Choosing a lens

[sean_mcclellan]

Hello, I was wondering what would be a good lens for indoor/outdoor

sports photography/wildlife/lowlight/normal outdoor photography? I

was looking at the AF NIKKOR 80-200mm f/2.8 D Nikon ED lens and I

want to know if this lens will cover everything that i want to do. I

want to make sure that it will work well in lowlight to adequate

sunlight in outdoor photos and in sports (pretty much everything all

around). If you could let me know, that would be appreciated,thanks.

[mendonphoto]

That's a pretty tall order for one lens to fulfill. The aperture of f/2.8 is definitely fast - normally as fast as zooms come, especially telephoto zooms. However, 200mm is pretty short for wildlife photography and even some sports photography - especially if you are using it on a full-frame camera.

 

To get one lens that does everything you are asking, you'd probably need a 100-600mm f/2.8. If you find one, let me know (not that I could afford it or even carry it).

[lilly_w]

The top-shelf, low-light lenses that command a king's ransom are the 200 (non-AFS or AFS VR) and 300mm f2's. If you're inclined toward the 80-200/2.8 I would recommend the AF-S version for sports and faster moving wildlife. It's not over-the-top faster but undeniably faster. 200 seems a tad short for wildlife, depending on distance, size of beast, etc. Then there's the 200-400/4 AFS VR, demanding more ransom.

[wilsontsoi]

80-200mm f2.8. Use 1.4x or 2x TCs as needed.

[armando_roldan]

the answers are

 

indoors=maybe

 

outdoor sport=yes

 

wildlife=how big and how far is the widelife?

 

lowlight=how low a light and thats why Nikon makes electronic flashes too

 

normal outdoor=yes

 

You can't have everything.Thats why Nikon makes 75 different lenses.And the 80-200m is probably the best seller. But get the AF-s version.It makes a world of difference for sports and wildlife.

[mark newcombe www.mcnphoto]

70-200 is heaps better and the 200-400 is an absolute gem, I use it all the time, 85 1.4 is good for indoors if you can get close enough.

 

These lens will cost you much more than the old 80-200 2.8 so depending on your budget you can make the decision.

 

I don't shoot a lot of wildlife unless you count kids as wildlife (sometimes they can be) but for sports the above three lens always come with me. I don't use convetors since I bought the 200-400 but I believe the kenko is pretty good.

[erin.e]

Ya gotta start somewhere and the 80-200 2.8 will be a very useful and versatile fast zoom for many sports pics as well as general photography uses, with a teleconvertor to give a little extra length at times as Wilson suggested. If this excellent lens is within your price range, it will serve the purpose quite well.

[dave_wag]

Indoor Sports:

No. The 80-200mm is not the greatest idea in the world. I've managed to pull off good pictures with them, but I've pull off many more with the 70-200f/2.8 VR. For indoor sports (which for me is synonymous with basketball), you need AF-S. Consider the relatively cheap Sigma 120-300 f/2.8. Use a flash unit if possible.

 

Outdoor Sports:

For outdoor sports (synonymous with football), a minimum is the 300mm f/2.8. You can play with the teleconverter here, but I don't like it when my 300mm f/2.8 gets knocked down to an f/5.6 with the 2X converter. Also consider the Sigma 120-300. Use flash unit if its a dark/cloudy day, otherwise you should be fine.

 

Wildlife:

At least 400mm, teleconverter would certainly be useful. The long f/4s, as somebody already mentioned, are a good choice. If you're good, go straight for primes. When you need 400mm+, you should be good enough to not still be tempted by 200-400 as opposed to straight 400.

 

Lowlight:

USE A FLASH!!! Haha. At least f/2, depending on what you're shooting, either the 50 or 85mm f/1.4.

 

Normal Outdoor:

Something along the lines of a 24-70 or 18-70 or even the new 18-200. Don't be tempted to luge around a particularly huge lens for 'normal' outdoor, unless by normal you mean normal conditions, extreme photography [hah].

[robbie_caswell]

This picture was taken with an 85mm f/1.4 lense at either f/2.8 or f/2.5 and I was getting shutter speeds of 320 and 400.

[robbie_caswell]

Sorry about the large image.

 

In my gallery you will see boxing and basketball.

 

Boxing was shot in a VERY dim National Gaurd Armory with 800 and 1600 fuji. Wide open f/1.4, I had only about shutter speeds of 160 and a little better with 1600. Tough sledding with so quick of athletes with no "peak" action like basketball. Shows some of the problems with fast primes. Dof issues brought on by wide f/stop/slow shutter speed due to the poor light. If it was basketball I would have better luck because I could put some distance in between me and my subject.

 

The basketball was shot in one of the better locales in my locality. Capable of f/2.8 and 320/400.

 

I'm certainly no pro and didn't want to get in the way of the news guys who had the best side of the court. I could only shoot one half the game before I had to leave. One roll of fuji superia 800. The ref was determined to have his butt in every one of my shots.

 

Not great, not bad for my first game of the year. Hope that helps with your lense choice.

 

I think the news guys were using either the 70-200 or 80-200 and I saw an 85mm f/1.4 as well (white lense on a nikon d2H? third party?).

 

You'll be struggling with a f/2.8 indoors IMHO. Get a lightmeter and test your locale where you will do the majority of shooting, maybe it will work, and you will have a very versitile setup. Otherwise.... 85mm BABY!

[mark newcombe www.mcnphoto]

Dave is correct the 120-300 2.8 sigma is a great lens, terrific price and a zoom 300 2.8 to boot. I bought one for one of my guys a while back and he raves about it because he doesn't have to lug around 2 bodies one with a 300 2.8 and the other with a 70-200.

 

I think there may be a new model denoted with a dg for digital if there is get that one.

 

Whilst I personally don't use sigmas much any more with the exception of the 10-20mm they really seem to be a good choice with the hsm and ex.

 

regards

Mark