- This topic is empty.
Lens for fast action sports shots
-
Hi all,
Sports photography is something I’ve been interested in getting into and had my first foray into the action at the weekend. I’m planning on buying a zoom lens for my Nikon D70s so borrowed a Canon Rebel with a 200mm (4.5f) lens to experiment. I knew the setup was not ideal but as I say it was really just a toe dipper.
My feeling is that a 300mm minimum is required and am I right in saying that a 2.8f would give me better contrast between foreground and background (badly needed)? Big bucks from what I can see.
Can anyone recommend an affordable lens with these specs or offer any other advice for someone in my position?Of course feedback on the shots would also be very welcome.
Many thanks.
You’re not just talking big bucks, you’re talking HUGE bucks for 300mm f2.8 Most people settle for a slower 300mm which for the Nikon means a range between f3.5-f5.6 depending on focal length (unfortunately f5.6 at the long end). It depends on your requirements really, for general field sports, shot outdoors on days with lots of light, a standard 300mm, shot wide open will give you reasonable enough separation between subject and background whilst being long enough for most shots. Another option I’ve seen work is a 80-200mm f2.8 with a TC stuck at the end. You do lose a stop of light due to the TC but all in all the combination is better in that you get a very high quality lens for general use, with f2.8 through the range and then stick on the converter for the longer reach if needed. I don’t shoot a lot of sports personally, but I bought the 80-400mm. It’s slow f4 (I think) but the extra focal length gives you the effect of a wider aperture and the VR allows you shoot at slower speeds, so you don’t need it to be as fast.
Oh and welcome to the forum!
Yes, at these longer focal lengths f2.8 is very fast indeed, and very expensive. I cannot suggest Nikon lenses, but similar Canon suggestion would be 100-400 f4.5-5.6 L IS.
You should maybe look at a 3rd party lenses such as Sigma – there is a 50-500 Sigma lens which is affectionately known as the ‘bigma.’ It might just be a sensible option depending on its maximum aperture. I think it is f4 – 6.something so the 6 will be at the long end.And just realised, you are using a camera with a crop sensor, so you can multiply by 1.5 for the effective focal length. The 50-500 would be 75-750 on your camera…… :shock:
Re doing it on the cheap. A friend of mine has used a 300mm f2.8 lens (intended for use on a Pentacon 6 medium format camera) that he picked up for a couple of hundred on eBay, on an EOS 5D. You need a P6 to M42 to [your mount] adaptor, and it’s all a bit huge and clunky with manual focus and preset aperture, but it’s a sharp lens and gets you cheap length and aperture. After all, you’d most likely be shooting at f2.8 anyway if you want that speed. As it has a huge image circle you’d be right in the sweet spot of the lens on a crop DSLR.
The best lens on the market at the moment for Nikon is the AF-S 80-200 f/2.8 (costs around 2400 Euros or so) another option would be the Sigma EX-DG Macro 70-200 f/2.8 (at about half the price of the Nikon) with both lenses and with the 1.5x crop you should be able to get those 300mm you were aiming for.
Hi folks,
Thanks all very much for your insights and advice. Much appreciated.
Excellent forum going on here. Such a wealth of information.As a cheaper (though in no way inferior) alternative to a 300mm f2.8 you really should check out Nikons 300mm f4, it is super sharp and can be bought for less than a grand!
Maybe try A Sigma 70-200 F2.8 with a 1.4x Teleconverter making it a 290mm and f4, although when I use mine a long range I can still crop the images and keep a lot of quality…
Sigma also do the 120-300 f2.8 a very good lens with lots of scope, cost around ?1,300/1,400 though
But once you do buy a pro spec lense you will then very rapidly realise that you need a pro spec body!
Anyone any views on the Nikon 80-200mm f/2.8D ED AF? $899 in the US.
The price difference between the AF and the AF-S is phenomenal. Is there really THAT much of a difference?I think Joe Beattie might have that lense.
Have heard loads of times how the 70-200 2.8 is so much better than the 80-200Thanks for everyone’s advice so far.
It looks like it’s down to either the Nikon 80-200mm f/2.8D ED AF or this guy Sigma APO 70-200mm F2.8 EX DG MACRO HSM. Both can be got for < $900 in the US. Currently I’m leaning towards the Sigma simply because it’s a new model and has high speed focus. Any final words from anyone before I enter that cc number…..?
Hi Zorro
May i suggest that you check DML based in Portobello a try as i have hired stuff out there before i commit to but the item. Best thing is to hire those that are within your budget bracket for say a weekend and this will at least give you an understanding of each lenses capabilities. Now so far i’ve got canon stuff from them but dont know if they stock third party stuff such as sigma/tamron etc.
Regards
Ben
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
