Help - best telephoto for fast paced sports?

<p>I have a Nikon D40x and one major use I have for it is to take photos of fast paced sports such as polo. At the moment I'm using a Nikon 70-300 VR lens which has produced some pretty nice photos. But I'm looking for something that can take really good close up shots for the long shots such as when I'm on one side of the field and the money shot is being scored on the opposite side... but at the same time won't make me go broke.<br /><br />I've been considering getting either the Nikon 80-400 or the Sigma 50-500 f/4-6.3 OS (more reasonably priced for a longer range). Which one should I go for?<br /><br />Or if anyone has any other suggestions, please suggest away, I'm completely open to any kind of advice!</p>

<p>Neither of those 2 - the Nikon won't AF on the D40x, and the Sigma is limited by its aperture (f/6.3 at the long end means you need a lot of light). Frankly, there are little affordable options that can fill your wishes... Closest would possibly be the Nikon AF-S 300 f/4 with a TC-14EII (gives 420mm f/5.6; around $1500 total), but that is also not a very quick focussing combination. Basically, going beyond 300mm adds either a lot of cost, or adds a lot of compromises. The 70-300VR you have, on the other hand, is simply very good value for money.</p>

<p>Also, the increase from 300mm to something like 500mm is not nearly as much as you may think - going from 300mm to 400mm is really not the difference between "overview shot from other end of field" to "close up shot from other end of field". To give an idea what I mean with this: crop an existing photo, shot at 300mm, to half the width and half the height - that would be a 600mm lens.</p>

<p>An option to consider is using the money to replace the D40x with a D7000 - cost about the same as the lenses you mention, but you gain extra resolution for cropping, plus a body that is overall much better suited towards sports, with an AF system and frame rate that work for sports.</p>

<p>The 80-400 is hardly cheap - at $1900 suggested list price new. Plus as pointed out it doesn't AF on the D40x due to lack of a motor in the camera. </p>

<p>The Sigma will AF but you are limited by the aperture of the lens (F6.3) on the 500mm end. If you're shooting in bright sun, this won't be a problem, but if you do night shooting, then you'll have a bit of an issue. </p>

<p>The D7000 is a good upgrade, but it's buffer is a bit limiting, especially if you are shooting raw. Jpeg isn't quite as bad, but it is still not equal to the D300 or D200 in terms of buffer. (sticking just to crop bodies here) </p>

<p>I'd suggest an upgrade to a D300 body and then look around for a used 80-400 or sigma 50-500 or 150-500. </p>

<p>Dave</p>

 

<p>How about adding a <a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=&sku=228165&Q=&is=GREY&A=details">teleconverter </a>to your lens? That could help in good lighting conditions.<br>

Click link to see B&H product.</p>

 

<p>Ideally you would do what baseball/football photographers do and carry a super long lens like a 400 2.8 or 600 4.0, but that would be way out of your budget. If you want to do it on the cheap, you can get a manual focus 500 f/8 mirror lens, but that would only work in good light and you have to be able to focus fast manually. <br />The truth is, sometimes the shot is just too far away regardless of what gear you have. Haze in the air, dust getting kicked up at a polo match and heat rising up off the ground can cause blur in long-distance photos, not to mention camera shake if your shutter speed isn't high enough. Other players can also block your view.<br />The most traditional approach is to pick your spot and your lens and let the action come to you. You won't get everything, but you can still get great shots.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>How about adding a teleconverter to your lens? That could help in good lighting conditions.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>At the cost of compromised AF.</p>

<p>Adding a TC will also reduce the speed of the lens by the magnification factor of the tc. So an f2.8 becomes effectively an f5.6. </p>

<p>As the D40x already has rather mediocre AF, adding even a 1.4x TC to a f/5.6 lens is a really bad idea. It won't AF at all, and MF will be rather hard with the less-than-stellar viewfinder of the D40x.<br>

All in all, I think upgrading the body first really makes more sense in this case.</p>

<p>What's your budget?</p>

<p><em>I'm looking for something that can take really good close up shots for the long shots such as when I'm on one side of the field and the money shot is being scored on the opposite side...</em></p>

<p>You can increase the detail in your far distance shots in a number of ways, e.g. by 1) increasing pixel density on your camera i.e. by going to D7000 or D3200, 2) improving the autofocus (e.g. D7000, D300(s) have better AF than D3100 or D3200; a fast 300mm or 400mm prime would also give better AF but costs more), 3) by using higher quality optics and cropping as needed (i.e. 300/4, 300/2.8 400/2.8, 500/4, 600/4). The 70-300 VR is a good lens for the money but it is a bit soft at 300mm. The 80-400 Nikkor doesn't AF with your camera so you'd need at least the D7000 (or D300(s)) to use it for sports. It is not known for fast AF performance but at long distances the subject movement is relatively slow vs. the depth of field. I don't know if it would be a good choice but it may be worth testing.</p>

<p>However, the lens I recommend when on a budget is the 300/4 AF-S. It has very high image quality and will autofocus on your camera. It can be augmented with a TC-14E(II) to get 420/5.6 that is okayish, especially if put on a tripod (I would just shoot it without TC and crop as needed). So with a D7000 + 300/4 AF-S you have a reasonably priced, extremely high quality long lens setup that affords some cropping when needed. It is not at all the same thing as the 70-300 you use now; the quality is spectacularly better on the 300mm prime than the zoom at the long end. Longer than that, while retaining good image quality means spending a very large amount of money on a fast supertele (i.e. 400/2.8), which I think may be overkill for your purpose and cause handling problems and restrict your mobility in a way that you may not want.</p>

<p>I would avoid third party -500mm zooms as they are slow (the maximum aperture is small) and mushy at the long end. I think it's better to start with a really high quality shorter lens and crop from that if you absolutely need to. A lot of the time the best shots are obtained at short to intermediate distances, and not the really long distances that you may at first think that you want. Distance reduces image quality (atmospheric scattering from dust, humidity, smog etc.) and the perspective may not be so appealing. People tend to look better when photographed at a short to intermediate distance and the shots feel more intimate than super long distance shots.</p>

<p><a href="00auDQ">What lens is the best for shooting rugby</a><br>

Hi, I have asked a similar question in the above blog, and there are some very helpful replies from other members, especially the suggestion of using a Sigma 100-300mm F2.8 lens, this looks to reraly fit the bill, low light, and I think it is very clear if you crop, you will not need 400mm or 500mm focal lentghs. But I speak from the gathering information form others not as a professional.<br>

Good Luck, will you advise once you decide.</p>