Lens for shooting sports with my D80

[Daubs]

Looking for lens to shoot my kids soccer / baseball / outdoor games. You can see the lens' that I have in my signature. Considering the following:

Nikkor 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G ED-IF AF-S DX VR II Autofocus = $750
Nikon 70-210mm f/4-5.6 AF-D = (used on e-bay for around $200)

Don't think I really need a f/2.8 lens at this time, although that would be nice.

Other suggestions? Thanks, D.

[XaiLo]

What type of sports are you interested in shooting?

[Daubs]

Soccer & baseball primarily.

[tekriter]

If they are played in daylight, an f4 or so would be fine, no need to spend the money for a 2.8. The 2.8, when shot wide open, will give you a nice bokeh surrounding the player - everything behind is nicely out of focus. But that lens cost a LOT more, a new one goes for over $900.

If they play at night, or if you ever get into shooting indoor stuff, you would need that 2.8 for sure. For poorly-lit gyms, even a 1.8.

[jcon]

Since you are mostly shooting in day light conditions, I would suggest the Nikon 70-300mm VR. No, its not F2.8 but its VR and has a little extra reach for you, from what I have seen so far, it takes amazing pictures.

If you do want F2.8(just in case it starts to get too dark in the early evening games) the Sigma APO 50-150mm F2.8 EX DC HSM could be a nice option. Its not as long, but does offer the constant 2.8.

I think both lenses I listed go for around $500, I could be wrong though.

I guess it all depends on close you can get. My experience from little league games from the different sports is that you can get fairly close to the action.


Good luck with your decision!

[jcon]

Daubs, I just read in another thread here that you were shooting an indoor bball game, would that be one of your main shooting habits? If so, youre gonna want F2.8 or faster for indoor sports.

[Daubs]

Daubs, I just read in another thread here that you were shooting an indoor bball game, would that be one of your main shooting habits? If so, youre gonna want F2.8 or faster for indoor sports.

Yes, I will be shooting basketball games, but I've found the 50mm f/1.4 does a pretty good job indoors. Thinking about adding the 85mm f/1.4 for bball games, but that's when my bank account gets a little fatter. Probably go for the 85mm f/1.8 for a lot less $$$.

[tcadwall]

Around here we have Saturday morning/afternoon games, and at least one game a week in the evening.

My 18-200VR does great in the daytime games, and I probably get nothing out of the VR for that type of shooting, since the shutter-speeds are so high to stop the action. Evening games are a crap-shoot. Catching action is fine if you don't mind serious motion blur in the shots!

However, that lens has a really good range for baseaball. In baseball, if I shoot, I am typically on 1st base line, or 3rd base line. In either case, I can frame the 1st baseman, as well as the 3rd baseman fairly tight from either position pretty well.

For reasons posted in another thread, I am a bit judicial about posting kids sports pictures. I haven't obtained permission from ANY parents for this. Otherwise I would post a couple. A couple allow you to see the stitches of the ball (and almost read the print on the ball) as it is about to be received by an infielder. Bokeh is ok imo.

[swgod98]

Don't think I really need a f/2.8 lens at this time, although that would be nice.

For outdoor shots, F2.8 is definitely not necessary. But, you will be missing out on the bokeh. I have found it extremely desireable to have the F2.8 due to the distracting backgrounds one gets otherwise. Here's a picture with the70-300VR at 300mm F5.6 (I have permission) :D

Looks like she swung a bit late...

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/173/417230630_3d032f6e82.jpg

The lighting conditions were terrible (harsh sun from directly overhead). And the fence/people are major distractions to an otherwise decent capture. I was getting 1/800th @ ISO 100 here, which shows you I had plenty of room to up the shutter via ISO increases if I felt it was needed. Probably would have been nice, but...

F2.8 would have given a much better focused batter. I had tried giving the image artificial bokeh, but not entirely sure I'm happy about it...

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/155/417720766_c1b0ddd667.jpg

Bottom line, F2.8 is desireable, but not necessary. I do feel 300mm is a great benefit, but 200mm lenses will still give good shots. Having the option to go 18mm wide is a benefit, but not something I find necessary since most of the action is far enough away that it's not needed.

I've shot soccer and softball pics as far as sports are concerned and the 70-300 has been a great range for my needs. My only complaint would be that I don't have F2.8, since I feel that can turn an ordinary shot into an extraordinary one.

[tcadwall]

Having the option to go 18mm wide is a benefit, but not something I find necessary since most of the action is far enough away that it's not needed.

LOL! This is likely true but I almost argued with it - then I realized that since I am coaching, and take my shots from the dug-out (when I get a chance) I might need 18mm to get the close base-man, but most spectators won't! :)

[swgod98]

Well, that's true...it really depends on where you're standing.

[Daubs]

Update: I opted for the 70-210mm f/4-5.6 AF-D from e-bay for around $225. Had it for about three weeks now and it's proven to be a very good, fast focusing lens. Should serve me well this sports season...that is until basketball starts. I'm already looking for the next lens to replace it.

Looking at the following and seeking input:

1. 80-200mm f/2.8 D for around $900
2. 70-200mm f/2.8 VR for around $1,500

The long range lens plan is to get one of the x-200mm f/2.8's for sports, get a 18-200mm VR for "all-around" and keep the 50mm f/1.4 for very low light situations. The 18-135mm and 70-210 AF-D will eventually be e-bayed.

So with that in mind, do I really need the $1,500 VR? Right now I'm thinking no. But I know better than to never say never...

[tcadwall]

A lot of the reason to pay up for f/2.8 is so that you can use faster shutter speeds. Naturally one might wonder why VR is needed then. I can't say I've used it, so I can't say for sure. I would imagine that there WILL be instances when it will come in handy, but probably not so much for sports as wildlife, or indoor (non-action) shots.... Lets say that you are shooting a theatrical event, or a pageant... It would be a good lens for that situation and the VR really might help a bit (especially if a tripod wouldn't be feasible / allowed)

[wrestlingreport]

Looking for lens to shoot my kids soccer / baseball / outdoor games. You can see the lens' that I have in my signature. Considering the following:

Nikkor 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G ED-IF AF-S DX VR II Autofocus = $750
Nikon 70-210mm f/4-5.6 AF-D = (used on e-bay for around $200)

Don't think I really need a f/2.8 lens at this time, although that would be nice.

Other suggestions? Thanks, D.

If your considering a $750 you would be nutz not to get the 80-200 f/2.8
you can get them new for $880.
VR is very helpful in low light but $1700 is a big difference.
For shooting outdoors, set it to 2.8 and the speed will be high enough vibration isnt a problem

Owning the 80-200 is a joy that you will never regret.

[Ray Schnoor]

Update: I opted for the 70-210mm f/4-5.6 AF-D from e-bay for around $225. Had it for about three weeks now and it's proven to be a very good, fast focusing lens. Should serve me well this sports season...that is until basketball starts. I'm already looking for the next lens to replace it.

Looking at the following and seeking input:

1. 80-200mm f/2.8 D for around $900
2. 70-200mm f/2.8 VR for around $1,500
Both of those lenses are very nice. While I would prefer the 70-200 f/2.8 VR, I couldn't see myself forking over the extra money for the VR.

You might also want to look at the Sigma APO 70-200mm F2.8 EX DG MACRO HSM. This lens is also a very nice lens at around the same price as the 80-200 f/2.8 D. There is not really any discernable difference optically between the 2(except of course the extra 10mm reach). I compared both and chose the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 over the Nikon 80-200 f/2.8 because the Sigma seemed to focus faster with the HSM motor in the lens. If the Nikon had the AF-S motor in the lens, I probably would have chosen it. They are both built like a tank and are very solid feeling. You would probably be happy with either.

Ray.

[wrestlingreport]

Both of those lenses are very nice. While I would prefer the 70-200 f/2.8 VR, I couldn't see myself forking over the extra money for the VR.

You might also want to look at the Sigma APO 70-200mm F2.8 EX DG MACRO HSM. This lens is also a very nice lens at around the same price as the 80-200 f/2.8 D. There is not really any discernable difference optically between the 2(except of course the extra 10mm reach). I compared both and chose the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 over the Nikon 80-200 f/2.8 because the Sigma seemed to focus faster with the HSM motor in the lens. If the Nikon had the AF-S motor in the lens, I probably would have chosen it. They are both built like a tank and are very solid feeling. You would probably be happy with either.

Ray.

Here we go again
Why dont all of you bye a sigma camera also.
Then you can use trash lenses on a trash camera

[tcadwall]

Here we go againROFLOL!!!

That is probably what 90% of us said to ourselves when we saw WR in the header to the reply!!!!

[Ray Schnoor]

Here we go again
Why dont all of you bye a sigma camera also.
Then you can use trash lenses on a trash camera
WR, Thank you for that very well thought out and eloquent reply, even if I knew it was coming before you even posted it. I was wrong with the wording, though. I thought you would say something like "What an idiot. Why would you even spend $10 on trash glass in a trash lens from a trash company??!!" I'm not sure how you stand on the subject, though. Next time, please try to be a little more clear. Thanks, you are certainly entertaining, if not predictable.

Daubs, Good luck with choosing your new lens.

[VTEC_EATER]

Is this yet ANOTHER 70-200/80-200 F/2.8 discussion?

How many of these do we need? A simple search will bring up many posts discussing these lenses. Google searches bring up reviews comparing the two to each other. Why are we still having this debate?

Please, to everyone here, use the search function. There is no need to keep beating a dead horse.

[tcadwall]

VTec...

It went that direction, but that really isn't how the thread started. Granted the OP did change the direction a little... But, you know, when people already understand the choices you are making as a thread progresses, it is pretty natural for someone to ask a question like that when they are receiving good answers.

Agree with you though that the search function is used much too infrequently! And really it COULD have been used once we reached that specific post in the thread... I thought the same thing about the 10-20mm vs 12-xxxxx thread that just popped up. We have seen that discussion nikkor, sigma, tokina quite a few times in the past as well!

[VTEC_EATER]

I thought the same thing about the 10-20mm vs 12-xxxxx thread that just popped up. We have seen that discussion nikkor, sigma, tokina quite a few times in the past as well!

I responded in that one too. Its amazing what a simple google search brings up.

[jcon]

Here we go again
Why dont all of you bye a sigma camera also.
Then you can use trash lenses on a trash camera


Have you ever shot with ANY Sigma lenses? im guessing no, so from now on, keep your mouth shut and refrain from ripping on quality equipment.


UGH!!!!!!:(

[tcadwall]

UGH!!!!!!:(
Dang... I thought I saved you a post.:D

[Prospero]

Dang... I thought I saved you a post.:D

LOL
Some things just can't be said often enough... :D
Is it my turn now to say the same thing again ???

I must say, though, I think the WR-situation is starting to get funny. The guy is a joke. He is so extremely predictable. Also, the fanaticism of his Anti-Sigma crusade is simply laughable :D

On the other hand its a pity that he is spreading wrong information on the forum...

[jcon]

lol sorry tcad, I couldnt resist. Hes annoying me!

Prospero summed it up very well when he said...

its a pity that he is spreading wrong information on the forum...

It is ashame that he blasts a certain brand, probably after never even touching it, when new members come here looking for advice and are on a budget, they then see his b.s. comments and dont know his history and will believe him. Im quite sick of it to be honest.

[tcadwall]

Yes, I admit, I do try to diffuse situations... Thought I could do that by being a first-responder... But there is just too much energy to diffuse this one I guess. :D I actually find it somewhat admirable that you are willing to "speak his language" in an attempt to get him out of here, Jason.

I still agree with you... This should stop. It is nice to have different opinions, just not opinions that are stated as fact when they are extremely biased, rude, and incorrect.

[VTEC_EATER]

Comparing the 70/80-200 group is almost retarded at this point.

If you want a "fast" 80-200 for general shooting, but cant spend a lot of money, get the Nikon 80-200 AF-D.

If you want a "fast" 80-200 for sports, but dont have a lot of money, get the Sigma 80-200 HSM

If you want a "fast" 80-200 for sports, but can spend a little more money (and justifiably so), get the Nikkor 80-200 AF-S.

If you want a "fast" 80-200 for extreme sports shooting, low light (no tripod) shooting, portrait work, and all around bad ass, do anything lens; pony up the cash and get the Nikkor 70-200 AF-S VR.

The Nikkor will always retain a greater resale value than any third party glass, so the extra cash for first party is worth it. Greater quality control is a big plus with the first party lenses as well.

[Ray Schnoor]

If you want a "fast" 80-200 for sports, but can spend a little more money (and justifiably so), get the Nikkor 80-200 AF-S.

I don't believe that this is a current model, as it is not on the Nikon website. I have read that this was taken out of production when the 70-200 f/2.8 AF-S VR model was introduced. Maybe you can find it used, though. I may be mistaken, though.

Ray.

[tcadwall]

Maybe you can find it usedI have seen them used and new.

[Rooz]

sigma sucks.

[tcadwall]

Rooz - LOL!:D

I think it is past your bedtime.

[Rooz]

just watchin the aussies smash the kiwis in the footy. there may or may not be numerous bottles of beer lined up in front of me. :D

[rawpaw18]

just watchin the aussies smash the kiwis in the footy. there may or may not be numerous bottles of beer lined up in front of me. :D

I am going to go with MAY BE!

[tekriter]

just watchin the aussies smash the kiwis in the footy. there may or may not be numerous bottles of beer lined up in front of me. :D

Try counting them three times, and then average out the total. This should be the actual number plus or minus three...

[T06]

Try counting them three times, and then average out the total. This should be the actual number plus or minus three...

too funny rooz, I needed a laugh from this forum. Personally I think the wr is coldrain coming out of the closet & he's gonna go NIKON:eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: