Nikon 200-500mm for Rugby

Welshy74 · 24 Jan 2017

As anyone used the Nikon 200-500 for rugby? I currently use the 70-200 which is good to an extent but struggles soon as the players get close to the half way line and I am usually behind the posts. I am thinking of adding this to use on my D7200 (D500 eventually) and I won't be anytime soon picking up a 300mm+ prime. Your thoughts would be much appreciated

Seba · 25 Jan 2017

Always a good source for a review... http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/200-500mm.htm

Had a quick play with one when Nikon came over to Dublin to push the D5. I think bang for buck it's decent.

My preferred rugby lens combo would be 500 f4 and 70-200 f2.8 (OR 600 f4 and 300 f2.8 depending on venue) so this lens would be getting you close to the first choice.

Welshy74 · 25 Jan 2017

Would like the 300 or the 500 just can't justify the prices.

Welshy74 · 25 Jan 2017

Also going to take a look at the 300mm f4 pf

Welshy74 · 11 Feb 2017

So now looking at the 200-500 or 300mm pf to pair with my 70-200

Seba · 15 Feb 2017

I think a 300 f4 is a little pointless, it's so similar to the 200mm end of the 70-200.

Why not a second hand 500mm f4 for a decent price...

https://www.mpb.com/en-uk/used-equi...enses/nikon-af-s-500mm-f-4d-if-ed/sku-643955/

holty · 16 Feb 2017

200-500 is good for rugby or football on a crop body constant f5.6 so ok for low light
dont go for a prime as you have no control over composition

DemiLion · 16 Feb 2017

holty said:
...dont go for a prime as you have no control over composition

That's one of the worst bits of advice for sports photography that I've ever seen on here.

Seba · 17 Feb 2017

DemiLion said:
That's one of the worst bits of advice for sports photography that I've ever seen on here.

I've been pondering replying to that post, Mark for a couple of days. Was surprised by it too.

jamesev · 21 Feb 2017

DemiLion said:
That's one of the worst bits of advice for sports photography that I've ever seen on here.

I agree, the whole point of primes is that they are called 'fast' lenses which are ideal for sport. Look at any RBS 6 nations game sidelines this weekend and you will see an array of 400mm f2.8s. Go to any motor sport and you will see an array of 600 f4s. And Rugby being a winter sport you're going to be shooting in predominately low light (in this country). Unless you're operating on a Light Value (or EV day if you want to be exact) day of 17+ then you need a "fast" lens to cover all eventualities.

jamesev · 21 Feb 2017

Seba said:
I think a 300 f4 is a little pointless, it's so similar to the 200mm end of the 70-200.

Why not a second hand 500mm f4 for a decent price...

https://www.mpb.com/en-uk/used-equi...enses/nikon-af-s-500mm-f-4d-if-ed/sku-643955/

In what way? it gives you 50% more "reach" which allows more of the frame to be filled.

sk66 · 21 Feb 2017

DemiLion said:
That's one of the worst bits of advice for sports photography that I've ever seen on here.

If the light is good enough I prefer a good zoom lens over swapping cameras/lenses or heavy cropping in post... everything is a tradeoff.

chuckles · 13 Mar 2017

I've used this lens in combination with a 24-120mm on a couple of bodies. I've played a lot of rugby in the past but never photographed it - not as easy as you'd think!

Searching through the focal length data in LR there were very few shots at the extreme end, but I was almost always on the side lines. It's certainly capable of acheiving good results and the relatively 'wide' aperture for a non-elite lens is a bonus in Winter light.

Here's a link to a mediocre set of shots taken at a local club. The camera/lens is more capable than the Tog

NB - just noticed only the shots from the 15th November are in fact the 200-500mm (earlier ones are the Tamron 150-600, sorry)