zoom for outdoor soccer with D700

<p>Hi all ,<br>

I currently have the D700 with 24-70 f2.8 and 85 f1.4 . I now lookign for a zoom lens to take picture of my kids playing soccer outside . Which should be more approriate . My budget is aroud 1500 dollar .<br>

Thanks for any recommendation .</p>

<p>I used a 80-200mm 2.8 with my D700 and 300mm F4 </p>

<p>If low-light shooting isnt an issue, the AF-S 70-300 VR give pretty good reach and is cost-effective at under $500 US. Otherwise, the AF-S 70-200 f/2.8 VR is a more modern version of the 80-200 recommended above. The 70-200 VR is razor sharp in the center, but it also has much-debated corner software on FF. It is currently going for about $1800 US new and may be a bit more than you want to spend.</p>

 

<p>Scott ,<br>

Yes , the 70-200 is a bit out of my budget . But I heard that the 70-300 VR is too slow for fast action , do you have this problem ? ANother question wouldn't be the 200 too short for soccer , because of the distance ?</p>

<p>The 70-300 is not too slow for fast action and would be excellent for outdoor soccer. I use it for all kinds of outdoor sports and it works great. </p>

<p>I take pictures of track outdoors with my D50 set at ISO 200 using the 70-300 VR zoom and have no problems with action shots. Your D700 at ISO 1600 or higher should even get you into the evening when the light starts to drop off.</p>

<p>OK , thank's to your answers . I will go for the 70 300 . My kid is playing next Sunday , I will post some pics here for your comments . Thanks a lot</p>

<p>I got a suggestion oh th following seteup nikon 70200 /2.8 plus nikon tc17 or tc20<br>

Any comment , besides th orice of course ?</p>

<p>I second the 70-300, it's light and easy. A sigma 70-200 f2.8 or a 300mm f2.8 are both great lens' as well.</p>

<p>Come on, you've got a D700, you don't need aperture. The D700 could take action shots with a pinhole! Wind the ISO up to 1600 and a cheap 70-300mm f/5.6 zoom gets you the same shutter speed as an expensive f/2.8 lens at 400 ISO, but with a lot more DOF. We're not shooting film with it's exaggerated speed claims and giant grain now you know. In fact I accidentally left the ISO at 1100 while shooting some architecture the other day and didn't even notice a difference in quality at all.</p>

<p>If you really want to save the pennies, Tamron's 70-300mm f/4 - f/5.6 zoom is a real bargain, beating the more expensive Sigma equivalent hands down on overall IQ.</p>

<p>but if you really want a 2.8 tele,how about a 180 f/2.8 for 900 on amazon? or since you have the d700, how about the AIS 180 f/2.8 for 299? those will both get the results you want. </p>

<p>I have a 70-300 VR and for daytime games should be no problem at all. The D700 high ISO is so good, you can push it up and get better shutter speeds.</p>

<p>I used a 70-200 f/2.8 on a d200 and it was perfect. Occasionally I wished for a bit more reach.<br>

On a FF 200mm would not give me the required reach. SO, I would recommend a 70-200 with a tc-14 but if that is outside of your budget then a 70-300 should do since you can turn up the ISO on the D700 </p>

<p>If your kids are little, 300mm on a D700 will be fine. If they're teenagers/high-school on a regulation field, you might find you want a bit more reach than that combo provides, or else you'll be limited to shots on the near quadrant of the field.<br>

I shoot soccer using a D300 and the 70-300mm, and it's just barely enough reach in DX format. Lack of light is only an issue for me at dusk, but you'll have another two stops to play with.</p>

<p>If you go for the 70-300, remember that it comes in 3 "flavors": G, ED or VR. Do NOT buy the cheap G-version, as this is soft at the long end, and suffers from lots of CA. VR is expensive, but supposedly the best of the three.</p>

<p>Another option would be the Nikkor AF 80-400mm f/4.5-5.6 ED VR D. This would fit in your budget but will be a little heavier than the the 70-300 option. I got to use this zoom last year at an air show. Really saw no little difference other than it is larger than the 70-300 VR. Anyone else have any thoughts on this option.</p>

<p>The 70-300 VR is probably the best inexpensive option. The 80-400 would be another good option still within your budget. The Sigma 70-200 2.8 is sharp and fast for about 749.00. The Sigma 100-300 is another good option as well. Even though the 80-400 is not AF-S, it will probably still be fast enough to focus on kids playing soccer. With a budget of 1500 you definitely have options.<br /> The Sigma EX 120-400 HSM would be a nice alternative as well for 899.00. It's sharp, long, HSM autofocus, and has image stabilization.<br>

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/549248-REG/Sigma_728306_120_400mm_f_4_5_5_6_DG_OS.html#reviews</p>

<p>http://www.popphoto.com/Reviews/Lenses/Sigma-120-400mm-f-4.5-5.6-DG-OS-HSM-Lens-Test</p>

<p>For sport photography i would adwise to look at 300 or better 400mm. 200mm ( without 1.4 extender ) on FF will be too short.<br>

<br /> NIKKOR 300mm F4 IF-ED<br>

NIKKOR 80-400 f/4,5-5,6 ED VR</p>

 

<h1 title="Nikon Nikkor 300MM F4D ED-IF AF-S"><br /></h1>

<h1 title="Nikon Nikkor 300MM F4D ED-IF AF-S"><br /></h1>

<p>I would agree the longer the better for a full frame sensor. I have the same camera and have considered several different options for a long lens but I'm leaning towards the Sigma 120-400 HSM at this time maybe the 80-400 Nikon but the Sigma has a better AF system at about 1/2 the price.</p>

<p>What size soccer fields?</p>

<p>I use a 300mm on a full frame body, and that's about right for the medium sized fields that are used by my 7-year old.</p>

<p>Eric</p>