which lens for my D810 for sport

<p>Side line sports really requires something longer than 200mm. The value choice would be the Nikkor 70-300/4.5-5.6G-VR. Stepping up would be the Nikkor 80-400/4.5.5.6G-VR. Also, don't rule out a prime 300mm. The 300/4.0AF-S can be had a good prices now that the 300/4.0E-PF is out.</p>

<p>Ilkka: That I can believe. My 500 f/4 AI-P isn't much heavier than the 200 f/2, but while I can hand-hold the 200mm fairly easily, I can't remotely manage the 500 f/4 - mostly because the balance point is too far forward for me to wedge my elbow on my substantial belly. (I know others manage this, but I guess they have stronger arms than me. For me, the 500mm is effectively being held at arm's length.) I <i>can</i> hand-hold a 400 f/2.8, even the older one, despite it being much heavier than the 500mm, because the centre of gravity is closer to me.<br />

<br />

Anyway, I was just responding to Mike's comment about the weight. I don't advocate hand-holding a 200-400mm (not that I've ever tried) - that's why most of the ones I've seen have been on a monopod. Also, there's the question mark about longer focus distances with that lens, though I gather something may have changed in the D4/D4s generation to help this.</p>

<p>I was only mentioning weight and bulk because the OP doesn't want to use a monopod/tripod.</p>

<p>....but likes f2.8 lenses.</p>

<p>....but doesn't have enough reach @ 200mm on FX...(maybe the DX crop is good enough???)</p>

<p>Or get the 70-200mm 2.8 <em>AND</em> a D7200 for the 300mm equivalent reach.</p>

<p>The 400mm 2.8 scares small children and people of a nervous disposition (and bank managers!) </p>

<p>Are we really talking about indoor soccer? While I know it exists, most soccer/football is played outdoors. And are we talking about both indoor and outdoor soccer, as the lens requirement differs?</p>

<p>The problem with soccer is that the players run around a large field. One fixed lens is never going to be good for everything. Professional sports photographers may have one 400mm/f2.8 on a monopod, but that is typically in conjunction with 1 or even 2 additional camera bodies (for a total of 3 DSLRs) with shorter lenses on. E.g. a 70-200mm/f2.8 on a second body and some 28-300m super zoom as a "catch all" lens or some 24-70 for the occasional wide image.</p>

<p>Clearly the OP is not shooting sports professionally, but if there is going to be just one D810, I think a zoom is necessary for soccer. The lens will depend on outdoor, indoor, night games, and budget. If the 200-400mm/f4 is too heavy, most likely so will any 300mm/f2.8 and the Sigma 150-600mm Sports version.</p>

<P>

Concerning lens sizes, keep in mind that a 400mm/f5.6 lens requires a 400/5.6 = 71.4mm (diameter) front element while a 400mm/f4 requires a 100mm front element. The difference is terms of front element surface area is significant such that cost and weight go up exponentially. On some long teles such as the 600mm/f4 and 400mm/f2.8 (not the latest FL version), Nikon actually puts the tripod collar up front.

</P>

<P>

There are reasons that Nikon puts tripod collars on these lenses.

</P>

<P>

<IMG SRC="http://static.photo.net/attachments/bboard/00b/00bnh5-541171184.jpg">

</P>

<p>Hi,<br>

To add a little bit more details <br>

- I will be using for outdoor , my son is starting next week . But I will have occasion to shoot indoor too, so having a lens for both will be a plus .<br>

- The kids do not use the full field to play ,8years old , they only use half of it or less . SO i THINK 200 should be enough for now .<br>

I haven't used non of these lenses .<br>

Is it a good idea to by the ninon 70-200 on ebay to save money ?<br>

Thanks all</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Unfortunately, there is no lens that is going to be optimized for both outdoors and indoors. The 70-200mm/f2.8 should be great for most indoor situations unless you are really far away. For outdoor soccer, I actually prefer the 200-400mm/f4 AF-S VR, shown above. Otherwise, the 70-300mm/f4.5-5.6 AF-S VR should be a good choice at below $600 and is fairly light weight. I am afraid that at f5.6, its AF performance is going to be rather poor for moving subjects indoors. The problem is that if it AF poorly indoors, it will be fairly obvious even with small JPGs you post to Facebook or e-mail to friends.</p>

<p>If you can afford the 70-200mm/f2.8 AF-S VR, maybe you can add a 1.4x TC for outdoors. That is not going to be the most efficient way to spend money for a lens for outdoors sports, but if you want just one lens, that maybe the compromise.</p>

<p>P.S. I should point out that Nikon's TC-14E is about 80% of the cost for the 70-300mm AF-S VR lens.</p>

OP I just went through the scenario on indoor hockey so the 70-200 f2.8 was a must. Sign up at KEH Camera. They

have sales and I was able to save 15% last week on a Nikon 70-200 f2.8 in like new - condition. KEH's grading scale is

very conservative, and the example I received was basically brand new without a box or paperwork from Nikon. It di not

have any marks on it at all and I could not tell that it had been used. Seems to work great and KEH gives you a 6 month

warranty, which is better than Nikon Refurbished. Good Luck!

<p>The 70-300 VR might work and the 70-200/4 could prove a wiser investment than the faster 2.8 version. If your child does not use the whole field, perhaps the 85/1.8 might be an interesting addition to the 70-300 VR to get some indoor shots if you can get close to the action.</p>

<p>It depends on how close to the pitch you are allowed to stand and how strong the lightning is. I shoot both dressage and show jumping and the differences between various riding arenas is huge, sometimes more than two stops.</p>

<p>Perhaps you could rent/borrow some of the mentioned lenses?<br>

eBay is fine, just remember to check seller's feedback ratings and return policy.</p>

<p>Surprised nobody's suggested any of the 80-200 f2.8 lenses? Although I understand that the AF-S may not be fully compatible with D810.</p>