Nikon 300mm (What to do?)

Lonster

Lonster

Messages
28
Name
Leon
Edit My Images
No
Hi All Fellow Rugby Tog's,

I've started shooting for Newbridge RFC every weekend and really enjoy it.

Only thing is I sometimes feel I need to shoot more close-up action photos.

I currently use a nikon 80-200mm F2.8, do I:

1) Buy a AF teleconverter TC-14E (1.4x)
2) Buy a 300mm F4
3) Forget the other options and save for months/yrs for a 300mm F2.8

I'm currently thinking about going with the 1.4x converter and lose a stop.

What are your thoughts??:thinking:
 
Or 4) Pick up a used Sigma 120-300 F2.8

I did and it's an absolute cracking lens. The other alternative is the Sigma 100-300 F4. Another absolute belter.

Some people turn their noses up at Sigma, but I've not had a bad one yet.
 
BarneyRubble, how much are they going for these days? In the same position as Lonster n that i have a 80-200mm but want a 300mm - f/2.8 is too expensive but f/4 is good value. Been looking at 300mm f/2.8 Sigma's used but they're still going on a grand for a good example.
 
I would buy a used 1.4 TC and see how it performs and if the IQ is an acceptable trade off, if it is problem solved, if not sell it for the same price you brought it for and consider your other options.
 
If you are looking at the Sigma 100-300f4 price wise about £500 +/- a little depending on age DG or non DG. I have the non DG version and use it with the 1.4 tc, quality is OK is you stop it down.
 
From my limited exposure to shooting rugby I'd get a zoom and not a prime.

I was however quite happy with using my 70-200 for it - ok, there I could cover about two thirds of the pitch, but moving around gave me the variety of shots I needed.

Whilst the Sigma 100-300 and 120-300 are good fast lenses suitable for action photography, the wide end would be my worry on a DX body. On a FX body the 120-300 would be good - but then you are getting back to the same as my 70-200 on a DX....

Stick with what you've got would be my advice and accept that you can't hit everything - you can't anyway, there will always be shots you can't get because they run in all sorts of directions and there will be plenty of angles where you are facing into the sun (blurgh!)
 
Even when using a D2x (DX) and a 70-200 (equating to 105-300 on an FX body), I found as Desantnik says that I couldn't cover everything on a Rugby pitch - the Army's well into Rugby...
It was the one time I'd have been happy with that horrible old 80-400 VR Nikkor...

As to facing into the sun - why do they insist on playing in the winter when the sun's only 5' off the bloomin' horizon?
 
specialman said:
BarneyRubble, how much are they going for these days?
Click to expand...

I got a used mint 120-300mm Sigma recently - £1200 - seems about average. Great lens - but so is the Nikkor 300mm f/4 - the zoom is just more versatile.
 
Arkady said:
It was the one time I'd have been happy with that horrible old 80-400 VR Nikkor...
Click to expand...

I don't think there would be much point really, the bits you miss with the 70-200 aren't so much that I'd worry.

Guess it depends what you are there for - I needed about 5 good action shots and that was it, job done. As long as the buggers didn't stay down the other end of the pitch for the entire game I was made.

Maybe its different if you just want to take lots of rugby shots? :shrug:

BTW, don't get me wrong I love long primes, for motorsport they rock! But not rugby... well, unless you have another body with a shorter zoom on it on your belt - thats how the proper big time rugby/football guys shoot.
 
Surely for close up action shots there must be times throughout the game when the action is close to you. It, like everything else, may require a little waiting to get that certain shot. The difference between 200mm and 300mm won't make all that amount of difference to how close you can get. Professionals, I believe, tend to use 600mm + to get in among the action.

Realspeed
 
I'm no expert by any means, but I was told "multiple players and with the ball in the frame". Using a 600mm on my camera would give me a photo of the players nostril.

Thats not to say that someone's personal photos of rugby need to fit with my editors style guide :D
 
I photograph junior rugby league on a non-pro basis. I have tried numerous lenses and primarily use the 120-300 Sigma now.
 
specialman said:
BarneyRubble, how much are they going for these days? In the same position as Lonster n that i have a 80-200mm but want a 300mm - f/2.8 is too expensive but f/4 is good value. Been looking at 300mm f/2.8 Sigma's used but they're still going on a grand for a good example.
Click to expand...

They go for around a grand on here. Superb lenses, but at the end of the day you get what you pay for.
 
realspeed said:
Surely for close up action shots there must be times throughout the game when the action is close to you. It, like everything else, may require a little waiting to get that certain shot. The difference between 200mm and 300mm won't make all that amount of difference to how close you can get. Professionals, I believe, tend to use 600mm + to get in among the action.

Realspeed
Click to expand...

Nope 400MM F/2.8 and a 70-200MM F/2.8 is the standard lineup for most guys (and girls) at the footy and rugby
 
Lonster said:
I currently use a nikon 80-200mm F2.8, do I:

1) Buy a AF teleconverter TC-14E (1.4x)
Click to expand...

I have a Nikon 80-200 f2.8.....

My choice was get a TC but I picked the Kenko model

Kenko 1.4 300 DG Teleplus

I have taken a number of shots with the lens only and then both and to be honest the IQ is VERY good with the TC with no real loss of IQ in the shots I took. The other thing is that this TC works with ALL lenses and it is VASTLY cheaper than the Nikon alternative. I bought mine literally as new inc postage for £59 on ebay :)

This is a link to someone selling one new, I have no idea if they are any good or not.
 
cowasaki said:
I have a Nikon 80-200 f2.8.....

My choice was get a TC but I picked the Kenko model

Kenko 1.4 300 DG Teleplus

I have taken a number of shots with the lens only and then both and to be honest the IQ is VERY good with the TC with no real loss of IQ in the shots I took. The other thing is that this TC works with ALL lenses and it is VASTLY cheaper than the Nikon alternative. I bought mine literally as new inc postage for £59 on ebay :)

This is a link to someone selling one new, I have no idea if they are any good or not.
Click to expand...

Off topic, but does the Kenko do everything that the Nikon TC does - AF, metering, allow VR switching etc.?

I tried a Nikon TC-17EII on my 70-200 f/2.8 and (just as desantnik said it would be ;)) ... it was soft as hot butter :(. Might want to try again with a 1.4x TC though, as I could really use the reach :thinking:.

Sorry for thread derail.
 
Naboo32 said:
Off topic, but does the Kenko do everything that the Nikon TC does - AF, metering, allow VR switching etc.?

I tried a Nikon TC-17EII on my 70-200 f/2.8 and (just as desantnik said it would be ;)) ... it was soft as hot butter :(. Might want to try again with a 1.4x TC though, as I could really use the reach :thinking:.

Sorry for thread derail.
Click to expand...

It does AF and metering. I don't know what that last bit actually means! The 80-200 does not have VR. I could attach it to the camera with a VR lens if you like.
 
cowasaki said:
It does AF and metering. I don't know what that last bit actually means! The 80-200 does not have VR. I could attach it to the camera with a VR lens if you like.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I just remember reading somewhere that you couldn't switch VR on/off, or switch between "normal" and "active" modes, if you mounted a VR lens to a Nikon camera body with one of these Kenko TCs :thinking:.

If you could test it out, that would really help, as I think I'd probably get one of these if I could find one for under a ton :).
 
Naboo32 said:
Yeah, I just remember reading somewhere that you couldn't switch VR on/off, or switch between "normal" and "active" modes, if you mounted a VR lens to a Nikon camera body with one of these Kenko TCs :thinking:.

If you could test it out, that would really help, as I think I'd probably get one of these if I could find one for under a ton :).
Click to expand...

I'm just in the middle of making a roast lamb stew and building a computer so will sort that later for you and post a response.....
 
Rovers_Andy said:
What time will it be ready :naughty:
Click to expand...

I'm making it out of the two last bits of the spring lamb I had in the freezer. 2 rolls of lamb belly. It has taken an hour and a half to trim it out and in that time I have had 12 chicken legs, onions, celery, rosemary, garlic, bay leaves and carrots roasting in a tray in the oven to make the stock. I have now put the bits of meat from the trimmings that were not just fat into another tray with the same items and the best bits of lamb are waiting to start the stew.

After all this work it better be good. Whilst at the same time building a computer for our new youngest member shhhhhh >>>>> LINK
 
Naboo32 said:
I tried a Nikon TC-17EII on my 70-200 f/2.8 and (just as desantnik said it would be ;)) ... it was soft as hot butter :(.
Click to expand...

Hate to say I told you so... :whistling:

:thumbs:
 
Naboo32 said:
Yeah, I just remember reading somewhere that you couldn't switch VR on/off, or switch between "normal" and "active" modes, if you mounted a VR lens to a Nikon camera body with one of these Kenko TCs :thinking:.

If you could test it out, that would really help, as I think I'd probably get one of these if I could find one for under a ton :).
Click to expand...

Woops, just realised, all the lenses I have here are non VR ! AFS50mm f/1.4G, AF80-200f/2.8, AFS24-70f/2.8 and Sigma 20mm :) Both my VR lenses are at work but will try this tomorrow with my old 18-200vr that Mrs_C now has.
 
For a cheap trial I would buy a Kenko 1.4TC Pro 300 and give it a try. I use one with my 70-200VR, giving me a 280mm f/4 at the longer end. The IQ is very very good :)
 
Rovers_Andy said:
What time will it be ready :naughty:
Click to expand...

'bout an hour ago.......

lambstew.jpg
 
desantnik said:
I don't think there would be much point really, the bits you miss with the 70-200 aren't so much that I'd worry.

Guess it depends what you are there for - I needed about 5 good action shots and that was it, job done. As long as the buggers didn't stay down the other end of the pitch for the entire game I was made.

Maybe its different if you just want to take lots of rugby shots? :shrug:

BTW, don't get me wrong I love long primes, for motorsport they rock! But not rugby... well, unless you have another body with a shorter zoom on it on your belt - thats how the proper big time rugby/football guys shoot.
Click to expand...

With 'Army' games you have to get decent shots of all the 'key' players, not just those who play well - if you get my drift...
 
Thanks everyone for your responses... I think I'm going to try the Kenko 1.4x Converter first. Quick questions anyone ever ordered stuff on ebay from Hong kong?? If so, was the goods okay?

p.s. Nice stew....
 
Lonster said:
Thanks everyone for your responses... I think I'm going to try the Kenko 1.4x Converter first. Quick questions anyone ever ordered stuff on ebay from Hong kong?? If so, was the goods okay?

p.s. Nice stew....
Click to expand...

I've bought from Hong Kong a few times. The only problem is import duty and if it goes faulty it can get expensive to return it.

The stew was rather nice :)
 
desantnik said:
Hate to say I told you so... :whistling:

:thumbs:
Click to expand...

:D No Problem - I'm a stubborn sort anyway and won't be told anything, usually :p.

So, before I make another mistake, how do you think a 1.4x TC (Nikon or Kenko) would affect the IQ of the 70-200 f/2.8, desantnik :shrug:? Would it be noticeable?

Incidentally, I found a rather 'lateral' (partial) solution to the problem of not having enough length with the 70-200 on my D700 - I sold (actually, returned) the 1.7x TC and with another 250 quid, bought a D90 body instead :). Now I still have +12MP to play with, but 50% magnification :cool:! Admittedly, the images from the D90 look worse when heavily cropped than those from the D700, but then, I don't need to crop quite as much now.

Still looking for more reach though ...
 
I've not used a 1.4x on the 70-200... I've used it on the 300 f4 - works lovely on that, but then again so does the 1.7x!
 
desantnik said:
I've not used a 1.4x on the 70-200... I've used it on the 300 f4 - works lovely on that, but then again so does the 1.7x!
Click to expand...

OK, I hear ya ;) - forget the TCs and buy the 300mm f/4 :D.

It's tempting, I must admit ....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top