D70 with 180mm f2.8 for sports photography

[chris_jefferis]

I am thinking of getting a Nikon 180mm f2.8 for use with my D70, mainly for outdoor sports photography. I currently

have a Tamron 18mm - 200mm left over from pre-digital days which is OK on bright days but awful as soon as it gets

cloudy. I am concerned about the slowness of the auto focus & wondered if anyone had any comments on this

issue. I need a 2.8 due to the sometimes poor lighting at this time of year & don't want to go for the 70-200 due to it's

price and size/weight. Thanks

[niccoury]

What about finding an 80-200 AF-D? They can be found for about 700 and about just as good quality as the 180 prime.

[frank_skomial]

The 180/2.8 Nikkor lens is far superior to both Nikkors, the 70-200/2.8 VR, and the 80-200. Since it is not a zoom lens, you will have to work harder, moving a lot, predicting action, and taking many more pictures.

 

VR for the sport action is useless. Zoom is invaluable for action photography, but depending on the type of sport, you should have many opportunities to take great pictures with fixed focal length lens. Usage of 2 cameras would be advisable.

[chris_jefferis]

By the way, it would be a 180mm f2.8 D AF IF-ED

[chris_jefferis]

And for kids soccer

[Rene11664880918]

Chris... It is a great lens. compact and very light compare to a 80-200. Since it is not AF-S the AF is slower than the 70-

200 but I find it much faster than the 80-200. Cheers!

[rene gm]

I think you should not bash lenses on the build quality. For amateurs, this might not matter at all.

According to test reviews (e.g. slrgear), the zoom lenses perform quite as good, if not better at F5.6-8,

and about equal (even better in the center) wide open, in terms of sharpness, vignetting and CA. I have

no reason to distrust these measurements. If you have, you should tell so.

[lex_jenkins]

Rene GM, what are you talking about? The question is about recommendations for a faster telephoto for action oriented photography. Chris specifically said he needs a faster lens to photograph action in dim lighting. Performance of lenses he didn't ask about at f/5.6-f/8 is irrelevant.

[walterh]

"I am concerned about the slowness of the auto focus & wondered if anyone had any comments on this issue."

 

Yes both the D70 and the 180mm AFD are slow in AF for sports. To get a major improvement you would need to

improve the body and the lens. If this combo is sufficient to you only you can tell. Sports photography existed

before AF came along. You just miss some shots. Not acceptable for a pro who has to live on getting the shot but

perhaps OK for a non pro. I recommend the use of a monopod or tripod.

 

It certainly is a low budged solution with some charme that besides the slow AF gives you excellent optical image

quality. In dim light the D70 will struggle with noise and as you know is two steps below the D3 or D700 with the

D300 near the FF bodies.

[dave_l.]

The 180mm would be a fine choice for kids sports photography. I hate bringing up equipment that you didn't ask about, but if cost and weight are your issues and you can get reasonably close to the action you might want to look at a Sigma 50-150 HSM. The difference between 150mm and 180mm is very small, they're competitively priced, both are compact and lightweight, and you would get high speed autofocus with the Sigma. On top of that, you'd have a lens that's a lot more flexible for things like portraits and indoor sports.

 

This is all assuming you're not getting paid for the work. If you are, I wouldn't presume to be able to give you advice.

[Rene11664880918]

I was wondering what Rene GM was talking about! I even thought he had posted a reply on the wrong thread!

[Peter_in_PA]

Sports? Without a Zoom?

 

Just say no. You need to "zoom with your feet" sometimes to catch the action. I'd get the old 80-200 f2.8 used before I'd

get the 180mm f2.8 (although I've used that lens in its older MF incarnation, and it was awesome then, so no doubt it is

more amazing in its current form.

[carl_becker2]

I have the Nikkor 180mm f2.8 AF-D. My first DSLR was the D70. I made posts about this same question a few years back. IMHO the focus is much to slow for sports with this combo. Currently I have a D700 but as yet have not used the 180 with it. I do like my 180 very much and will not part with it but for sports I think the other lense suggestions like an older 80-200 or maybe the 50-150 would be better but I have not used them. The older slower 70-210 I had did focus much faster than the 180. The older Nikon D2H may be able to do a much better job in the focus department or maybe the D300.

[daverhaas]

For sports and kids - it's tough to beat the 70-200 vr AFS. It has the motor built in, so focusing is not an issue. and as for sharpness - tough to beat.

 

Only drawback is the price = $1,700 new.

 

Dave

[carl_becker2]

Its always a matter of compromise. The 70-200 vr is big, expensive and heavy but focus is fast and its versatile. The 180 is smaller lighter cheaper probably a bit sharper at 180 but slow to focus. The other zooms mentioned are in the middle of these extremes eith there pluses and minuses. I would look carefully at the Sigma though.

[ilkka_nissila]

The 180mm is an exceptionally good lens and easily outperforms the 70-200 AF-S and 80-200 AF-D N especially at

f/2.8. If you don't believe me, try shooting into light with the zooms vs. the prime, also compare image

contrast and clarity, color reproduction. The 180 is sharper wide open than either of the zooms, especially

in the FX corners, but also to a lesser extent in the center. I have owned all these lenses and tested them

extensively. The 180 is sometimes commented negatively because of its color fringing in out-of-focus areas but to

me the

advantages easily outweigh this minor disadvantage which I can only see in 100% view, not in prints up to 13x19

(and I can see a lot in a print of that size). The image clarity of the prime is simply exceptional.

 

However, for sports a zoom is useful, and so is fast focusing, especially AF-S. Therefore, for this application I

would recommend either the 80-200/2.8 AF-S, or the 70-200/2.8 AF-S. And get a faster focusing body, such as the

D300 or D2/D3 series body to go with it. The body is IMO more important as the autofocus of the D70 is very

unreliable.

[ilkka_nissila]

Rene, first of all slrgear tests are on DX so the best part of the 180 (even performance across the full frame)

is not even shown in such tests (this may be important in the long run for the user as FX has advantages for

sports). I agree fully with slrgear that the center sharpness of the 70-200 at f/4-f/5.6

is (slightly) superior compared to the 180, but the edges and corners on DX or FX are considerably worse than the

180's. At f/2.8 which is the most likely used aperture for sports, the 180mm prime is somewhat

sharper than the 70-200 even in the center and much sharper outside of it. If the use involves shooting in

backlight the 70-200 has a propensity to flare and ghost a lot whereas the 180 is much better behaved in

this respect. The 80-200 AF-D N does not match the 180 even in the center (f/2.8) but stopped down it is also

very good.

 

Any of these lenses may be "good enough" optically for the intended application, depending on how demanding the

user is. Focusing speed is definitely a major consideration and for that, AF-S should be considered. But

considering the high probability of using the maximum aperture, one should not assume top wide open performance

at the long end of the range with the zooms.

For the shorter end and middle range I find both f/2.8 telezooms that I've used, excellent especially in the

center of the frame, even wide open; so the "soft spot" is really limited to the f/2.8 at the long end.

 

The 70-200 + D300 would, nevertheless be my choice for this application, if budget allows.

[Hector Javkin]

Some of the comments above note that zooms are a real advantage for sports, but that may not be the case depending on your situation. Given the sizes of children and soccer fields, you may be at the long end most of the time already. When using the Tamron 18-200mm, what focal lengths were you using? If the exif data on what you've taken until now show that you are mostly shooting at or near 200mm, then you don't have to worry about the lack of a zoom for this particular application.

[david_klaffenbach]

I owned the push-pull 80-200/2.8 zoom for a year, the 180 for a year since, and borrowed the 70-200/2.8

VR zoom once or twice, all with a D50.

 

The push-pull zoom is quite slow to focus, enough so as to miss shots or have trouble tracking

someone running straight towards you. The 180 is still slow compared to an 85/1.8 or the VR zoom,

but is much more usable than the push-pull model and the low weight and compact size earned it a

spot in my bag. It's also very nice for portraits when space allows.

[BernardMiller]

I own both a 180/2.8 and an 80-200/2.8 AFD-IF (in other words, the two-ring versions without AFS). I shot high

school sports for a number of years for various papers in Mississippi and Georgia--the first of which,

especially, almost guarantees you crap lighting for football--with those lenses and a D70 (to which I migrated

from film, with which I had also used those lenses).

 

Much as I love the 180--it is indeed wicked sharp, and much lighter than the zoom--I hardly ever reached for it

when shooting sports. The autofocus is slow--no matter which camera you use it on. But especially on a D70 it

will frustrate you. The only time I really found mine useful was for baseball and track & field, when I could

prefocus on where I thought the action was about to occur--and I was usually shooting in bright daylight, which

meant a smaller aperture could make up partially for focus errors if I did try to focus quickly. And it was

indeed a joy bringing it out on those occasions!

 

But whenever focus speed was absolutely necessary, or I was concerned about the lighting, I used the zoom. Unless

you've got an AFS model, none of them will focus terribly rapidly on a D70 either. But they are noticeably faster

than the 180.

 

One thing I like about the zoom, too, that nobody above mentioned is that it has the mounting ring attached to

it. I use a monopod in low light conditions--does wonders to decrease camera shake--and I just prefer the way the

camera balances when the monopod is attached to the lens rather than the camera body. It just feels more

comfortable to me,

 

For shooting soccer or football, the old "zoom with your feet" adage isn't really practicable. It's really nice

to have the zoom lens, so as the action comes toward you, you can zoom toward the shorter end with one hand while

using your other to autofocus & fire--you can't do that with the 180. And those are precisely the times

(especially in football) where you get the best "face" shots, where you can actually see the face & eyes of the

athlete--which sports editors are always clamouring for, lol.

 

Unfortunately, the D70's autofocus, as mentioned, is not very heavy-duty. So you will have trouble keeping up in

the above situation, particularly with the non-AFS lenses. Still, it can be done. If you can afford the AFS

version, go for it. But the version that I have, mentioned above, can be found for as low as $700 or even a bit

less right now, so it's a pretty good bargain.

 

You can see some of my work from those days at www.presquevu.com/sports. All of the color shots (except for the

Nike basketball camp) were taken with the D70 and the lenses above, so you can get an idea of what's possible.

You'll probably do even better than I! :-)

[chris_jefferis]

Thanks for all of these comments - they are all really helpful. Dave - thanks for the suggestion of the Sigma 50 - 150mm HSM, I will take a look at this. I think fast focus and zoom will be important, so the Sigma is probably a good option for my budget.

[g_c4]

Gasser's in San Francisco will rent you one, and since this is largely a relative thing ("fast enough"), I'd recommend you just try it yourself. I rented a 180 f2.8 D, as well as a 80-200 AF-D a couple of months ago, and shot them head to head wide open on a tripod, with my D70. At least for the two I tried, the zoom was actually a very tiny bit better image quality. Go figure. As for focus speed, they're both pretty darn quick, but I imagine an AFS lens would still eat them for lunch, based on my limited experience with an 18-55 DX, even with the lame AFS on that lens. This lens is cheap, light, and wicked sharp, by the way.

 

As so many have said before, horses for courses. I thought I'd like the 180, but turned out the 80-200 was only a little larger/heavier, and much more versatile. Your mileage may vary.

[sven keil]

I shot a lot with the combination D70s + AF-D 180mm/f2.8. Summarising my experience (some points were already made before):

1) Sport - it depends on the type of sports. But you should know it advance where the action is (pre-focus), otherwise you perhaps miss your shot. But not impossible if you know the baby well.

2) The optical quality is among the best of all Nikkors. The zooms, however, give you more flexibility (80-200), or responsiveness (70-200)

3) You will note the difference of having one of the zooms or the light-weighted 180mm hanging around your neck.

4) I like the 180mm very much, and I chose it over the zooms for weight and optical quality. For me it is perfect, and up to know I did not miss much a zoom lens (in fact, I only have primes except one plastic-zoomy-hello-kitty-lens)

[ShunCheung]

If you are shooing kids soccer, I would say optical quality is the last thing I would worry about.

Most likely you'll never print big anyway. Most kid soccer images are either viewed on the computer/TV screen or you may produce small 4x6 prints.

 

You want to get the thing in focus and use a zoom for a decent crop.

[jim mucklin]

Chris, I still have mine, I did use it for a while with my D70's. I never shot indoor sports with it, it is still only used outside/daytime. I never had a slow af problem, it's still one of my favorite lens on my D2h, it's fast enough for flying motorcyles.I bought it back in the day when everyone had to have the 80-200 because of all the postings on the web by "the pros". It was a fraction of the price of the 80/200 but it's razor sharp. It all depends how close you can get to the action, budget,and what type of sports. I don't care what type of glass you have, if your in the wrong place it doesn't matter unless you have the budget of some of the NFL shooter then scrap the 180 and go for the 600 with a monopod and a cheerleader.

Good luck in your purchase.