Moving to DSLR - lens advice?

[jake_s]

I'm looking to move from my Coolpix 5700 to DSLR. I'm strictly an

amateur, taking general photos; our dogs, nature; but my

dissatisfaction with my pictures from the 5700 for high school indoor

volleyball has led me to look at SLR. My research has pointed me to

the D50 and I'm trying to figure out what lens I should get. My

preference is for convenience and I would prefer a single lens rather

than 2 sequential zooms. I see that Nikon has just released an 18-200

VR DX zoom lens (f/3.5-5.6). I'm sure this would be just fine for

most of my needs, but will it suit in low lighting in indoor gyms for

fast action sports shots without flash? Thank you in advance for your

help.

[armando_roldan]

You might want to check the SPORTS PHOTOGRAPHY forum about gym lightening and lenses. Its seems it a very big issue lately with indoor sports starting up.

[todd peach seattle, washi]

I think you'll need the speed, based on my shooting of similar events.

 

Assuming you can get right down behind the net judge, here would be my choices, in order from least expensive but usable to most expensive:

 

50/1.8 AFD

 

85/1.8 AFD

 

85/1.4 or 135/2.0 AFD DC

 

and the 'do-all' compromise, the 80-200/2.8 AFD, or some AFS / VR variant thereof. It's a workhorse of a lens, but I prefer the faster primes for indoor court sports.

[bourboncowboy]

I agree with the first answer. Lenses such as the 50 1.8 and the 80-200 2.8 have worked well for me shooting indoor basketball games. I'd also suggest a 35-70 2.8 as well. Budget constraints have kept me from purchasing the DX lenses, but that's been a blessing in disguise as the "D" lenses I've been using with my D70 have taken some wonderful shots.

[iambaxter]

The 18-200 will be a good all around lens, but not if you are shoting indoors with out a flash. Yes the VR will allow you to shot at much slower shutter speeds, but that will not stop the action on the court. Best go with a faster prime or two.

[jbq]

What's the main problem you have with your 5700? If you don't really tell us in which area you think that your current equipment is inadequate, we'll have a hard time helping you improve on that.

[lex_jenkins]

If you want to photograph indoor school sports without using flash you'll need fast lenses. I've been using a 24-120/3.5-5.6 VR which is of limited use in a dimly lighted gym. So I'm forced to use flash, which so far has been okay with the officials, coaches and players.

 

And that's the problem with most gyms, other than at the college level: Most gym lighting is horrible, dim, uneven, and color photos will show garish green, yellow or other tints.

 

Even with a dSLR and photo editing it's difficult to correct for the lighting if you use flash for supplemental lighting. The foreground and background are difficult to match unless the camera is white balanced to the ambient lighting and the flash is appropriately gelled. I've had better success using Fuji films with the 4th color layer emulsion for available light shooting in local schools. A good minilab can easily correct the color problems and produce natural skin tones from plain ol' Superia X-tra 800, altho' NPZ is less grainy.

 

Another disadvantage to most slow, variable aperture zooms is that they need to be stopped down about one full stop from maximum aperture for good sharpness. So an f/3.5-5.6 zoom is effectively closer to an f/4.5-8 zoom. That makes shooting with available light indoors even more difficult. With a fast lens, even if it needs to be stopped down for good sharpness it's still faster than a variable aperture zoom.

 

Rather than getting any zoom, if your main goal is photographing indoor sports, consider these lenses:

 

1. 50mm f/1.8D AF-Nikkor. Best bang for the buck. Excellent quality photos for a $100 lens. It may feel plasticky and cheap but it works very well.

 

2. Sigma 30mm f/1.4 EX DC HSM. Haven't tried it myself but most comments from owners are favorable. It's fast, reasonably priced and should have quicker autofocusing than Nikon's wide angle primes, such as the 35/2 and 28/1.4.

 

3. 85mm f/1.8D AF-Nikkor. Sure, the 85/1.4 is faster but it costs a heckuva lot more.

 

You could put together a very reasonably priced kit consisting of the 50/1.8D AF-Nikkor and 85/1.8D AF-Nikkor. If the budget permits kick in the Sigma, or the 28/2.8 or 35/2 Nikkor.

 

If you feel the need for a longer tele than the 85mm, there are a couple of good possibililties:

 

1. The 180/2.8 Nikkors are excellent and very good values considering the image quality. I've often used mine to shoot indoor sports. It's sharp wide open, altho' the relatively shallow depth of field requires careful focusing, as with any fast lens used at or near maximum aperture.

 

2. Sigma has recently introduced a 150mm f/2.8 EX APO Macro EX DG HSM that seems promising. It's priced comparably to a new 180/2.8 AF-Nikkor, has their quicker focusing hypersonic motor and has the additional advantage of closer focusing (it's a 1:1 macro). The 180/2.8 Nikkor doesn't focus particularly closely - about five feet - which can limit its usefulness in certain situations.

 

Zooms:

 

1. The best value in a fast midrange Nikon autofocus zoom is probably the 35-70/2.8. I'm considering selling my two other midrange Nikkor zooms (other than the 24-120 VR) and buying the 35-70/2.8. The zoom range is limited but it'll be useful in other ways.

 

2. A good used 80-200/2.8 autofocus Nikkor. A good example would cost roughly the same as a new 180/2.8 Nikkor or the 150/2.8 Sigma.

 

Opinions vary regarding how useful a 200mm tele or zoom is for indoor sports. I prefer to shoot volleyball at the net so a moderate wide angle to moderate tele is useful to me. Some folks prefer a longer lens for basketball since there's more range of movement. It also depends on how close you can get to the action. I don't mind a volleyball bouncing off my head at the sidelines. I wouldn't enjoy a missed pass from a basketball smacking me. Also, middle/junior school girls aren't very tall or heavy. Many college and pro women's volleyballers are taller and heavier than I am and could knock my lights out if we collided at the sidelines. I wouldn't want any of us to be injured so, sure, a longer lens and a bit more wiggle room is appropriate for some situations.

[hbs]

I just bought a D50 (I love it so far), and I got the 18-70 DX AF Nikon lens that comes with the D70S. Reviews I had read said it was a much better lens than the 18-55 that comes with the D50 kit. See the review on Ken Rockwell's site.

[yeux tortu]

When I shot a D70 I found the 85 1.8 to give the best AF indoor sports performance. Only the rear elements move to focus and is much faster than the 80-200 which requires a large lens group to be moved by essentially a screwdriver. But the 80-200 2.8 ED is optically the best zoom lens I have ever shot, giving it up was my biggest regret moving to EOS.

 

The new lens you cite looks like a great lens but will be too slow indoors.

[erickpro]

F/5.6 Indoors? That needs like 1600 ISO to take decent shots at 1/125

 

 

Like most say, I suggest you get the F/1.8

 

 

Exactly what do you not like about the 5700? If it is because the aperture, then you will not gain anything by buying the 18-200mm VR DX for a DSLR.