What lens is the best for shooting rugby

<p>Hi, would I be able to get some advise on lenses for shooting rugby union, some shots are form the sideline but mostly from behind the dead ball line with the team I am shooting running towards me.<br>

Currently I have the following;<br>

Nikon D90<br>

Nikon D7000<br>

Nikon D300<br>

Tokina 80-400mm F4.5 is the main lense<br>

Nikon 55-200mm DX F4 ED<br>

Nikon 18-70mm F3.5 ED<br>

The problem is that if the game is palyed late in the day, the 80-400mm slows down in the shadows of the grandstand, and i have missed shots due to this.<br>

Looking at a Sigma 50-500mm, but this is also F6.3 at 500mm.<br>

I saw a Nikon 300mm F4, but there is no zoom, can I have any suggestions please, mostly sunny days, but low light can be an issue. Flash is out of the question as the target is to far away, and i will blind the players.<br>

Thankyou for the suggestions in advance.<br>

Kev.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Hi Kevin,<br>

I have shot at Blues vs. Scarlets recently but only from the stand. At my local ground Cardiff Blues you are allowed to get in close to the playing field and none of the restrictions of football. The atmosphere is so much more friendly than the round ball that given the chance I would see the egg game any day! If you are going to be static I think you need to think of your positioning. I would assume that you want to be close to the action. In that case the 80-400 would be your main lens. I am not a Nikon user so don't know about noise issues. However, as a game, Rugby is slow and you should get plenty of opportunity to get the dead ball shots.<br>

One of the other problems I have at the local games is that it gets so cold in the evening. So wear gloves or even cut out ones and take a monopod with you. You might need to find out from stadium security if that is allowed.</p>

<p>Hi, I could have been more specific, I have access to the ground, and do use a mono, as the game gets longer, the know the story.<br>

Can I ask, if you shoot in the evening, do the lights in the stadium provide enough lighting for you to take reasonable shots.<br>

What equipment do you use to shoot from the stands.</p>

<p>Kevin, maybe a first point should be: what is the budget you have available for this lens?<br>

Because, what you're asking for is not going to be cheap.... As the 80-400 is already too slow with f/5.6 (at the long end), none of the alternatives is going to work either (Sigma 50-500 and 150-500, Tamron 200-500: all slower aperture). If a lack of zoom is a dealbreaker, it leaves you with realistically one lens: Nikon 200-400mm f/4VR. That's a (very) costly lens. OK, there is the Sigma 200-500 f/2.8, but it's kind of heavy. All other lenses around this length are primes.<br>

But with access to the ground, I would think a 70-200 or 80-200 (f/2.8) on a DX camera should really do the trick? Those lenses are fast enough, for sure, and I'd think they're long enough as well. Else, the Nikon AF-S 300mm f/4 is a really great lens; maybe worth trying/renting one time to see how badly the lack of zoom affects you.</p>

<p><em>____<br /></em><br>

<em>(and out of curiosity: why 3 DX cameras? Isn't the D90 a bit overkill?)</em></p>

<p> </p>

<p>Kevin -<br>

As pointed out - if the 70-200 f2.8 isn't enough - then you're into the mega buck / fixed length territory.</p>

<p>The D7000 will perform well at up to 3200 ISO - you can go further than that with noise reduction software.</p>

<p>Nikon's 80-400 isn't any faster - I think is is an f5.6. So that wouldn't help.</p>

<p>Dave</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>As pointed out - if the 70-200 f2.8 isn't enough - then you're into the mega buck / fixed length territory.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Naaah - the Sigma 120-300mm f/2.8 OS is (relatively) great value; is very versatile (especially if you play a 1.4x TC into the equation); is silly-sharp; has very fast AF; has 4 stop stabilisation; and is what I actually use when I shoot rugby. </p>

<p>Hi Everyone, I am very greatful for the ideas, and appriciate the effort to reply, as you can see I just need some ideas to run with and I am gettting excellent feedback, as you say this is a sort of difficult area as costs play a part in how I proceed, and I am learning form this.<br>

Basically I do this for the local Rugby club, I do not ask anything for my time or equipment, it is to support the players and give them memories of the games and keep for the future.<br>

So any investment will be paid for by me, in the effort to provide better images.<br>

Again thankyou, on the question of why 3 DX, I started with the D90, then updated to the D7000, and was offered the D300 for $500, so that is how I end up wih these cameras, I am wondering if you ask why I do not have a D700 or someting.</p>

<p>Many Thnaks, Kev.</p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p>I am wondering if you ask why I do not have a D700 or someting</p>

</blockquote>

<p>No, seriously, it was sheer curiosity. Personally, I would sell of the D90, as next to the D300 and D7000, it brings little to the table the others cannot do better already. That's what got me wondering.<br>

As a happy D700 owner, I can say it is a great camera to have... but given your question was about finding a longer lens, I do not think FX would be a logical answer here - it would only drive costs up a whole lot more!</p>

<p>Hi Wouter, thanks for the feedback, I take all adice on board and hope you have not taken any offense, so please give any feedback.I will sell the D90 and work with the two other cameras.<br>

Many Thanks for you support.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I would think the same gear as American football -- 70-200 2.8 at the minimum, 400 2.8 and 600 4.0 for longer shots. You don't necessarily have to buy the big glass -- some friends of mine who've shot pro sports professionally (but not every day) rent the 400 or 600 for game day and bill it to the client.</p>

<p>I shoot soccer at night sometimes with a 70-200 f2.8. Unless you have a huge budget that would probably be a reasonable lens for you. Realistically if you are behind the goal line you should be able to get most action closer than the 22 metre line and a bit between there and half way without too much of a problem. To try to cover the whole field is just mega bucks and your team will have their backs to you for half the game anyway unless you can change ends.<br>

If you are shooting in low evening light or even under lights the bodies you have are really more of an issue imo. The D300 is fairly ordinary above iso1600 (mine is at least) and the D7000 I guess will be okay to about iso3200 but even there under lights at f2.8 you are going to struggle to get a fast enough shutter speed to freeze a player running straight at you. A s/hand D3s may in the long run be a better investment if you take a lot of these shots.</p>

<p>Hello Richard, many thanks for the reply, you may have a point, I am trying to cover the entire field, so I now have a dilemma, being;<br>

1. Use the Sigma 120-300mm, or<br>

2. Nikon 70-200mm, both 2.8<br>

Would you know that if I had to use the Nikon lense, I believe it is very sharp and cropping should not be an issue if I shoot high resloution.<br>

I am thinking of not being able to shoot over the 50m halfway line.<br>

What would you think of using say a 1.4 or 1.7 multiplier.<br>

I do have a limit, will have to stay with the cameras I have a buy a better lense. Just which one. Appriciate all opinions, as when I buy the lense I am stuck with it.</p>