Express Action Sports

do you think it’s a requirement or just a marketing tool?

It’s like autofocus and autometering. The greatest photographers in history didn’t realize they had lousy cameras and took magnificent pictures anyway!

I love the VR (vibration reduction) in my Nikon 18-200mm lens. And I recently bought an HP point & shoot for a relative that had built in IS. After all, she’s 80+ and isn’t the steadiest when taking pictures.

If you’re taking action shots, it’s a plus. If you’re taking portraits or scenics, it’s not. Here’s some sports photos I took WITHOUT any stabilization, except for using good photographer’s techniques.
http://www.spmsportspage.com/images/college/football/2007/California-45-Tennessee-31-09-01-2007/DSC_0065_GHYoung.html
http://www.spmsportspage.com/images/college/football/2007/California-42-Louisiana-Tech-12-09-15-2007/DSC_8135_GHYoung.html

That being said, I would still look for it, just as an added feature. Many wouldn’t live without it.
http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/image-stabilization.htm

I hope you find this helpful.

I know youre going to say its not the camera its the photographer, but i need to make sure this shoots good for fast moving objects.

Im a beginner and i like action photography, like soccer, baseball and skateboarding. Is this a good camera to start off with?

Is this a good lens to begin with for sports?

I have a cousin that plays soccer, one that plays baseball and a good friend that plays football and i would like to start shooting for their games. Is that a good enough setup?(If you recommend a different lens at that price range or maybe just a little more expensive, let me know).

And these are the ones that i really want once i get a higher paying job.

Don’t know about football but I’ve shot plenty of soccer. The 55-200 will do but see if somehow you can’t find the money for the 55-300 or better yet, the 70-300

I do sports (action) photography with a Nikon D80 (thinking of upgrading to the D300 btw) … I want to get a faster lens and am considering the Nikon 70-200mm f2.8 VR or the 80-200mm f2.8 (without VR).

Given that the new vibration-reduction model costs about twice as much (around $1,700, I think, versus $900) … would it be worth getting for my purposes (handheld sports photography)?

Really, my question is: Since I always use fast shutter speeds (always faster than 1/200, usually more like 1/1000 or more) is there any advantage to VR, or is the fast shutter speed itself enough to essentially eliminate the effects of camera shake?

Appreciate any input on this…

If you are only using this lens for sport photography and absolutely nothing else, and you are constantly using that very fast shutter speed, then the VR is not really going to be much of an advantage for you.

If, however, you plan to use the lens for things other than just sport photography, perhaps for portraits or scenic photography, the VR would come in handy especially for hand-holding some longer-exposure shots.

Hope that helps you out some 🙂

Camera:Nikon d200
Lens: 55mm-200mm lens VR

When I was shooting a skateboarder today I kept getting blurry shots. What can I do to fix this? Will this happen when I shoot other sports?

Everybody else is right. Keep in mind, the VR (vibration reduction) in the lense only protects you against you shaking the camera. It doesn’t help you any if the subject is moving. Here are a few ideas:
1. Try using a flash.
2. Try setting up other artificial lighting.
3. Like everyone said, try using a fast shutter time.
4. Try making the aperature as large as possible.
5. Try a higher ISO (like 400).