Tony,
there's no question that the prime is sharper than the zoom. But for Agility Trials, the flexibility of being able to cover more pieces of apparatus from a single location gives a nod to the zoom.

In my experience, Agility folks don't really buy huge prints (David may have different experience) so the image quality shouldn't be as much of an issue.

Jim

To me, this was an issue of light gathering capability, where IQ was secondary. There are no super wide zooms that I know of, they stop at 2.8 max -- with some minor exceptions in the 2.4-2.8 variable ranges on some 3rd party lenses.

Anyhow, I believe that IQ is relative (you need just enough to do your job better than anyone else) when considering light and the ability to even capture an image.

My point simply was that even with the best hi iso units we now have, 2.8 indoors may not cut it. There may be times when you compromise one technology over another, i.e., apperture over zoom for example. Where theres not enough light, no amount of zoom versatility will help you get the shots you need/want. And because I dont not know how much light is available in the example given by the poster, and I've shot sports for many years, indoor, without flash, my experience tells me that in some cases 2.8 is not wide enough.

That said, if your arenas are well lit, as are nfl stadeums and prime time sports, you can shoot 2.8 and even 4 at times, but with poorly lit arenas the only way to get good results is with big lenses and high ISO. ISO 1600 or higher on the d300 at 125th does not produce images that I can publish. . .

So, hence the need for 2.0. (BTW, I've given up shooting poorly lit indoor because I dont own the 2.0 although I have used it). I could do without the IQ as good as it is with the 200 f2, but in some cases I cant even get a usable image with a 2.8.

If you have the light I would go with the 70-200 vr, without the light or better iso the ONLY choice is flash, or bigger glass. . .

Because the light in most covered arenas is so bad, many equestrian photographers do use strobes hung from the ceiling. Especially in western events. I don't want to do them bad enough to go to the trouble.

Most agility will not want you using on camera flash on their dogs. Strobes are different and I think most are ok with them. Though, like Jim said, I don't know of any agility photographers who use them.

My honest opinion is if the light is that bad, don't even do it. It won't be worth the time and effort for what the end product will be like

I am envisioning the poorly lit covered horse arenas that are open on the sides. So, all this light streams in and blows out the background and you have a poorly lit shot

Now, if it is indoor and has decent light, go for it with a 2.8 lens

Thanks for the help. I will give the 2.8 a shot. The 2.0 isn't even an option...lol. This is just a hobby for me and my photos aren't likely to land in any publications regardless of lense choice:-)

There are a few indoor trials in the area, but the majority are covered horse arenas that Julie describes. At our local trial, the two ends of the arena face east and west so you have to shoot with the sun at your back and shoot from one of the open ends instead of the center. There are two rings with a center aisle between them.

These are all AKC shows so strobes of any kind would not be allowed.

Thanks Again,
Greg

I use the 200 1.8 lens for indoor shots (without flash) and even at 1.8 at times cannot cut it if the arena is really poorly lit. I am going to a stallion parade Sunday with it and I am cringing already because I know this arena is a nightmare for lighting, really dark and I probably won't get many decent shots.