D40 Indoor Arena Sports lense

[gearshifter]

New here to this site.

I purchased a d40 a month ago and absolutely love it. My only qualm with it is high motion sports (such as college basketball) in an arena.

I was wondering what lense would be best suited for this type of photography. I sit fairly close to the court but not right on top of it, so I would assume the lense would have to zoom slightly as well.

www.vesoautomotive.com/basketball

Thanks what i get out of the lense that came with the camera. 18-55mm if i'm not mistaken. I tried sports mode, manual mode, and S-mode.


Thanks,
JAson

[erichlund]

Any of the 70-200 f2.8 lenses ought to do (Not just the Nikkor, though you get VR with it for other things). If you are allowed to stomp the sidelines, then the 85mm f1.8 is also an excellent choice.

[rawpaw18]

Welcome to the forum

Sigma 50-150 2.8 hsm
Sigma 70-200 2.8 hsm
Nikon 70-200 2.8 afs
Nikon prime 85 1.8 as Eric mentioned also good choice for indoor sports.

Would be helpful for indoor sports shooting for the lens to either be HSM or AFS

[gearshifter]

is there a lens that isn't quite 1k+?

I was looking at the 18-200mm nikkor for an all around lens that that's 700 dollars. :eek:


I will look into that 85mm prime nikon. If I'm not mistaken you cannot auto focus any other lenses except AF-s?

[LR Max]

Your choices are severely limited because of the D40 body. But in reality, the 80-200/70-200 f/2.8 lenses are the standard in photography. Just about everyone who is serious about photos has one.

A good alternative is the last of the 80-200 lenses, the 80-200 f/2.8 AF-S lens. They can be had used for about $900 + shipping...in fact, thats the price of my 80-200 AF-S that I am selling currently (sorry, had to pimp while I have the chance).

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3293/2350064753_42b35c367f.jpg

[gearshifter]

I was looking at the d40 shots thread and see that many people are using the 50mm 1.8f. Is that really good for indoor sports?


Also, as far as the 18-200mm Nikkor VR lens, Is it better to get then having to carry both the kit lens and a 55-200mm lens?


Thanks,
Jason

[erichlund]

Lenses like the 18-200 are very slow (f5.6) at the long end, and not very fast at the short end. The VR does nothing for sports, because your subjects are moving so fast that you need a fast shutter speed to stop their motion. The fast shutter speed required obviates the need for VR.

The D40 is capable of shooting at ISO 1600, but even at that, your shutter speed will only be moderate, and you will not get very many "keepers". For indoor sports, speed is everything.

The 50mm lenses can be used, but you will be severely cropping. The D40, being 6MP, has less room to crop than higher density sensors. Also, you will need to manually focus, and since you will be shooting wide open, your depth of field will be razor thin. If you were a pro shooting film or full frame (ie super bright viewfinder), I'd say yes. But the D40 has a weakness in the viewfinder, and it makes focus in low light difficult, nearly impossible at f1.8 shooting action.

I had forgotten about the 50-150 by Sigma. That would be a good choice, as I believe it is an HSM lens (will auto-focus). It's about the same price as the 18-200 (It's $750 @ B&H), and is much brighter. It may not reach to the far corners of the court the way the 70-200 will, but it should cover most of the action.

[Aldor88]

Have a look at the sigma 50-150/f2.8 HSM, if the range is enough i think its the best choice on a limited budget.
Then there is the sigma 70-200/f2.8, Nikkor 70-200/f2.8 and 80-200/f2.8.

[XaiLo]

In this enviornment I believe you would find primes limiting, secondly D40 or not capturing indoor sports is not going to be a cheap proposition. The Sigma 50-150mm would seem to be the best cost effective option. r3g uses it for sports another D40 owner.

Congrats, welcome to the forums and stop by the "Some D40 Pics" thread soon. good luck.

[LR Max]

For basketball, most stadiums are lit such that you can use a 50mm at f/2.8, 400th shutter at 800 ISO. This seems to be a very common setting, I know at least 4 other b-ball guys who use this setting. This will freeze the action, give reasonable DOF, and not overtax your ISO on your camera.

From your point of view, a 200mm lens would be about right to shoot around the goal. Once they got down court, you might as well put your camera down.

The 18-200VR is an excellent lens, but not a good performer here.

Just to give you an idea, almost every b-ball photographer has a 300mm lens. This lens is excellent for downcourt and produces a proper image at the other end of the court. Then a 70-200 is used for up close, but most of the time this is used on a full frame camera so the zoom isn't as much. I use my 80-200 on my D300 and either my 50mm or 17-35 on my D70s. Its a solid setup, not perfect but its what I gots.

If I had a ton o' cash, I'd use a 300mm and a 24-70. That would be the optimal setup. I saw a couple guys actually using this setup with great success. But then again this is from the sideline, not the stands.

One guy had the setup. He had a REALLY nice canon 28-300 lens (pro piece of glass) and 4 1600W/s strobes in the catwalks above. He was shooting at 1/200th shutter, f/5.6 and 200 ISO. Strobes make it too easy :rolleyes:.

[gearshifter]

what about a lens for auto races and outdoor sports or general outdoor photography?

Does the 18-200 nikkor fit the bill on that?



If not who is nikon targeting for the 18-200 lens

[erichlund]

I think we're talking high school gyms, not stadiums, though that's worthy of consideration as well.

[gearshifter]

if you look at the pictures i took. Definitely not a high school gym. ;)

[XaiLo]

what about a lens for auto races and outdoor sports or general outdoor photography?

Does the 18-200 nikkor fit the bill on that?



If not who is nikon targeting for the 18-200 lens

you would be better served with the Nikon 70-300mm VR. The 18-200 is a jack of all trades and master of being a compact solution. It's intended as a one lens consumer solution that covers a range which is typically handled by at least two lenses.

[gearshifter]

http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/70-300-vr.htm

this guy says it's not good for sports? How does the 18-200 compare to the kit 18-55 as far as being used for motion shots.


Ugh, this camera stuff is confusing haha.

[LR Max]

The setup I am talking about is for ACC hoops. Is that more like what you are talking about?

The 80-200 or whatever equivalent would also be great for auto racing and other outdoor photography. Hold onto your 18-55, it is a good piece of glass and excellent for outdoor wide angles.

[XaiLo]

http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/70-300-vr.htm

this guy says it's not good for sports? How does the 18-200 compare to the kit 18-55 as far as being used for motion shots.


Ugh, this camera stuff is confusing haha.

Don't worry you'll get the hang of it soon enough. ;)

First off Ken can sometimes be in his own world, I did not suggest the 70-300mm VR particuarly for sports. Just that it is a cheaper and better option IMO than the 18-200mm VR. I suggested the Sigma 50-150mm f2.8 for indoor sports. Other than the Nikon 80-200mm and the 70-200mm or above you'll be compromising when it comes to sports especially indoors.

Ken actually stated "4.) If you're shooting film; it's OK for still subjects, but not for sports. You'll want f/2.8; VR can't stop subject motion." key word being film you can get away with shooting two stops faster with the D40.

I'm also going to suggest you pick up "Understanding Exposure" Revised Edition by Bryan Peterson it's under $20 and it will help you to understand how to properly expose and the why. It's a light read with excellent illustrations and ample examples. Unfortunately there is no cheap solution to what your trying to accomplish.

[mattc]

the sigma 50-150 and 70-200 are basicly the same price

[K1W1]

I'm going on a totally different tack to everybody else here.

The question nobody has asked is, "What is the purpose of these Basketball pictures?"

If they are really just happy snaps of your kids or relatives and all you want is some memories that's one thing.
If you intend to sell the images or use them commercially that is something entirely different.
Most of the answers you have had before now have assumed that the latter is closer to what you intend than the former.

If your response is tending to the happy snap memory end of the equation then my answer is to buy something like the 70-300VR Nikon lens, shoot at ISO 1600 and you will get enough decent shots to fill the album. For the great shots buy them from the Pro's on scene with the money that you have saved in your camera / lens combination.
If your response is towards the pro end of the equation then the very first thing you should do is see your bank manager about a huge overdraft because you will need at the very least a new body (D300) and several high quality pro grade lenses. Don't expect much change from $10k by the time you are done.

One thing that constantly gets lost on all forums is to ask posters why. Why is the most important question in determining the correct answer for any query.

[XaiLo]

why Kiwi Why:confused: lmao

[gearshifter]

Well. I'm just an enthusiast, not looking to sell my pictures.

I was thinking of a lens that would be good for sports, but still could do normal everyday shots if I took pictures outside of the sports such as friends, or various other close up pictures. It would be difficult because at baseball and football games here, unless you are a professional photographer, you cannot carry around a backpack. This means it would be beneficial to have one lens that can be used for a bunch of stuff.

Not every picture has to come out perfect, but if i took 100 pictures, I would hope at least 10 would be pretty nice. I would like a lot more, but if i cannot carry a backpack of cases, I guess thats a fair trade off....

[jcon]

I think the pictures you linked too have enough light, they look good to me. I didnt look at all, just a few.

Since you are fairly close to the action and mentioned you would also like to have the lens as an "everyday" lens, I would suggest something in the 24-70mm range with an F2.8 constant. I know its not alot of reach for outdoor sports, but as X mentioned, the 70-300 VR cant be beat there. The 70-300 VR wont do much indoors with poor lighting though.

[gearshifter]

I'm thinking about going with a 70-300 nikon lens.

This thing looks like it weighs a ton. Will it need support on the bottom of it when I lay it on a table? If i wear my camera over my neck, is it going to be stressful on the camera body?

Since the sports games wont allow me to carry a backpack, I can only go with one lens and the camera will have to be out in plain sight.

[K1W1]

I'm thinking about going with a 70-300 nikon lens.
This thing looks like it weighs a ton. Will it need support on the bottom of it when I lay it on a table?

No


If i wear my camera over my neck, is it going to be stressful on the camera body?

No, but it's a good idea to hold the lens more to keep it from hitting anything rather than because it's going to break the camera.

One thing you should check. I have heard stories of people in the USA not being allowed to arenas with long lenses because that makes them a "Pro". Not sure whether that applies in your area.

[jcon]

I may be wrong here but I think there are different versions of the 70-300? If so make sure you get the correct version... the VR version.

[XaiLo]

Kiwi, you're not a pro
if you're sitting in the top row... j/k :D

When I went to Phillips arena they were more concerned
about my bottle of water than they were about my camera.

gearshifter, no worries I use the 7-200VR with the D40 and
it's twice as heavy as the 70-300VR literally 2x the weight.
for over a year it's been my main lens and lives on the camera.
There have been plenty of times where I absent mindedly held
the camera by the grip only and it's none the woarse for wear.
It's a pretty tough little camera.


You'll enjoy the 70-300VR it's a very good deal.

[K1W1]

I may be wrong here but I think there are different versions of the 70-300? If so make sure you get the correct version... the VR version.

There are at least three I know of, the ED, the G and the VR.
I think the VR is the only one that you would actually be able to buy these days unless you find some hole in the wall place that has real old stock.

[gearshifter]

as long as the camera has no problems supporting the lens while it is on the strap across my neck in front of me, then I'm not worried.


When i take pictures, there is rarely ever a time i dont have my left hand on the lens.


The last question i have. (i know i've had a lot).
I am reading a lot about these filters. Is there a specific one to get for both my kit lens and the new 70-300 lens? I've read somewhere that leaving the front of the lens unprotected with UV rays and other various harms can deteriorate the lens. Do these filters last long, or are they something you buy periodically.

How do you know size filter fits what lense, and what companies make good filters?

Thanks a bunch!
Jason

[erichlund]

Kiwi, you're not a pro
if you're sitting in the top row... j/k :D

When I went to Phillips arena they were more concerned
about my bottle of water than they were about my camera.


It varies from place to place. Some places, if one guy doesn't let you in, just go to a different gate. Other places, they won't let you in at all. Others just don't seem to care. It's a very repetitive theme over at DPReview.

[K1W1]

The last question i have. (i know i've had a lot).
I am reading a lot about these filters. Is there a specific one to get for both my kit lens and the new 70-300 lens? I've read somewhere that leaving the front of the lens unprotected with UV rays and other various harms can deteriorate the lens. Do these filters last long, or are they something you buy periodically.

How do you know size filter fits what lense, and what companies make good filters?

Thanks a bunch!
Jason

Filters are a touchy subject. Some people say why protect a $1000 lens with a $10 piece of glass?
The filter will not stop the lens deteriorating due to UV that does not happen. What the UV filter will do is according to some people protect the front of the lens from getting scratched. Specialist filters are used for particular purposes to create photographic affects but these days most of those affects can be done with software as well.
If you want a UV filter just buy one that is the correct size for the diameter of the font lens (in this case 67mm) they all have a common thread.

[gearshifter]

when you put a filter on, does the lens cap still work?

[mattc]

yes it still works

[bobc4d]

did a search for sports lens and found this one.

I have a question to add/ask. What about a lens for night time outside sports ? like soccer and American football ?

will the 85mm F1.8 work with my D40 ? this is all for memories not for sell.

[Visual Reality]

It won't autofocus, but you would likely have trouble anyway at night.

[bobc4d]

trouble autofocus or with the lens ?

[Prospero]

The lens does not autofocus on a D40 (it is not an af-s lens), which may make it very difficult to shoot sports on a D40. Also, in low light, it is more difficult to judge if your picture is in focus.

If you can live with the lack of autofocus, the lens will probably work fine for the purpose. For some sports it may be a bit short, though.

However, I would recommend getting a f/2.8 telezoom for this purpose. It is probably good enough if you use ISO 1600 (provided that the field is lit) and it is a lot more versatile. With a bit of noise reduction this can give excellent results. The Sigma 50-150 f/2.8 would be a good choice and it is not that much more expensive than an 85 f/1.8.

[bobc4d]

thanks Prospero I'll look at the Sigma