Is the Nikon 70-300 good enough for football?

IanC

IanC

Messages
1,298
Name
Ian
Edit My Images
Yes
I'm currently taking pics for the local youth team and I'm only using a 17-70 (in conjunction with a d90) so I'm struggling to get anywhere near the required length. I have a passion for football and I want to keep developing my photography skills in this area and as such I don't want to choose the wrong lens. Any opinions on this lens or suggested alternatives is greatly received.
 
Depends on how close you are to the action, obviously the closer you are the faster lens thats needed.

First I would be looking at a f2.8 lens. I have the Sigma 70-200 f2.8 lens (£600)( Nikon version £1600 too much for me), which may be worth considering (I love mine). Mine is the older version without the OS which I would suggest you check it out, newer versions have OS but your looking at a £1200 approx sum for that.
The 70-300m lens (£380) would do the job but its an f4.5/5.6 which is a bit slow

Nikon seem to lack the range of around the 300/400mm / f2.8 unless your a millionaire. I did have the Sigma 120-400mm f4.5-5.6 (£600) lens but boy is it a heavy bit of kit but has OS (recommend tripod for a days shoot).

It may help to say what price range your thinking of

Link for price guide

http://www.camerapricebuster.co.uk/cat5.html



Realspeed
 
Last edited:
I'm looking for a similar lens albeit for Canon. Not sure what the Nikon options are but I've been advised to get a f2.8 (makes sense really, need fast shutter speeds for football) and focal length wise about 200mm on a crop will be sufficient.
 
I have the Nikon 70-300 and it is good in bright weather, but I think you would find it too slow for footy particularly at this time of year.
 
Just had a thought Sigma 70-200 f2.8 lens and for extra length I add the Sigma 1.4 teleconverter which makes if about F4 98mm-280mm lens. this TC doesn't affect that much the light into the lens which a 2x TC would

Maybe this is the answer your looking for cost lens £600 plus TC around £150 from one stop shop. Total £750

Realspeed
 
Last edited:
ash39 said:
I'm looking for a similar lens albeit for Canon. Not sure what the Nikon options are but I've been advised to get a f2.8 (makes sense really, need fast shutter speeds for football) and focal length wise about 200mm on a crop will be sufficient.
Click to expand...

Hi Ash, I have been following your thread re: getting into sports photography and I have been there regarding lenses.

I have the Sigma 150-500mm and its brill when the suns shining, but the lads on here, Gary Coyle, Kipax, and all the others told me to get a Nikon 70-200mm F2.8, so I did and after today I am glad I listened to and acted on their advice. Today was my first rugby union shoot under floodlights and the lens was brilliant, so go get that Canon 70-200 f2.8 Ash it will be worth it in the end and even think about 2nd hand as well, I got mine 2nd hand.
 
Cheers again Martin, I agree 100% and will be looking for a second hand f/2.8. (y)
 
realspeed said:
Just had a thought Sigma 70-200 f2.8 lens and for extra length I add the Sigma 1.4 teleconverter which makes if about F4 98mm-280mm lens. this TC doesn't affect that much the light into the lens which a 2x TC would

Maybe this is the answer your looking for cost lens £600 plus TC around £150 from one stop shop. Total £750

Realspeed
Click to expand...

I like the idea of a sigma 70-200 f2.8 but the non os puts me off somewhat, how important is os to football photography?
 
Not at all as far as I understand it, stabilisation isn't much use for moving objects so if you fancy that lens I'd go for it (y)
 
IanC said:
I like the idea of a sigma 70-200 f2.8 but the non os puts me off somewhat, how important is os to football photography?
Click to expand...

I have the 400L IS and don't think I've ever used the IS/OS/VR function. It has no relevance to football really.

I used the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 as my shorter lens for a number of years and it's perfectly acceptable as a lens (without the extortionate Nikon/Canon price tag).

Definitely go for the largest aperture you can manage...take a look at part. 2 of my tutorial (see my sig) and it should give you some ideas.
 
I use the Sigma 70-200mm f2.8 lens for when I go to where they fly raptors (birds of prey) Its fast focusing which is absolutely essential for this kind of photography, so a football match should be a doddle.

Realspeed
 
Is there such a thing as a sharp tele under a grand?

I just had a look at dpreview's review of the sigma 2.8, and it just seems to be full of issues, soft wide open, soft past 100, curved focus plane, focus shift when stopping down, bad chromatic aberration. It sounds worse than my £100 Tamron :shrug:

Maybe it because its a pricey lens they have to judge it with an appropriate level of scrutiny?

It just seems the more i read, the more im tempted to just get a new body with better iso. The only sharpness issues i get with my kit are when using 800+ iso. Whats the point paying for 2.8, when you've gotta shoot at f8 just to get a sharp pic anyways? It cant be just for the auto focus surely.

Sorry about rant, im in bed with severe tonsillitis at the mo, and i feel a bit ratty:dummy:
 
Adey said:
It sounds worse than my £100 Tamron :shrug:

Maybe it because its a pricey lens they have to judge it with an appropriate level of scrutiny?
Click to expand...

Imagine the review of the Tamron lens with the same scrutiny. ;) :LOL:

Sadly with lenses you generally get what you pay for, more expensive normally means better. :shrug: There are few bargains with only the 50mm f1.8 lenses being the standout bargain I can think of.

There are some good lenses in the mid range that are good and bad in different areas but are a cut above the rest. It just depends what the limitations are, price aside though (which is a limitation to most of us) there are fewer compromises, and indeed possibly no compromises with the top of the range lenses. You pay for quality.

As I posted in another thread, I think it is not just the extra light gathering ability of a f2.8 lens, it's also the faster focusing and the shallower depth of field (when wide open) to make the subject stand out from the background which justify the price. Oh, and it is normally a sharper lens too. ;)
 
Cheers Red, i do see what your saying, i just feel a bit frustrated by the gap between high end-consumer and pro lenses in terms of price and quality. All said though that sigma would no doubt wipe the floor with my Tammy. Its funny, a few weeks ago i was wincing at the idea of buying a nifty 250, now im convicing myself i need a canon 70-200 2.8 just to get a reasonably sharp shots at 200mm. :LOL:
I guess my bad experience with a 70-300IS the other week doesnt help:puke:
Maybe if i actually went to a shop and tried some lenses i wouldnt be such a clueless numpty.:bonk:

Ian if you do get either of the lenses suggested, let us know how you get on(y)
 
Thanks for all the advice guys. I have now convinced myself that I need the Sigma 70-200 2.8 :LOL: I already have a Sigma 17-70 so I know of their quality. I will leave some feedback on this lens when i get it (y)
 
Ian

Take your camera to the shop and try out the Sigma before you buy. As i said I am happy with my 70-200 one

Realspeed
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top