Lens recommendation -- high speed, low light, $1000

gstoa wrote:
Looking for lens recommendations for my Nikon D40x which will enable
me to shoot high speed in low light conditions (indoor sports under
fluorescent lights). I have the standard Nikon 55-200 zoom which
delivers slow and grainy pictures at f-4 even without Auto Focus. I
am happy to give up the zoom and AF in return for quality pictures
that I can crop.

Suggestions are greatly appreciated.

It might help if you say the sport. Is 200mm long enough, or is part of
the problem that you are needing to crop a small piece of the image?

The 70-200 f 2.8 IF-ED VR someone suggested does have a mode for
panning, so if you pan horizontally, it will remove vertical shakes. I
own one of them, and find it a good lens. But you will not get one for
$1000 - even used. But VR is not going to help if people are rapidly
moving, as legs will be going one way, arms another etc. For that you
are going to need a high shutter speed.

One thing I would say, is that if you buy a used Nikon (not 3rd party)
lens, don't pay too much for it, you can probably sell it again for no
significant loss - perhaps even make a profit. Used Nikon lenses tend to
hold their value well. Assuming you have the money up front you can rent
them for free!!! I bought a used 20 mm f 2.8 lens off of eBay a few
years ago, and looking at prices now, I could easily sell it for
significantly more than what I paid for it.
I don't think there is a lot of point in buying a used VR 70-200 though,
as used prices of current lenses seem to be very little below the new
price. In fact, I've seen used Nikon lenees on eBay sell for more than
it is possible to buy one new!

I don't know much about the D40, but others are saying it will not work
fully with some lenses. But the 70-200 f 2.8 IF-ED VR works well on my
F6 and D3.

Sorry, there are no real suggestions, but perhaps some things to bear in
mind. If you can possibly go to the 70-200 f 2.8 IF-ED VR you will not
be dissapointed.

Dave wrote:

One thing I would say, is that if you buy a used Nikon (not 3rd party)
lens, don't pay too much for it, you can probably sell it again for no
significant loss - perhaps even make a profit. Used Nikon lenses tend to
hold their value well. Assuming you have the money up front you can rent
them for free!!! I bought a used 20 mm f 2.8 lens off of eBay a few
years ago, and looking at prices now, I could easily sell it for
significantly more than what I paid for it.
I don't think there is a lot of point in buying a used VR 70-200 though,
as used prices of current lenses seem to be very little below the new
price. In fact, I've seen used Nikon lenees on eBay sell for more than
it is possible to buy one new!

I just see this on Amazon about the 70-200 VR.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Nikon-Af-S-7.../dp/B00009MDBQ


"Something to consider about the price (believe me you DO (as commented
on by another reviewer) forget what you've paid immediately you start
using this beauty) is that it still costs the same as I paid 3 years
ago. Depreciation? What's that then! Check out the second hand values. I
think that speaks volumes!"

Personally I would not buy a 70-200 VR used, simply because the savings
are far too small and you have the assurance of a guarantee. But on for
example a 600 mm f4, the savings of used compared to new are quite
significant, since the new ones have VR and most of the older ones do not.

On Thu, 28 Aug 2008 09:50:10 +0100, Dave wrote:

The 70-200 f 2.8 IF-ED VR someone suggested does have a mode for
panning, so if you pan horizontally, it will remove vertical shakes. I
own one of them, and find it a good lens. But you will not get one for
$1000 - even used. But VR is not going to help if people are rapidly
moving, as legs will be going one way, arms another etc. For that you
are going to need a high shutter speed.

One thing I would say, is that if you buy a used Nikon (not 3rd party)
lens, don't pay too much for it, you can probably sell it again for no
significant loss - perhaps even make a profit. Used Nikon lenses tend to

Here's the problem with buying a used lens like the 70-200 f/2.8.. No
warranty. I would have to find one significantly under the price of a
new one in order for me to buy it used. And in general, they're not.
I see used ones going for the same as what I can get one for new. Are
people really that nuts?

I wouldn't care as much about an older, non-VR, non-AF-S lens because
they are low-tech. No lens micro motors, no USM focusing motors. A
screw drive and barrel tracks are much less likely to need repair
IMHO. I've bought several of them on ebay and they're working great.

But I've already had to send in my 18-200 VR for service because the
"high tech" USM motor broke. It made high pitched whining sounds and
wouldn't focus right. I bought it new almost a year ago for the same
price I see ones even now going for used. Again, are people nuts? If
I didn't have the 5-year warranty I would be out another $200 to get
it fixed. And when you buy it used on ebay, you don't get a Nikon
warranty despite what sellers might say in the ad. You'll have to
hope that the original owner you bought it from will be kind enough to
send it in for you if you need warranty service.

If you can't find a used "high tech" lens for significantly less than
new, like 60% or lower than the best deal you can find for a new one,
it pays to get it new. And your consolation is that nutty people are
willing to pay almost what you bought it for (or even more) if you
decide to sell it.

Steve