Lens for sports

[marlene_l1]

<p>Hi<br>

I own a Nikon D60 with 18-55mm and 55-200mm lens. However, I find it hard to photograph sports such as soccer with my zoom lens, and wanted to know if anybody has a suggestion to a better lens that will capture players further away.<br>

Also, I am looking into a wide angle lens for subjects that are too close for my 18-55mm. Any suggestions?<br>

Thanks,<br>

Marlene</p>

[gen]

<p>Marlene, the <a href="http://www.bythom.com/70300VRlens.htm">70-300 with VR</a> is an excellent lens that should go well with your D60. It's even better than the more expensive 70-200/2.8 (at least on FX, but probably comparable on DX.)<br>

For wide, I'd suggest either the Sigma 10-20 or the Tokina 11-16. I think both are pretty interesting in different ways.</p>

[shuo_zhao]

<p>>> "However, I find it hard to photograph sports such as soccer with my zoom lens, and wanted to know if anybody has a suggestion to a better lens that will capture players further away."</p>

<p>Marlene, please let us know what is your budget. The 70-300 VR would be a longer, good quality, and relatively affordable choice for you. Nevertheless that lens is not much longer than a 200mm lens in practice; and if you want something longer (and provides reasonably good quality) than 300mm, you almost certainly have to pay big bucks for it. Finding a better position (closer to the players, perhaps on the sidelines) around the field to shoot soccer is also a good idea, if you weren't too close to it last time. </p>

<p>You didn't mention about the lighting condition or whether you were able to focus onto the subjects easily and "freeze" their motion in your images. If you encountered problems in that nature, then things could get complicated. </p>

<p>>> "Also, I am looking into a wide angle lens for subjects that are too close for my 18-55mm. Any suggestions?"</p>

<p>You have to ask yourself: do I really need a wider lens? </p>

<p>Many less experienced shooters tend to zoom in order to come up with a desired composition/shot. This is convenient, but the result is often less than ideal. The effect of perspective and its looks should be taken into consideration. </p>

<p>While more experienced shooters would consider what effect/look they want to achieve, what can be done practically, and what focal length is ideal for the shot before they go on to create the image with the correct focal length (zoom to the desired FL or choose the right prime lens for the job), shooting it from the correct location/position/distance from the subject. (Of course, for certain types of situations, it's more important to get the shots than to be technical with your approach to it)</p>

<p>A wider lens (in your case, an ultrawide) would allow you to include the subjects that are otherwise too close to you into your image. But the wide lens' perspective could make the look of the image less than ideal. More often than not, it's better to "stepping back a bit" than to use a wider lens (especially since you're outdoor, and the 18-55mm is already wide), for that the result won't appear natural to all, and is less than ideal for many applications (especially typical portraits/images of people). A dedicated wide lens would be a significant investment. The cheapest small sensor wide lenses are still more expensive than the combined price of the 18-55 and 55-200. </p>

<p>Photographers use wide/ultrawide lenses for other reasons. For example, a wide lens' perspective would make the foreground of landscape shots appear "proportionally larger" than than features in the background.</p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>In addition to Shuo's excellent points, also indicate what the budget would be for a wide angle, of course.<br>

But maybe to be sure we understand what you mean:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>for subjects that are too close for my 18-55mm</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Wide angle is not necessarily for "objects that are close". Do you mean extreme close-up/macro (flowers, bugs etc.), or for getting "more in one picture and I cannot take a step back anymore"-things (large buildings, landscapes, interiors)?<br>

Gen,</p>

<blockquote>

<p>It's even better than the more expensive 70-200/2.8</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Sorry, no. Not on DX and not on FX. The 70-300VR is very good price/performance and it deserves to be recommended. But to call it better than the 70-200VR f/2.8 is stretching it a bit. The F/2.8 is in a completely different league, also for price though :-).</p>

[alvinyap]

<p>I'd echo the 70-300VR as well, but what kind of time would the matches be at? I won't use that lens in low light for certain. The 70-300VR does make a reasonable difference (fov of a 300mm vs 450mm), plus the autofocusing is definitely more snappy than the 55-200 (used and sold) and handles pretty well in hand.<br>

Also, there is no way the 70-300 is better than the 70-200 between 70mm and 200mm :) I have both of these buggers and they are used for very different purposes.<br>

Alvin</p>

[marlene_l1]

<p>Hi<br>

thanks for your answers. I would say budget is max $1000 per lens.</p>

<p>Regarding the condition for soccer. I am not on the side line, but behind a goal.</p>

<p>Regarding condition for wide lens. In the situations where I am not able to take that important steps backwards. I wasn't interested in a fish eye, but if that is more or less the only option, where it becomes a bit distorted, I better refrain from trying to take pix at that distance.</p>

<p>I had been looking into the 70-300 lens and wanted some voices from people who had used it. Since lenses are always an investment, I wanted to make sure it would work.</p>

[tommyinca]

<p>My 2 cents, Unless you are shooting night games, your 55-200 should do well with soccer. Something else may need work. I would work on that before spending more money.</p>

<p>For wide, check out Tokina's 12-24/4. Great vaule IMHO. </p>

[aaron l]

<p>The difference between 200mm and 300mm is huge on a DX format camera. 200mm is just to far away for surfers yet 300mm gets what I need. Think about it - 300mm is a 50% increase in reach. That's not insignificant. I use the 80-400mm in daylight and it works fine. The 70-300mm on a budget is good. </p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>For the long end: 70-300VR is the best within your budget to will AF on your D60 and deliver more reach. Next one up would be the AF-S 300 f/4, which is more than $1000, heavy and not a zoomlens (so less flexible). But given your rather big budget per lens: Sigma 100-300 f/4 has good reputation (heavy, though), Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 with a 1,4x TC should be feasible too. Tamron 70-200 f/2.8 (and TC), though that's not a fast focussing lens according to tests and users, so not the most suitable for sports. But all those are considerably larger and heavier than the 70-300VR.<br>

For the wide angle: Tokina 12-24 is also favourite for me, though another option could be the 16-85VR. The mere 2 millimeters compared to the 18-55 are far more significant than they seem, and it would be a nice upgrade over the 18-55. But it's not a pure wide angle of course.<br>

With your budget, you could also consider the Nikon 10-24, which is seriously wide.</p>

[gen]

<blockquote>

<p>But to call it better than the 70-200VR f/2.8 is stretching it a bit.</p>

</blockquote>

<p><br /> Thom Hogan <a href="http://www.bythom.com/choice.htm">would disagree with you</a> . He says, "<em></em> <em>Yes, the consumer grade telephoto zoom is better on the FX bodies than the pro 70-200mm. Fortunately, I don't usually need f/2.8.</em> "</p>

[gen]

<p>Nikon knows that there are problems with vignetting on FX with the current 70-200, which is why <a href="http://imaging.nikon.com/products/imaging/lineup/lens/af/zoom/af-s_70-200mmf_28g_vr2/index.htm">they are releasing the VRII model later this year</a> . So the vignetting issues with the current 70-200 are not imaginary on FX, they are real.</p>

[Ray House]

<p>In answer to your question, the 70-300VR is a better lens that will have more reach and the new Sigma 10-20 with USM is also a good choice for wide angle. With that said, I would also echo what Tommy Lee has posted.</p>

[marlene_l1]

<p>I have read all your post with great interest. So this is what I have found that might be what you are talking about. Any of these that stands out both quality wise and price wise?<br>

Thanks<br>

Marlene</p>

<p>Tamron AF 70-300mm f/4.0-5.6 Di LD Macro Zoom Lens with Built In Motor for Nikon Digital SLR $366.55 (amazon new $159)<br>

Nikon 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6G ED IF AF-S VR Zoom Nikkor Lens for Nikon Digital SLR Cameras $669.00 (amazon new $536.40)<br>

Sigma 70-300mm f/4-5.6 SLD DG Macro Lens with built in motor for Nikon Digital SLR Cameras $165<br>

Sigma 18-50mm f/3.5-5.6 DC HSM & 70-300mm F/4-5.6 DL-M Motorized DG Lens for Nikon D60 Digital SLR Camera's $400 (amazon new $239.40)<br>

Sigma 70-300mm f/4-5.6 APO-M "Motorized" DG Macro Telephoto Zoom Lens with Built-in Motor Drive for Nikon SLR Cameras Including D40, D40X, & D60 $319 (amazon new $209)<br>

Tamron AF 75-300mm f/4.0-5.6 LD Zoom Lens for Nikon + Deluxe Accessory Kit $319 (amazon new $134)<br>

</p>

 

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>Marlene, sorry for the delay in getting back on this.</p>

<p>Nikon 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6G ED IF AF-S VR Zoom Nikkor Lens: the one that stands out.<br>

Also the most expensive... I would not recommend the Tamron or the Sigma without APO designation; the Sigma with "APO" would be second best. A quite distant second best.</p>