Lens for sports...

[Mauro]

Hello, I just joined the forum, it looks great!

I hae a D80 with a Tamron 17-50 f2.8 lens and love it. I am looking to take some pics of fast sports, mainly road bike racing, would a Nikon 70-300VR or 55-200VR be fast enough or should I go with a Sigma/Tokina/Nikon 70-200 f2.8?

Would VR be beneficial for high speed action since I will be at very high shutter speeds?

Cost will be a bit of an issue, I would like to keep it under $700 (used) if possible.

Thank you

[TNB]

I would save up for the Nikon 70-200mm VR F/2.8, especially if you plan to shoot sports indoors or in low-level lighting. Myself, I started with a Sigma 70-300mm and though I enjoyed the extra 100mm focal length, it didn't do any good with blurry shots in less than adequate quality lighting conditions. Soon thereafter I purchased the Nikon lens and later the 1.7x teleconverter.

[jcon]

I agree with TNB, but if you are going to be outdoors, shooting races during the day, the 70-300VR should be enough, but nothing beats the 70-200VR 2.8!

[SpecialK]

VR helps at all shutter speeds - even fast ones - as you still induce a tiny bit of movment, though not as noticeable, perhaps.

[K1W1]

If you are going to be mainly using fast shutter speeds then why not save a heap of money and buy the 80-200 f2.8 (http://www.nikonusa.com/template.php?cat=1&grp=5&productNr=1986)
The VR isn't really going to help much with fast panning and fast shutter speeds.

[r3g]

Or if your going to my pretty close save yourself money and weight that get the Sigma 50-150 f/2.8 HSM which can be had for $600. :D:cool::p

[T06]

If you want reach & a budget, get the 70-300. If you want the better of the best get the 70-200 & use your brain beforehand. I do not mean this to sound off handish, but it is as it is.