't want to get banned again for voicing my opinion.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Dec 20, 2006
  25. allen2oo3

    allen2oo3 New Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2003
    Messages:
    3,341
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    san diego/irvine
    70-200 for sure
     

Share This Page