Lens with a little reach

[jenniferk]

<p>I'm looking for some experience with trying to decide which lens (if any?) I should purchase.<br /> Right now I am shooting at softball games and looking for a little reach, possibly the 80-200mm 2.8. I wonder if it would offer enough reach though. I borrowed a 55-200 over the weekend and did some shooting from the 1st and 3rd base area but constantly had base coaches or a batter on deck in the way while trying to shoot the batter. Would a teleconverter work well in this situation? Most day or late afternoon games so lighting is ok. Maybe 80-400? I would lose those f stops tho and I worry if I might regret that on a later game or overcast day?<br /> I know the 55-300 is rather budget friendly as well but I would assume it is similar to 55-200 with a bit more reach? My only complaint with the 55-200 is that I wasnt able to throw out the background much, which I didn't expect to do with the available apeture but having the chainlink back ground or a fruppy bystander in the back ground is not appealing. Especially if you consider a large print, there is not much of a crop factor for that!<br /> I have been rather fortunate and have been able to shoot from the dugout for some nice batting shots using my 35-70 2.8<br /> Currentlly I have a nikon d300 and my only lens other than 35-70 is a 50 1.4 prime. Love both and want to enjoy a third just as much. Im only a mom shooting her kids so 200-400 is not in the running :) Currently I shoot softball, tennis, gymnastics and this fall soccer but he is only 4 so the field will be managable regardless. Probably indoor soccer again this winter but I did fairly well with that last year with my current set up tho a little extra reach there as well would be nice given the chance.</p>

[Matt Laur]

<p>A teleconverter is going to slow things down (with a smaller) aperture in much the same way that using a slower, inexpensive long lens would in the first place. Except that TCs - unless they are very good ones, used on fast lenses that really lend themselves to that use - usually do even worse things to the images.<br /><br />When you mentioned the officials that were in the way ... that sounds like more of a logistical problem than a focal length problem. Unless your point was that you'd need a longer lens to get in a position where you wouldn't see that sort of obstruction. <br /><br />Remember that the D300 has pretty good resolution. If you can keep the ISO setting relatively low, and <em>expose correctly</em>, you really can crop quite a bit. The thinking is that the optical losses from a cheap or slow long lens are roughly a wash with the loss of resolution that comes from using a good fast lens and cropping. The important difference is that the faster lens will still let you get a higher (action-freezing) shutter speed - never mind the focal length.<br /><br />Also, don't be afraid to crank up that ISO setting. As long as you don't underexpose, you can get surprising detail and tonality out of a D300 at ISO 1600. Try it!</p>

[Hector Javkin]

<p>In good light, the 70-300mm VR can do very well, is a much better performer than the 55-200mm and than the non-VR, and focuses faster than the 80-400mm. For daylight, I prefer the 70-300mm VR to the 80-200mm f/2.8 (I own both) because its lower weight makes it easier to handle. You can get really tired hand holding the 80-200mm f/2.8 waiting for a shot, and using a support gives you less freedom of movement. Being able to move (and getting out of the dugout when necessary) is what will allow you to shoot past coaches and batters on deck.</p>

[jenniferk]

<p>Thanks for the response Matt. With what lens do you recommend that I try to up my ISO? Or are you just suggesting that in general? I was pretty much at my reach with the 200 when I continually ran into people obstacles. When I tried to move around and avoid the coaches and such I was at too far a reach to get a decent shot with batting. I mostly stayed at the 180-185 end of the reach, it seemed to not be quite as sharp all the way at 200mm. The reach was awesome for some fielding shots and risky steals! Maybe staying in the dugout for batting shots with my short lens and using a 200 range for out in the field? I may not always have the option of getting close with being allowed in the dugout though.</p>

[jenniferk]

<p>Thank you Hector, nice to know the 70-300 is a good perfomer. Can you open the apeture enough to blur the background?</p>

[jenniferk]

<p>Another question to go along...most of these lens options have different versions. I very rarely use VR do I need to get the newer versions of the lens? Have the optics change?<br>

If you recommend a lens could you also recommend the version to go along with it.</p>

[pamela_nielsen]

<p>I shoot with 70-200mm 2.8 and usually I sit on the first base side on the ground and shoot through the chain link fence and get good shots of them batting. Also, it's good for the pitcher. Also, many schools will let you in the announcer's box and I usually can get some decent shots from there.</p>

[jenniferk]

Thanks Valerie! The announcer's box sounds neat! Love trying different angles! Are you able to use the 70-200 during the

evening or under lights? If so, how is the quality on the 200 end with the low light?

[Hector Javkin]

<blockquote>

<p>Can you open the apeture enough to blur the background?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Here is the background blur in one image with the 70-300mm VR</p><div></div>

[Hector Javkin]

<p>I have an image in <a href="../no-words-forum/00TFgo"><strong>this thread</strong></a> that might also be helpful in gauging how much you can throw the background out of focus.</p>

[Hector Javkin]

<p>What might give you the best chance (among my pictures of course) to determine if you're satisfied with the ability of throw backgrounds out of focus is the following image. The handler is directly behind the eagle and was playing with it.</p>

<p>Apology to admin: I may have posted this image in some other thread, but couldn't find it just now. (It's 5:25 AM in California!)</p><div></div>

[jenniferk]

<p>Thank you all for your suggestions!<br>

Hector, the examples helped greatly!<br>

Sorry Leslie, not sure why I referred to you as Valerie.</p>

[ilkka_nissila]

<p><em>Would a teleconverter work well in this situation?</em></p>

<p>In my opinion, no. With a 1.4X TC, you gain reach to 280mm with the 80-200, may or may not retain AF (depending on which converter and lens it is), and you are magnifying optical aberrations of the main lens. To reduce those aberrations, you need to stop down 1-2 stops to get a sharp image. This means you'll be shooting at f/5.6 or f/8 (the light loss due to the TC is 1 stop for 1.4X, 2 stops for 2X). What's more your D300 already records only one half of the image area which the lens is designed to render, so the "true" crop is more like 2.1X for the 1.4X in terms of how much you are stretching the lens. Personally I find telephoto images often to be cluttered at f/8; f/5.6 can be ok, but I prefer f/4 for these kind of focal lengths. So a faster 300mm would be better. The 300/4 AF-S is excellent and would suit your application well, combined with the 80-200/2.8 for shorter focal lengths. If they are too expensive, consider purchasing second hand as a way of getting the right glass for less money, or wait until you can afford what you really need. You can also simply crop the 80-200/2.8 images when you need to, and you might find the results after moderate amount of cropping still to your liking (rather than when using a TC or a slow consumer zoom).</p>

<p>I have used the 70-300 VR, it's ok at the short end but a bit fuzzy at 300mm. I would highly recommend the 300/4 AF-S instead. The image quality you can get with the 300mm prime on your D300 at low to moderate ISO would be excellent. And the f/4 aperture can be safely used leading to cleaner backgrounds and better visual isolation of the main subject. At least the way I shoot with a telephoto I find that it is much easier to make compelling, beautiful and effective images at apertures around f/4 rather than f/8, though this does depend on how tight framing you have. A large aperture also helps in achieving fast enough shutter speed to stop the movement and it makes autofocus function better as well. The 300/4 is hand-holdable for sports applications (where you'd have fast shutter speed); I would keep the shutter speed at 1/800s or faster if possible. Of course VR also helps you achieve reasonable quality at a bit slower speeds but the issue is that the 300/4 is so much better optically (and has the isolation advantage) that it's still preferable to a slower zoom with VR.</p>