which lens would you buy??

Hello, thanks for responding to my "help, new camera blury pics"

your answers really helped out.I have a quick question? I have a

nikon d50 camera and limited funds for a good lens, I can only

afford "1 lens", High School sports is what i will be taking

pictures at, indoor and outdoor soccer, baseball.

 

which lens should i get, and why that lens ( i am a coach so i am at

field level).

 

80-200mm f2.8

135mm f2

85mm f1.8

85mm f1.4

50mm f1.4

 

if you could only have one of these lenses, on a nikon d50 - for the

above sports - which would you choose??

IMHO: the only one wouold be the 80-200 2.8, if for no other reason the others lack the reach. It's a good, fast lens, I use mine constantly for sports (including soccer), and am quite pleased with it.

80-200/2.8 hands down. Reach, ability to crop, etc. Think about the type of images you want to see on paper - relatively tight, action shots I assume - and you'll be led to the 80-200. Too short of a focal length and you'll know the players largely by their numbers / positions and not faces. You could also pick-up a wide prime (in addition to 80-200) for bench shots and the like, considering your close proximity. Have you already got a lens?

If I could always use a monopod I'd go for the 80-200/2.8 or 70-200/2.8 VR Nikkors. I have a bum back and can't support a heavy camera/lens combo for long.

 

Otherwise I'd go for the 85mm for outdoor sports and 50mm for indoors. In some cases your framing will be loosey goosey but the lenses are sharp enough that your photos can withstand some cropping to get the enlargements you want.

 

Go for the fastest lenses your budget allows. Slow, variable aperture zooms are frustrating for indoor sports.

The 80-200/2.8, while excellent for outdoor sports, may not be enough for your indoor

sports if I remember your previous post and blurred photo.

 

Indoors you may need the extra speed of the 50/1.4 or 85/1.4.

If I can only have one lens, the 80-200 f2.8 will be my bread & butter. If fund is tight, then for indoor, I'd pick up a 50 f1.4 for low light situation.

I've never been able to attain anything usable indoors without something faster than f/2. Since the 50mm f/1.8 is almost a giveaway at $100, I would say get that and the 80-200 for outdoors.

 

Though the 80-200 is more versatile, I have seen Ex+ 135mm f/2 consistently go for $600 used and the 180mm f/2.8 for less.

 

 

. less than that...

Why doesn't anyone recommend the 18-200 that has gotten extatic reviews all over? Too expensive? Overkill for this specific need? Or doesn't the autofocus work as fast on a D50 as on a D200? (As used in the review).

 

What I'm basically asking is: is the 18-200 really this good as the review states when taking sports photos >>with a D50<< ?? (and not a D200).

 

Thanks for any clarifications, I'm quite new to this!

 

Review: http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/18200/18200-focus.htm