I currently have a 17-250 Sigma zoom lens for my Nikon D300s, and I'm looking to upgrade.

I'm looking for something with a fixed f/ throughout the zoom range.  I use my zoom lens for motorsports mainly and I'd like to be able to zoom in and not have the f/ change, which is the problem with my Sigma lens and I'll adjust the shutter speed to match the new f/ when zoomed in and zoom out and accidently get a blown out picture.  Offroad racing happens too fast for me to be able to adjust the camera setting on manual.

I know this is a super n00b question, but I just want to make sure what I'm getting before I buy anything.

Nikon 70-200 f/2.8 VR II

Aside from getting a new lens, have you ever tried shooting Shutter Priority mode? If you know you want a minimal shutter speed, use shutter priority and let the camera auto ISO accordingly for your aperture.

I've used my 70-200 (Canon) for motorsports and it's a great zoom range especially on a crop.

Are you shooting in low light or are you just wanting to stay with a larger aperture for greater DOF?

I did the upgrade the expensive and painfull way....I was to cheap to buy the proper lens from the getgo

Started off with a used Tokina 80-200  2.8 ...sharp but autofocus is slow. Sold that bought a used Nikon 80-200 2.8 ...super sharp but autofocus is relatively slow compared to "AF-S lenses"

Sold that and bought a new Sigma 70-200 . The HSM motor is pretty fast focusing ....but lens didn't have VR ( which won't help you with moving objects such as cars wizzing by )

Was happy with this lens until tried a friends Nikon 70-200 VRII

Sold the Sigma , now the the Nikon 70-200 VRII

Since you are shooting crop sensor ( I shoot FX ) you will be more than happy with a used ( now discontinued ) VRI version of that lens. They run about $1300 -1500 used

If you plan to go full frame one day, do what I should have done years ago...just bite the bullet and buy the 70-200 VRII

The focus is lightning fast on this lens, which is what you need for motosports . Obviously this lens is fast since its a constant 2.8

This lens is also an outstanding portrait / wedding lens

This lens is one of Nikons sharpest....as a result, don't worry too much about zooming in . Just set your cameras AF-C release mode to "release + focus"  and just fire away at highest frame rate. With "release + focus " you will get a very high hit rate of in focus.   Since this lens is uber sharp, just crop in to frame ( vs wasting time zooming in ) and you will still end up with a sharp picture. This is assuming that you are shooting in RAW.

Your only other option for fast 2.8 lens that is not the 70-200 is the Sigma 50-150 DX lens  ( equivalent to 70-200 in FX ) . For the price of this lens, you are better off with a used Nikon 70-200

Regarding your Shutter Speed
- you should be shooting Aperture priority and shoot as wide as you can go for motosport ( don't worry about depth of field ) .  Camera will automatically vary SS for you .

The key is go into your "auto ISO sensitivity ( found in your shooting menu ) , and there you set the minimum shutter speed. This way, when shooting Ap ( or P mode ..uhg )  , the shutter speed tries its best never to go below that floor. It will max out the ISO sensitivity first and only alter SS as last resort . Your camera will give great results with max ISO 1600 .

So, here is what happens .  The camera in A mode, will auto adjust your shutter speed , down to the min shutter speed you choose. AT that point it will then start playing with ISO to achieve proper exposure. This way, you can't get a blurry picture because the camera choose a slow SS that cannot freeze the motion. If you do hit the wall of your chosen max ISO , the will adjust your SS below your min . IF this is happening you don't have enough light

One of the biggest things you can do to ensure high SS is shoot at large apertures, which is one of the big advantages of 2.8 fast glass

Your 'F' number, the 'f stop' is a ratio of the size of the aperture to the focal length.  It's "focal length divided by x".   f/2 would be the focal length divided by two.

Now, if you have a zoom lens, and the aperture size doesn't change as the focal length does, the f-stop value DOES change.   The lower the number, the larger the aperture gets, and the 'faster' the lens is.  (fast means you can use faster shutter speeds).  With highly variable range zoom telephoto lenses, you're not going to get super large apertures without spending major dough.

This. Watch your wallet cause you gonna get raped!



 

If you're not looking to spend THAT much... Sigma has a new 18-250mm lens that should be available for Nikon cameras soon.

The Sigma 18-250mm f/3.5-6.3 DC Macro OS HSM is apparently available for Canon cameras now, and I've found one review so far that is pretty good.  I think it will be the lens to replace my 18-55 kit lens.

Thanks for all the great information guys!

I was looking into this lens though and was wondering if it would be a good start.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/124669-GREY/Nikon_1986_AF_Zoom_Nikkor_80_200mm_f_2_8D.html

I'm not a professional here, I work part time at some motorsports events and I just found myself needing the fixed aperture.  No, I have not tried the Shutter Priority mode, but that is something I should look into trying.

Light varies depending where I go.  I can either be in the California desert on a day with not a cloud in the sky or I can be here in the Northeast where the lighting changes on a cloudy day minute by minute.  

I appreciate the information about what and how the f/ works but that's where I ran into my problem initially.  I always set the ISO to a fixed 200, then would set the aperture to f/3.5 but when I would zoom in, the aperture would tighten up to around 5-6 and my shutter speed wouldn't match it and vise versa when I would set my shutter speed to match the tighter aperture then zoom out and get a blown out picture.  If that still doesn't make any sense I'm sorry, if shutter priority mode can fix that, then I'm willing to give it a shot, but the 80-200 f/2.8 doesn't seem like a bad lens, though it may be a bit archaic compared to the new lenses out today.

But I'm not totally sure, that's why I'm here asking you guys.  The only other lenses I have other than the Sigma 18-250 is a Sigma macro lens and a Nikkor 1.4 prime.

I shoot Canon, so I'm not familiar with that specific lens, but any fix 2.8 in the 70/80-200 should do just fine.  How are you getting blown out pictures?  Are you keeping an eye on the meter in your viewfinder?  Are you trying to stay in a certain range w/ shutter speed?  Why are you staying at ISO 200?  If you have low light, you should bump up ISO so you can maintain a fast enough SS to capture the motion/reduce camera shake.

Also, obviously going from 5.6 to 2.8 for your shots is going to give you a few extra stops.  So you'll be able to increase SS and/or decrease ISO.

Shutter priority is where you set your shutter speed, and the camera sets aperture (and ISO if allowed) accordingly. If you specify a fast enough shutter speed that the max aperture of your lens is inadequate for, the camera should max out the aperture and then set the ISO accordingly.

I took that picture(working for my friend at HMC) using my Sigma lens which I was using all day long and constantly using the entire focal length of 17-250 because I was standing pretty much on the course at some points and at other points I'd be on the rock ledges above taking pictures.  I strictly use the manual setting.

I don't know how to explain it any better, but I'd be zoomed into the 200mm focal range, watch my dial, adjust shutter speed accordingly and then when I would zoom out to the 17-50 focal range, I'd forget to re-adjust my shutter speed to match the wider aperture which which opened up to 3.5 and the picture would be blown out.  I'm doing this all while running around, dodging vehicles and running over the uneven terrain of the course.  I don't stand still and take pictures, in fact, after that picture was taken, I had to beat it to the next U turn and adjust my settings while watching my footing at a full sprint.  

I'm assuming with a fixed aperture, that my shutter speed wouldn't change that drastically either, but I don't know how fixed aperture lenses work, the only other lenses I have are all prime lenses.

Maybe I'm just too stubborn to use auto.  

Excellent thread. I'm taking lot's of notes.

Aperature isn't going to change your shutter speed as much as your ambient light will.  Not trying to talk down to you in the least, but it sounds a little like you either misunderstand what the Tv/Av modes on your camera are for, or how the big three (Aperture, Shutter Speed, ISO) all work together.

Might I suggest a book called, "Understanding Exposure" by Bryan Peterson.  It's an excellent read and it will really help drive home how all the things work together.  

Also, it would really help if you could post some examples of "problem" shots, so we can see what you're unhappy with.  Also, we'll be able to view the EXIF info and see what mode you were info, what your settings were and maybe what would have worked better.  Hope this helps.  Again, not trying to be a dick, just how I'm reading what your frustrations are.

I understand enough about the Big Three to know that when you aperture is at 10 and your shutter speed is at 100 and an ISO of 200 and then you change ONLY your aperture back open to a 3.5 that your now perfectly balanced photo in whatever light you have is now overexposed because the shutter speed was too slow to prevent all that light from hitting the sensor.  That picture I showed you was almost as full zoom on a 17-250 lens.  If I then zoomed that lens out, my aperture would change from 6.5 to 3.5, and without changing my shutter speed, the next pictures would be blown out.  You can refute it all you want, many pictures were very overexposed because of that during the day I was shooting that race and the constant changing ambient light because the sun was skirting in and out of clouds all day.  

I understand how the big three work together, I'm trying to understand how the Zoom lens itself works with a fixed aperture throughout the focal range and if it is the viable for option for what I want to do.  You're not being a dick, you're misunderstanding my concerns about my next lens purchase.

I'm not here to fight anyone at all, I'm here for information about lenses like these because I don't know anything about then, I learned what I know on prime lenses, but when you tell me I have to figure out how ISO, shutter speed and F/ work together, I get a little frustrated.   Unless of course, I am misunderstanding you.

If ambient light was not an issue, will a fixed aperture through all focal ranges prevent me from changing my shutter speed drastically without changing ISO?  That's the real question here and the driving reason for me looking into these lenses.

Without a doubt there is the issue with human error, as I said, I'm running around trying to adjust my camera's setting trying to beat the vehicle to the next obstacle, some of the over and underexposed pictures were the result of me trusting the cheat-o-meter too much on the fly and not getting my desired picture.  In fact with the macro photography I do, I've come to completely disregard that exposure meter entirely; something I may have to unlearn as well.

As for the problem shots, I cannot source you some right now, but just take the picture I posted and blow it out like I had the shutter speed too low and the aperture too large.  

With the aperture being fixed throughout the range, then regardless if lens is at 100mm or 200mm, then you won't have to worry about your meter constantly changing due to an aperture change.

That being said, with a fixed aperture lens, and if you're shooting in "Aperture Priority" mode, then the only thing you'll have to worry about changing is shutter speed, iso or both in order to get properly exposed images.  

Does the Nikon has an auto ISO mode in Manual?  That way, you could set your aperture AND shutter speed, and as long as the light isn't too extreme in one direction or the other, you'll be able to nail the shot.

To answer your other question, no, a fixed aperture lens isn't going to prevent you in regards to SS and ISO, assuming you have good light for a properly exposed shot with pre-set Aperture/ISO and only needing to adjust shutter speed.

So then really the point of these lenses is to be able to zoom in all the way to 200, 300, 400 or whatever it may be and still have a nice open aperture of 2.8 for those nice far away action shots, capturing that single moment in time without a hint of motion blur or distortion?

I would still essentially have to change the controls the same way I did with my current sigma, except my aperture just wouldn't change at all.

As for the auto ISO mode in manual, I'm going to assume 'No' but I could be wrong.  In all my photography, I adjust everything manually.  I have never really played with the options and features of my camera to it's highest extent, wherein may be another problem.  When I lock that macro lens and flash onto my camera, everything goes manual and stays that way because everything gets adjust to the environment, the focus range, and what I'm shooting, if the bug is being a dick and walking all over creation or it's being cooperative and sitting still.

Before I do drop $1k+ on a lens, I'm definitely going to rent a few and try them out.  

That is one of the benefits absolutely.  Since I'm more of a wildlife/landscape guy, a larger fixed aperture lens is more beneficial to me for a narrowed depth of field and better low light shooting.  But the extra stops you get from a 2.8 lens is certainly a plus for anything motorspots related since you're required a higher shutter speed.

Renting lenses is always a great idea.  I've used borrowlenses.com and cameralensrentals.com and been satisfied with both.

There's nothing wrong with not shooting "fully manual" as long as you know what your camera is doing in the mode you select.

Let's say you are shooting in Manual mode and want a given aperture of f/2.8, and you adjust your shutter and ISO according to the light meter in the camera. That's basically the same thing as shooting in Aperture Priority mode and setting it to f/2.8.

I shoot manual if I'm using off camera flash, but if I'm just shooting regular snapshots outdoors, I'll just shoot Aperture Priority on Evaluative Metering and go with it.

Ok for what you need to do a straight f-stop zoom is going to make your life soooo much easier. I will point out that you'll be MUCH happier if you turn off auto-iso and set the camera to manual. YOU control the exposure not the camera. Reason being if you let the cameras metering system control exposure, and let's face it if you are using auto-iso even with manual SS and aperture that's what's happening, when you move from a dark vehicle to a light one the camera will adjust to give you what it thinks is right. Take control.

Now what to buy? If you can swing the money the Nikon 70-200 f2.8 in either vr1 or vr2 is the platinum standard. Nobody makes anything that is their equal in combining wide open sharpness and focus speed. Some are close like the sigma but they are just not nearly as sharp at f2.8.  And you spend the big bucks to be able to shoot razor sharp images at f2.8 right? The Nikon 80-200 f2.8 is a strong alternate but frankly it's not quite as fast focusing. The price is appealing though.

When I bought my d300 years ago I sucked it up and bought the vr1 and I won't lie. It hurt to drop that change. Honestly I've never once regretted spending the money especially after I compare my shots to those taken with my friends Sigma. At f2.8 there is no doubt who shot what.

Now all that said its your money and you have to do what you can afford. Good luck and have fun.

Ok I went back and reread some of your questions. Answer to one is if your ambient isn't changing then a straight f-stop lens will give you the same exposure at 70mm as at 200mm. If the lighting is changing greatly moment to moment and your having to hustle to different shooting points then ignore my "go totally manual" advice. Use the auto iso. It stands the best chance of not messing up your pics. I will point out that your d7k will yield great results even at higher isos if you need the SS.

have any of you that are saying that the 80-200 is slow focusing ever used the newest varent

http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/80200.htm

it seems to focus fast to me and it has a focus range lock the only thing i dont like about it is you have to turn the ring to go in to manual focus mode

I honestly don't remember which generation of 80-200 I used. I just remember the one I tried back to back with my vr1 seemed like a turtle to me.

ive never tried a 70-200 so cant compare them but i would not call my 80-200 slow but it may very well be slower

Thank you for the reply.  Buying the Nikon lens is going to hurt the bank, trust me, but I'm not buying it yet so I definitely will be saving up for it.  I'm going to rent both (nikon and sigma) of the lenses before I do anything.  I'd much rather buy the Nikon if funds allow, but I honestly don't NEED the lens until next Feb so I have time.

No really a fair comparision since the 80-200 is a AF-D so it relies on the focus motor of the body. On my D70 it was sloooow. On my D700 is was significantly faster

The newer 70-200 are AF-S , which has it's focus motor built in. Noticably faster and much quieter

From the link you posted,  Ken Rockwell claims the new AF-S is about 20% faster. I would actually say that would be a fair estimate

Personally, the 70-200 is the one lens I would own if I only had one lens. I don't really shoot landscapes, so the 70-200 pretty much does everything for me (portraits, sports, limited wildlife, etc).

I shoot Canon, so I have the Canon 70-200 f/2.8L IS II. All of my friends / associates that shoot Nikons run the 70-200 VR.

The Sigma is probably the 3rd party 70-200 I would go with I were to opt for 3rd party.

I think in this case for a lens like this I'm going to go all out and just get the Nikon brand because if the glass is that much better than the Sigma, it would be worth every penny.  I've had good luck with Sigma lenses, ie my macro and 17-250, but I think this time I'll go Nikon.


Once again I appreciate all the help in this thread and you guys are a wealth of knowledge.  

You can never go wrong with good quality glass.

If it makes the price any easier to swallow when I bought my VR1 it was around $1700. After 4+years and over 200,000 snaps it will still sell for between $1300-1500. Pro grade glass really holds its value. Don't get me wrong Sigma makes good glass and at f4 their 70-200 is great. It just falls down a little wide open.