Nikkor 70-300 VR for Music & Sports?

[jovan_dj]

I'm an avid music photographer (concerts, festivals, gigs etc) and i've managed to do relatively ok so far using my Nikkor 18-135mm 3.5-5.6 and Nikkor 50mm f/1.8 lenses on my D80. Sure, i bump up the ISO, use a slower shutter speed and try to be as steady as possible (and the stage lights do help give great atmosphere to my shots.... hence not using flash), even if it means i have a bit of noise in my shots.

I've also done a bit of amateur sports photography and would like to do more, also using the same 2 lenses and camera as above, but also with a Sigma 70-300 4-5.6 Macro 2 (which helped in giving me reach across the length of a Hockey rink for example).

In both cases I managed to avoid having dark shots (bumping up ISO, slowing down shutter speeds) but as a result quite a number of my photos end up with a slight (or in some cases more than slight) blur.

That got me thinking that perhaps the Nikkor 70-300mm 4.5-5.6 VR lens would help in both instances. If i can make do (just barely) with my 18-135mm 4.5-5.6 and 70-300mm 4-5.6, then I figure the 70-300mm VR will give me even better results.

I realise that an f/2.8 fixed lens would be my best option (like the Nikkor 70-200 2.8) but I'm in no postion to afford that kind of lens (not yet anyway) so I'm look for the best alternative and so far I'm leaning towards the Nikkor 70-300mm 4.5-5.6 VR.

Agree? Disagree? Pros? Cons? Yay? Nay?

Thanks

[jinky]

You need to get fast glass for gigs / sport ideally and go for a 2.8 lens or faster. getting up close I`ve used a 50mm 1.8, 85 1.8 and a Sigma 70 -200 which have been excellent when pushing iso to 1000 or so on a D80. Using the 70-300 you are going to get blur or excessive noise - if it`s the sort of shooting you want to do save up or get a cheaper alternative. I reckon I get 90% of the quality of Nikon for less than half the price with my Sigma 70-200 and it is actually sharper than my Nikon 85 mm 1.8 at 85 setting. Just wish it had vr too!

[jovan_dj]

Thanks for the reply.
I thought the 70-300 VR WAS a cheaper alternative? Won't the VR assist with getting rid of blur during such photography?
My Sigma 70-300 didn't do too badly, but I figured a similar lens WITH VR would be much better.

The thing is, I'm looking for a decently priced, yet also decent quality lens (like the Nikkor 70-300mm VR) with which I can hopefully make cash to save up for something better...

[chris-p]

Depends what sort of blur you're getting...

The VR can only compensate for movement of the camera. If the shutter is open long enough and the people on stage move, the VR can't compensate for that. What sort of shutter speeds are you using?

[jovan_dj]

Originally Posted by chris-p

Depends what sort of blur you're getting...

The VR can only compensate for movement of the camera. If the shutter is open long enough and the people on stage move, the VR can't compensate for that. What sort of shutter speeds are you using?

Well for night-time concerts/gigs etc, i usually shoot around the 1/80 sec or 1/60 sec (sometimes even going as low as 1/50 sec) but with ISO at 1000 more or less. As for sports, if it's indoors then its around 1/120 sec or 1/100, depending on the lens (and resulting ISO setting of course). Havent done much day-time shooting of sports or music, but i daytime isnt the problem.

[jovan_dj]

PS: this is for the 18-135mm f/3.5-56. and Sigma 70-300mm f/4-5.6 lenses. For my Nikkor 50mm 1.8, its a whole other (and much better) story.