sports lens

jmghart62

jmghart62

Messages
112
Edit My Images
Yes
I do a lot of sports photography, including local league football and hockey and I have made good use over the years of the Nikon 70-300 which came bundled with my old Nikon F65. To be honest, it's not really cutting the mustard any more. I don't know if that is a fault of the lens or that my own standards have risen. Anyway, I am going to invest in a new lens to use with my D80 but I'm not really sure which way to go. The 18-200 has had some good reviews but will I miss the 300 end? l could just get the 70-300 VR but the reviews are not so good for that lens. Anybody any thoughts? Any sports photographers have a preference? I'd love to say money is no object, but I have to be sensible.
 
Need more speeeed.

Without going completely mental cost wise, I'd put up with the 100mm loss for an 80-200 f/2.8 every day of the week.
For me the important number is max aperture, not focal length.
200mm is right on the edge of usefullness for field sports, but the options are limited if you've got limited funds.
An 80-200 f/2.8 with blow both the 70-300 and the 18-200 from here to the otherside of Christmas....even if they tagteam.....and get a few mates with baseball bats.
 
Thanks ... been chatting to a photographer at work and he was suggesting the Sigma 70-200 2.8 with the option of a 1.4 convertor if I did feel the need for the extra 100mm. I agree that speed is the most important consideration. Think I may have to raid the piggy bank ... or leave plenty of hints around for Santa
 
Sigma 120-300 has 2.8 throughout. With the 1.4 TC you get f4 throughout and a good reach. I use that lens as is and the TC for cricket
 
Best get some dumbells aswell, theres a big difference in weight and maneuverability between them.
Monopod would be handy..
heck, its getting expensive..

I'll get my coat..
 
if you have the nikon kit 70 -300 G lens, then i can vouch that its the crapiest lens ever made!! its a paperweight! Anything will out perform it.
 
KIPAX said:
Sigma 120-300 has 2.8 throughout. With the 1.4 TC you get f4 throughout and a good reach. I use that lens as is and the TC for cricket
Click to expand...

I use the 120-300 with the 1.4x for the cricket also on my D200. Superb lens, wouldn't swap it as there's nothing at 2.8 with that reach. (y)
 
So would you 2 guys that use the 120-300mm F2.8 APO EX IF HSM DG rate it over the Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8G AF VR, quality wise? I will be looking at upgrading from my Sigma 70-200mm f2.8 HSM when I come back to the UK.
 
jmghart62 said:
Ooohhh, I like the look of the 120-300 ... but not sure my bank manager would approve. And, as a mere woman, I fear I could buckle under the weight but it's certainly a lens to aspire to. Thanks for all your help
Click to expand...

I rarely use it hand held and only then if it's a sudden snap or miss moment. The 120-300 is heavy. Monopod reccomended man or women :)

Sorry Steveo_Hants I am on Canon so wouldnt know if it stands up to other nikon equivelant lens..
 
Steveo_Hants said:
So would you 2 guys that use the 120-300mm F2.8 APO EX IF HSM DG rate it over the Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8G AF VR, quality wise? I will be looking at upgrading from my Sigma 70-200mm f2.8 HSM when I come back to the UK.
Click to expand...

Steve, it depends what you are shooting?? Close up sports like footie, rugby etc when you are on the sidelines with the action close is fine for the 70-200 lens.

For distance stuff like cricket, autosports etc, the extra 100mm is very handy and with the 1.4tc on, it becomes a 168-420 f/4 lens. If you use the 2tc, it becomes a 240mm - 600mm f/5.6 but I've never used that combination. As KIPAX has mentioned, it is a heavy beast. 2.6kg and I only use it on the monopod to stop my arms falling off.

The 70-200 f/2.8 VR is a beauty, no doubt about it. Would love to have one for footie, Lacrosse (My sport) & indoor sports.

I went for the 120-300 as I wanted the reach to be able to snap the player belting the ball for six over the boundary.

Cheers,

Adam.
 
Adamski said:
I went for the 120-300 as I wanted the reach to be able to snap the player belting the ball for six over the boundary..
Click to expand...

You dont even need the TC at smaller local cricket grounds.. This without :)



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