Favorite Nikon Lens for Soccer Dad

[marc_lieberman1]

In less than two weeks, I will become a "Soccer Dad" as my 5 year-old

twins have their first soccer game. It dawns on me that my 105mm lens

won't likely have enough reach to make for good photos. So my

question is: What is your recommended lens for shooting outdoor action

sports like (kids) soccer? I use an F5, so I don't have the benefit

of a 1.5x crop factor than comes with a Nikon DSLR.

 

Now, assuming your "recommended" lens is a 300mm f/2.8 (which is way

beyond the $800-$1500 budget that I've set for this project), what is

your No. 2 recommendation? (I am happy to buy used from Photonet

members, but not from ebay.)

 

(I was thinking a 180mm f/2.0, 80-200 or 70-200 f/2.8, or a 300 f/4.)

 

Bonus question: Dump the F5 for a D70, D1X, or D2H? I scan my own

negatives, but figure that the film and processing costs I'd save over

the useful life of a DSLR would make up the difference between the

value of a used F5 and the cost of used professional DSLR (not

including here the D2X)

[marc_lieberman1]

Oops, that should have been "180mm f/2.8"

[frank_skomial]

Mark,

You already figured the lenses you may need.

D2H would be much faster than the D70, but more expensive.

AF-S lenses will be focusing faster than regular AF.

 

With digital, not only the money you will save, but will get instant feedback of your shots. You will shoot many many more pictures, and with lack, some of them will be great.

[frank_skomial]

Correction, It should be "luck"

Best of luck to you!

[david_h._hartman]

<em>Bonus question: Dump the F5 for a D70, D1X, or D2H?

--Marc Lieberman<br>

</em><br>

No DO NOT dump your F5. Save for a new DSLR, they offer great

advantages but also have some disadvantages. For what you

describe Id recommend a Nikon D2H and a Nikon F5. <br>

<br>

The F5 is not worth much on the used market as there are a glut

of them dumped pros as well as others. It must be worth more to

you when you need to shoot negative film in really harsh light

where DSLR(s) dont do so well. I mention the D2H because its

built to F5 standards and surprisingly has a viewfinder that is

almost as good as the F5s in spite of the DX format. The AF

in poor light surpasses the F5. It has nine cross type AF sensors

compared to the F5s three. The F5s AF is still well

up to the challenge.<br>

<br>

<em>What is your recommended lens for shooting outdoor

action sports like (kids) soccer? --Marc Lieberman<br>

</em><br>

In your budget I recommend a new AF-S 70~200/2.8G ED-IF VR. If

you need more reach Id add a clean used TC-14E. You many

find the VR a great help. The zoom feature will be very welcome

as the action can be close or far and you want the background out

of focus so the f/2.8 aperture will be an advantage. A soccer

field is long but hopefully you can stay near the zone your kids

play in. If one is a goalie and the other a forward youll

surely get your own exercise as well.<br>

<br>

I personally own the D2H, F5 but only the AF 80~200/2.8D ED Zoom-Nikkor.

Im trusting <a href="http://www.naturfotograf.com"

target="_new"><u>Bjorn Rorsletts</u></a> review and others

to recommend the AF-S 70~200/2.8G ED-IF VR.<br>

<br>

Regards,<br>

<br>

Dave Hartman.

[armando_roldan]

I have shot soccer a couple of time and found that I needed atleast a 400mm lens , if not a 500mm. A 300mm might work but you will be restricted to action close to you or have images with lots of cropping required if you want to close in on you kids. I found myself doing a lot of shooting during youth soccer and football( in excess of 350 images) ...thats 15 rolls of 24exp on film and at least $7-10 a roll pocessing fees.

 

I had a D70 for a while and shot about 7000 images. Thats about 300 rolls of film and at $7 a roll, I be spending almost $2000 in film/processing. A D70 is fast enought for youth sports at 3fps and shooting JPEG FINE will give you 350 images per 1 gig card( at about $60 per card)....by using a Nikon DSLR and a 300mm f/4 AFS( 450mm equivalent on film), you will actually spending LESS than using film all season. No doubt you can sell a few close up/great shots to other childrens parents and reduce overall costs by the end of the season.I use both film and digital and use my Dh2 almost entirely on sports. I can't afford to shoot 500 image on film each week.

[david_h._hartman]

<em>Thats about 300 rolls of film and at $7 a roll, I be

spending almost $2000 in film/processing., ....by

using a Nikon DSLR and a 300mm f/4 AFS( 450mm equivalent on film),

you will actually spending LESS than using film all season.

--Armando Roldan<br>

</em><br>

I cant argue with the cost of film but I cant see

using a D70 on any kind of sports. The AF just isnt up to

the challenge. FPS arent too important. You will probably

only squeeze off single frames anyway. My cameras are almost

always set to Continuous Servo focus (AF-C) and 5 FPS. The buffer

depth of the D70 might be a consideration. I dont know. Ive

never considered that aspect of the D70 as I find the AF and

viewfinder quite lacking. If you can swing a D2H and a lens Id

do that in a heartbeat. Consider the cost of film.<br>

<br>

The fixed focal length gives its own problem if the action

is too close. Id rather have a zoom . A 200mm lens on a D2H

gives an angle of view and reach of a 310mm lens on 35mm. Adding

a TC-14E and you get the reach of a 434mm lens. On the short end

youll have the reach of a 109mm lens and with the TC-14E

the reach of a 152mm lens on 35mm film.<br>

<br>

Im not arguing against the AF-S 300/4.0D ED-IF. Id

love to own one. My 300 is the old 300/4.5 ED-IF AI. Its a

sweet handling lens but it likes to be stopped down the f/8.0 and

also for sports its not an AF lens.<br>

<br>

Regards,<br>

<br>

Dave Hartman.

[armando_roldan]

Dave,

 

A D70 is more than adequate for most sporting events except for baseball and high school football and/or motor sports. Remember we are dealing with 5 year old children, or 10 yr old children or even 15yr olds, not professional sports.

 

You can cut cost tremendously by using a 70-300 G nikkor since it light enought and cheap enought to have as a travel/knock around lens but will you use it in 5 yrs from now compared to the 300mm f4?

 

remember, we are dealing with a soccer dad with very young children, not an aspiring Sports Illustrated wannabee pro sportshooter.

[andrew robertson]

Get the standard soccer mom zoom - an 18-200 f/3.5-6.3!

[watermelon]

Dont ever swap your F5 for a D70! If you can afford it a D2h would be nice but I'd still put my money into glass until NAS got the better of me if I did it again.

[don_cooper]

While it ain't a Nikon the Sigma 100-300 F4 AFS would handle the soccer situation nicely. If you're afraid of the Sigma check around on the net for reviews. It's an excellent lens in all respects, and probably the best value for the buck for a lens in this range.

[terry_rory]

I agree with the 70-300mm option. You have 2 choices ('G' or 'ED') both are inexpensive but I would go for the ED version.

 

Just use film that is a couple of stops faster. ISO 800 maybe. Soccer is an outdoor game here in the UK (I assume it is an outdoor game where you are) so getting enough light should not be a problem.

 

The 70-300mm saves you enough cash from your budget to supplement your F5 with a D70S.

[stwrtertbsratbs5]

Trust me - 5 year olds won't move that fast on the soccer field. I've shot my son's soccer game using manual focus cameras and even got nice shots with an old manual focus rangefinder (not the ideal tool for this situation).

 

My Mamiya 645 with a 150mm lens produced excellent images (manual focus). But I was able to stay right on the sidelines. We don't move the kids into a big stadium until first grade.

 

My older son, who is almost 9, is harder to capture with a manual focus camera.

 

Robert

[hughes]

Marc

I have been shooting soccer for a long time heres my advice a D70 and a 80-200 zoom {I use a 2.8 nikon lens} will be more than adequate for shooting kids soccer you can get much closer for the little kids game and you might even get away with the lens you have with a digital camera for adult soccer a 300mm or 400mm is needed. Heres a shot taken with a D70 and a 80-200 AFS lens

good luck and have fun..

Steve<div></div>

[ramon_v__california_]

look at steve's photo. work yourself up if you're on a budget. the D70 will work just fine with a good lens. i use a 70-210mm f/4-5.6D, considered inferior to the 80-200 AF-S, but i can deliver great images of kids' soccer and baseball as well as basketball games.

what ever you do, don't sell your F5.

[mark_b.]

Marc, As Robt says remember these are 5 year olds! You can get real close to shoot, even onto the field at times. I've used my FM/FE2 with 180mm f2.8 just fine, Trevor's suggestion of the 70-300 sounds excellent too. That will be a real versatile lens for all kinds of activities your kids will get involved in. Keep it simple with a zoom rather than a bulky, expensive telephoto!

[hayward]

When I first got into photography I shot my kids soccer games with a Tamron 100-300 zoon on a Minolta body. The 100 end is too wide for when the action comes to you. Similarly, it is too short for action at the other end of the field. I'm describing five-year old soccer, here. Keep in mind that the fiels get longer as your kids grow.

 

Later, I used a Nikon N80 and 70-300 G. The optical quality wasn't top notch, but the reach is about right. Since then, I've owned a 180mm 2.8, 300 f/4, and 70-200 VR. I think a prime is the wrong approach for a soccer game - you need a zoom - and the 300 f/4 is too long. The 180mm will be too long much of the time. Also the 300 f/4 has slow autofocus unless you get the AFS version, although your F5 will help. The 180mm is relatively slow, also.

 

Bottom line: buy the 70-200 AFS VR. You could go used with an 80-200 AFS (the non AFS focuses too slow), but you only save $300 to $400 on a brand new lens with VR.

 

I wouldn't dump the F5 for a D70, but I would for a D2h.

[ShunCheung]

Above 3 years ago when this forum was very new, there were a ocuple of threads about people shooting children soccer with the N80, which uses the same AF module as the D70. For that photographer, the N80's AF was completely insufficient and we in the forum suggested upgrading to the F100, and the problem was solved.

 

Whether the D70's AF is sufficient for your sports photography or not is for your to decide; obviously it is good enough for some people. I have a D100 which also uses the same slow AF module and I wouldn't use it to shoot children soccer.

 

If it were up to me and the budget is limited, I would get a used D2H for below $1500 or so and get a 70-200mm/f2.8 AF-S VR or a used 80-200mm/f2.8 AF-S. Unfortunately, the total will be over $2000, which may be beyond your budget.

 

You can continue to use the F5, but film and processing cost will be high. And if you want digital files, you'll be spending a lot of time scanning your negatives (or slides).

[hughes]

Please Please Please

somebody explain to me why my Nikon D70 is inadequate for sports photography. I have a Speed Graphic and a Yashicamat and a Leica M3 none of these would I use to shoot sports, but My D70 seems to work pretty well. Please explain what I am doing wrong using this inadequate camera.

Steve

[Jerry_]

If you have under $1,500 to spend, look at a used AF 80-400mm VR Nikkor lens. If you shoot in sunlight (most of kid's soccer games are Saturday?) the lens should do pretty well. You may consider a monopod if you want to shoot sans-VR during a match.

[joseph_smith3]

Keep the F5 and get a Nikon 300mm f 4.0 AF-S lens. Or get a the 70-200 VR, and the 1.4 tc, if you can afford them. Joe Smith

[david_h._hartman]

<em>but will you use it [70-300 G nikkor or even

the ED] in 5 yrs from now compared to the 300mm f4? --Armando

Roldan<br>

</em><br>

No, neither of these lenses interest me much. There performance

at 300mm isnt that good and the f/5.6 aperture that needs

some stopping down is way to slow. Also if there are spectators in

the background these may be too well focused and cause the

subject to be confused with the background. These lenses would be

very low on my list of suggested lenses. I didnt recommend

them. I dont know if Ive ever recommended these

except to tell folks to spend the extra and get the ED lens.<br>

<br>

<em>A D70 is more than adequate for most sporting events

except for baseball and high school football and/or motor sports.

--Armando Roldan<br>

</em><br>

Well Im sorry, the D70 is not a camera I can love. The

viewfinder is the most important interface of the SLR with the

photographer and the D70s finder is the worst of any Nikon

camera Ive held in my hands. If feel strongly that a

viewfinder for an AF camera should be every bit as good as one

for an manual focus camera. <br>

<br>

<em>the N80's AF was completely insufficient and we

in the forum suggested upgrading to the F100, and the problem was

solved. --Shun Cheung<br>

</em><br>

I have an N80 that I bought for my mother. The AF is really poor

compared to the F5 and D2H to the point that I dont

consider the camera as an AF camera.<br>

<br>

Marc Lieberman is coming from a Nikon F5. As I see it the D2H is

a very good solution as its viewfinder is really as good as

the F5. The DX format uses a 35mm lens for its normal

lens so when this handicap is added the D2H is a bit less in the

viewfinder department. I said good solution as if

money were no object Id recommend the D2X. No, I didnt

recommend the D2X that appears to be fantasy with the current

budget. The D2H has pretty much the same AF as the D2X and D2Hs.

These have improved algorithms as I recall.<br>

<br>

<em>If it were up to me and the budget is limited, I would

get a used D2H for below $1500 or so and get a 70-200mm/f2.8 AF-S

VR or a used 80-200mm/f2.8 AF-S. Unfortunately, the total will be

over $2000, which may be beyond your budget. --Shun Cheung<br>

</em><br>

<u>Armando, you brought up the important issue of the cost of

film. Perhaps Marc can separate the cost of a lens and group the

cost of a camera body and film or CF cards. In this case he might

buy both a lens and a D2H knowing by the end of the season he

will spend the same or less if he shoots with a DSLR.<br>

</u><br>

Steve Hughes, sample shows why Id prefer an f/2.8 lens.

Notice the spectators in the background are nicely blurred. I dont

know if this is because he shot at f/2.8 or because he is fairly

close to the primary subject but blurring the background is very

important in sports. Again, I would not recommend an f/5.6 lens

that really needs to be stopped down to f/8.0 or f/11.<br>

<br>

Now as far as an AF-S 70~200/2.8G ED-IF VR or one of the 80~200/2.8

v. the AF-S 300/4.0D ED-IF Im just throwing out an

alternative. Id take the 300/4.0 if I had one. I just think

a zoom and an f/2.8 lens is a better choice. <br>

<br>

Regards,<br>

<br>

Dave Hartman.

[david_h._hartman]

<em>Please Please Please somebody explain to me why my

Nikon D70 is inadequate for sports photography. --Steve

Hughes<br>

</em><br>

The D70 uses the Multi-CAM900 AF module, its old and slow.

The AF sensors size was designed for the larger 24x36 or FF 35mm

format not the DX format so the AF spots may cover too much and

focus on something other than the prime subject. The center

sensor is the only cross type sensor and the only one worth using.

The mask that show the sensors may not register with the sensors

themselves.<br>

<br>

The viewfinder is packed with too many visual features so you are

looking through a number of undesirable air to probably optical

acrylic surfaces and you are looking through an LCD that covers

the entire optical path. The on-demand grid is not necessarily

straight. The D70 uses a penta-mirror that is not as bright or

precise as a pentaprism and the viewing screen leaks too much

unfocused light.<br>

<br>

Its a regrettable fact that the image sensor in a DSLR is

about one half the cost of the camera. Im not sure how much

is the cost of manufacture and how much is the cost or R&D

but I suspect that both are high but the R&D is very high

because of the relatively short production life so far.<br>

<br>

To meet the price point and provide a list of features customers

want and think they need there are a lot of compromises that had

to be made. The camera obviously sells well. This dose not mean

that the camera is well suited to sports, even kids sports. Part

of this is how many shots you are willing to loose to poor focus.

Part of this is whether the action is moving towards you or

across your field of view. Its a matter of how, where and

how often you ware willing to compromise.<br>

<br>

The D2H is selling a fairly low prices now. This is in part

because people tend to over value a high megapixel count. The

difference between 4.1 and 6.1 MP is almost meaning less and

there are other factors. I bought a D2H because it gave me state

of the art AF and a viewfinder well suited to both AF and MF.<br>

<br>

The D70 sits in the hot seat as its the most affordable

Nikon DSLR to compare with the D2X. The D2Hs is a specialized

camera for photojournalist and sports photographers. Comparing

the cost of the D2Hs at $3,200.00 to the D2X at $5,000.00 and the

4.1 to 12.4MP and it seems to me that only those who do not want

larger images because of the overhead of uploading the images

to the editors desk will buy the D2Hs. I bought the D2H on close

out at $2,000.00.<br>

<br>

OK, Im rambling. Let me say this I regret the high cost of

professional DSLR(s) and the lack of more affordable Nikon choices

between the D70 and D2X. I think Nikon needs badly to slide two

choices in between these two cameras. I think Nikon should retire

the multi-CAM900 module. I think they could clean up the

viewfinder and if folks can accept a few more grams give a camera

like the D70 an optical glass pentaprism.<br>

<br>

Maybe you just have to shoot with both a D70 and D2H or D2X to

understand. Id be a liar if I said Id prefer the D2H

or D2Hs to the D2X. 4.1 to 12.4 MP is a significant jump and

again there are other factors.<br>

<br>

Regards,<br>

<br>

Dave Hartman.<br>

<br>

<u>PS: if you are happy with your D70 dont worry about what

I write. Im throwing out a counter point that will probably

ring true with only a few demanding photographers. Also I came to

a DSLR from the Nikon F5 so my expectations where high.</U>

[james_c._turner]

You have twins, right? By the time you post process two or three seasons of soccer shots from a DSLR, your kids will be in college.

I would stick with the F5, I have an F5 and D1H, the latter doesn't get much use.

As for the lens, I use the Sigma 120-300 HSM EX 2.8 with great results. Good luck, and have fun.

[chris m., central florida]

I haven't read all of the above posts. Sorry, a few of them are all over the board and I have experience shooting soccer kids. I'll try to be very concise.

 

I'd go with the 70-200 AF-S VR. Well worth the money. The soccer field for 5 year olds is about 1/2 size, so you can usually shoot on the sidelines and get great results. I know this because... I have four young children (ages 4-9) and three of them play sports, including soccer. And I shoot with the 70-200 AF-S VR.

 

Even when they get older, you can still pretty much figure out where the action shots will be by the positions they play, and move along the sidelines or end zones to capture it effectively.

 

If you decide that you can't afford the AF-S VR lens, a great option is the 80-200mm AF-S (available used), or even the Sigma 70-200mm f2.8 HSM APO variant. I have owned the Sigma, and it is a fine performer, easily matching the images produced by the Nikon in this scenerio. VR seems to be the only major difference.

 

Have fun. I shoot for a living, but I can definitely say that shooting my kids on the field has given me tremendous satisfaction, even over great wedding images and magazine covers. I'm very proud of them!

 

BTW - I have no problems capturing all the action with my 70-200/2.8 AF-S VR mounted on a little D70. Great combination. It will rock on your F5.