Recommendations for a 'Fast' DX Zoom for D7100 Sports

[ilkka_nissila]

<p>Mike, I understand what you want, but why does it have to be a DX solution? Does it matter what the format is, as long as it works for your intended purpose? </p>

[rick_m.]

<blockquote>

<p>I said: High ISO performance to make the difference between F/2.8 and F/4 academic for all but the most rare of circumstances. For your horses there is no difference.</p>

</blockquote>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Mike replied: So, the end of all f2.8 fast zoom lenses as we know it?.... even more interesting.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Who said that? You were the one who mentioned shooting action sports. So I'm sticking with this. At least in my experience in shooting a wide variety of sports in a variety of venues there is little difference. How often do you shoot at 200 F2.8 at a sporting event? What percentage of shots would require that? Very few. F4 would be fine. I have a 70-200 AFS VRII and use it on DX frequently. I do not find it limiting. I sometimes change lenses. Horrors. Or carry another body as do most people who cover sports. But as to how often I shoot it wide open with a D300s or D3s? Not very. </p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>You said you wanted to emulate the 70-200 F2.8. I showed you 36-180 F4. That is so close that it is a quibble. And oh by the way I would rather have the 34 mm on the wide end than 20 on the long end. It gives me a very usefull range for most work. </p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>But as to the end of F2.8 zooms... Franlky they are far less important than they once were because cameras are simply that much more sensitive. Those of us who shot indoor events on 400 ASA film needed them very badly. Now. Not so much. When I can get publishable pictures at ISO in excess of 1600, they become far less usefull. Now if you want to talk about closer work and bokeh that is quite another thing altogether. </p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>However, the new 'crop' mode on the D7100 does make your 24-120mm an idea. I await test pics of a side by side with an image from a 70-200mm VRII on FX. You never know, it might be viable after all...;-)</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Ladies and gentlemen we have been had. I claim to win the scavenger hunt as I found the lens but Mike has led us a merry chase... The 24-120 on the D7100 in crop mode should be close enough to 48-240 at F/4. </p>

[eric_arnold]

<blockquote>

<p>But as to the end of F2.8 zooms... Franlky they are far less important than they once were because cameras are simply that much more sensitive.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>yeah right. last night i was shooting a live concert by Jose James at the New Parish in Oakland, which has only basic club lighting and high ceilings. the problem there is that you have white spotlights on the artist, some assorted red, blue, and green gels, and a lot of shadow areas.i was using a d3s and 70-200 II, from a balcony above the stage. Even the d3s can struggle when faced with strong contra-light from an overhead light source in an otherwise dimly lit environment. my ISO had to be at 5000-6400 to get shutters of 1/160-1/200 and apertures of 2.8-3.2. with an f/4 lens i would have had to push the ISO past 8000. i doubt the results would be usable on a d7100 or any DX camera for that matter.</p>

<p>also, if you know of any sports shooter using the 28-300, don't hesitate to link to their site.</p><div></div>

[rick_m.]

<p>Please pay attention Eric. Read what I said. I have and use a 70-200 F2/8. And yes I use it for concerts and dance and often pretty wide in those circumstances. Sometimes I use it wide open for portraits. When I am underwater I use a nikonos. Special circumstances require specialized equipment. </p>

<p>But you prove my point. I don't know how old you are but I expect you are old enough to remember when you would not have been able to make that shot at all. Try doing it with a D1. Remember push processing film? ISO 6400. In our dreams. <br>

So if you are a concert photographer you need faster. Obviously you are undergunned. You need the 200 F/2. Or on the DX sensor camera you might have gotten the shot with the 85 F/1.4 or even F1/8. You would have had 24MP to play with. </p>

<p>That is the problem with these forums. We can all construct uses for all of the lenses Nikon makes. Then we recommend them for the average user or try to make some case that they are a necessity. You and I need the 70-200 F/2.8 VRII. We make money with them. We are required sometimes to shoot in situations that the average photographer will rarely if ever see. And unless you specialize in theater photography you don't push the outside of the envelope that often either. </p>

<p> </p>

[eric_arnold]

<p>rick, a 200/2 is not very practical in a club environment. and i hardly think a D3s and 70-200 qualifies as being undergunned in many situations, although i also have a 50/1.4 and an 85/1.4. also, not sure what 24mp has to do with it, other than giving you the ability to crop while lowering your buffer capacity.<br>

as for proving your point, you argued that f/4 or even 5.6 was ok for sports/action because of better hi-iso performance. i demonstrated a situation where that was not the case. i may have proven a point, but it wasnt yours.</p>

[pete_s.]

<blockquote>

<p>Mike H wrote: "The D800 and D600 aren't fast enough."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The D7100 (DX) can do <strong>6 fps</strong> and the D600 (FX) can do <strong>5.5 fps</strong>.<br>

The D7100 has a buffer of <strong>6-9</strong> raw images, the D600 <strong>16-27</strong> raw images.</p>

<p>I'd say 5.5 or 6 fps is a wash. Buffer size heavily favors the D600 though.</p>

 

[studio460]

<p>Clearly, Nikon hasn't made the investment in marketing fast DX lenses, and has only produced one fast DX zoom, the 17-55mm f/2.8. It's likely due to one simple reason--profitability. The number of DX shooters willing to pay the money for fast DX-optics is likely small, and probably pales in comparion to the majority of DX shooters, mainly beginners and hobbyists, many of whom are likely to never venture beyond the variable-aperture kit zoom that their camera "came with."</p>

<p>So, if the OP is looking for a 70-200mm DX-equivalent, he has either the Sigma 50-150mm f/2.8 or Tokina 50-135mm f/2.8 from which to choose. As a former DX-only shooter, I bemoaned the same dilemma, and chose the Tokina over the Sigma, if for no other reason, convenience (I found a good deal on one on Ebay). As I said in the other thread, I'm really happy with the three f/2.8 DX zooms I've acquired for my D7000. Most agree that Nikon has neglected the pro-DX market, and I don't see that changing anytime soon, or ever.</p>

[rick_m.]

<blockquote>

<p>as for proving your point, you argued that f/4 or even 5.6 was ok for sports/action because of better hi-iso performance. i demonstrated a situation where that was not the case. i may have proven a point, but it wasnt yours.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Uh. You posted a concert photo to prove a sports point? Right. I never once said that there was no use for the F2.8. Because you seem to unwilling to read my posts in which I asserted that I both own and use several F/2.8 lenses I will leave you to chase your tail. It is your strawman. Not mine. I recommed you read posts carefully before you respond to them. </p>

[michael_bradtke]

<p>I like Mike H make my living shooting equestrian events and can tell you from to many years of experience that a lens that starts at f/4 is not what you want. Or at least not what I would want. I now shoot with a D4 and mostly use my 120-300 f/2.8 usually around f/3.2 There are weather conditions and venues where I have to push the envelope hard with ISO and shoot wide open just to be able to keep the shutter speed up. When I was using my D300's there where times when I had to use my 135 f/2 or my 105 f/1.8. The clientele dont really give a rats behind what you have to do to get the shots they want. And motion blur is not what they are usually looking for. </p>

<p>Believe me shooting with a prime when you are following a horse around a jump course is a huge PITA. There are times that I wish for an 80-400 f/2.8. Would make Dressage much easier to shoot. Still have the reach for when they are at the far end and be able to go wide enough to not cut parts off at the near end.</p>

<p>I have not held one but I would wonder about a D600 holding up to the environment that we work in. That's why from the D2h on the all out sports cameras are kind of built like tanks.</p>

<p>The Sigma 50-150 sounds like just the ticket focal length wise on a DX camera. My only question is will the AF be fast enough when tracking moving objects.</p>

<p>And before you ask I have been doing this so long that I started out with the F3 when they where new and learned how to follow focus by hand. Nobody had ever heard of AF at the time. You also learned to load the camera quickly. Took me around twenty seconds from last frame to being ready to shoot again.</p>

[eric_arnold]

<blockquote>

<p>I recommed you read posts carefully before you respond to them.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>rick you recommended a 28-300 for sports. not much to say after that.</p>

[rick_m.]

<p>You just can't pay attention. Here is what I said. </p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>IF one does not "need" F/2.8 nor intend to spend what it takes to get there, there is the new and excellent 28-300 VR. Yes it gets to 5.6 pretty quickly but it is fast, very sharp and I doubt many sports photographers will worry about a little distortion at the edges. The D7100 should be an excellent performer at ISO 1600 or even more so the F/5.6 should be not much of an issue. The lens is light and what harm is the long end?</p>

<p>So this thread is only for professionals? I get it now. No room for those who might not want to spend 2500.00 for a lens. Now all is clear. We are only discussing professionals who only shoot at night in the raid. Got it. The people who might want to shoot sporting events in conditions like most amateurs do need not be considered. Perhaps you can tell me what the shutter speed would be in daylight at F5.6 ISO 1600. No doubt to slow for what you shoot. I only shoot earthlings so it is fine for me. And fine on a cloudy day as well by the way.</p>

<p>And since we are only speaking in this rarified atmosphere accessible only to those who do this for a living, why are we bothering with questions about the D7100. It is no sports camera. Only a D3, D3x or D4 will do for that. </p>

<p>And Michael I shoot rodeos and horse racing in good and bad weather. I use the 70-200 F2.8 AFS VR. I shoot well into the evening. Unless you don't want to shoot above ISO 400) you can keep your shutter speed well up at F4 all day. Especially on a D3 series camera. </p>

<p>The problem with the what-if model of discussing stuff like this is that there are people out there reading who will take it to the bank. They want to shoot their son or daughter playing soccer or barrel riding or whatever and they come away thinking that they need a $7500.00 rig to do it. So photo.net is filled with threads about how we can shoot bullets by candle light every time a new body comes out and right alongside of that are threads about how only an F2.8 lens wide open is useable to photograph jogging. Professionals require different equipment than amateurs do. That is not to say an amateur can't buy the full kit and use it just as well. But it is to say that we professionals and rich amateurs need to be careful that we don't turn our need to plan for every situation into turning beginners away from enjoying most situations. </p>

<p>So I will let the gearheads go on about perfect lenses. Just a warning to those who don't want to spend $2K and up on lenses. Ignore this thread. </p>

</blockquote>

[mike_halliwell]

<blockquote>

<h1><em>Recommendations for a 'Fast' DX Zoom for D7100 Sports</em></h1>

</blockquote>

<p>I guess the Title of my Posting says it all, there isn't a Nikon Fast DX lens for Sports, and if they make one, I expect it's going to be $2000+, at release anyway. The only obvious, if weighty, lens, is the Sigma 50-150mm 2.8 OS at a very modest £610 or ~$1000.</p>

<p>Fast = £££, always did.....and I suspect always will.</p>

<p>Up to a point, having a ££ 2.8 zoom is a bit like Insurance. You don't want to have to use it, but it's there when 'push comes to shove'. Shun's handy review of the 70-200mm f<strong>4</strong> hints at how the cameras' AF module 'likes' the extra stop's worth of illumination, provided by the 70-200mm f<strong>2.8</strong>, to work well.</p>

<p>Resolution wise, the 70-200mm VRII peaks at between f4>f5.6......For horse action I never use it above f8, there's almost never enough light here in the UK. 2 stops down, as opposed to wide open, means a lot in IQ terms. Sometimes I've been down the Michael B route and gone to my 85mm 1.4AF-D for indoor show-jumping and used it @ f2, the corresponding shutter speed at ISO 3200 is barely enough to freeze action. The very limited DoF is very tricky to utlize with precise focusing the only way to go.</p>

<p>There's no such thing as 'free' light...it's gonna cost you somewhere!!</p>

[eric_arnold]

<blockquote>

<p>there is the new and excellent 28-300 VR. Yes it gets to 5.6 pretty quickly but it is fast, very sharp and I doubt many sports photographers will worry about a little distortion at the edges.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>to be honest, rick, you lost me with the above. you can keep reposting your rant all you want, it's still not going to make it any more sensible, as far as advice goes.</p>

[rick_m.]

<p>And your math doesn't work. I am not going to post deep shade shutter speeds at ISO 3200 but suffice it to say that at that ISO you can easily stop motion at F4 or 5.6 for that matter.</p>

<p>Since you reject budget as any factor in a lens decision there is no reason not to always choose F2.8. I have made my point. I have to go shoot something now.</p>

[eric_arnold]

<blockquote>

<p>And your math doesn't work. I am not going to post deep shade shutter speeds at ISO 3200 but suffice it to say that at that ISO you can easily stop motion at F4 or 5.6 for that matter.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>actually, my math works for me just fine. however, i fail to see how stopping motion has anything to do with aperture or ISO, that's generally something associated with shutter speed. also, i dont know where you're shooting, but in the dim clubs and the outdoor night street festivals i shoot in all the time, ISO 3200 and 5.6 aint gonna cut it. try 6400 and f/2. as for budget, a 28-300, which you recommended, goes for $900 new, a used sigma 50-150/2.8, which i recommended, is $650 or less.</p>

[rick_m.]

<p>OK. Let me sumarize and I am out of here. The OP said "....The usage would be action/sports". Very few of them are shot in dim clubs and during street festivals. (though in dim clubs or street festivals you can use the 70-200 by taking a few steps if you have feet. When I posted that I was responding to the OP. Even on the rainiest and foggiest of San Francisco days one can easly shoot any outdoor sport at 3200 ISO and F4 or F5.6. And you knew very well what I meant. For those who might not ISO and apature determine shutter speed. And the shutter speed to freeze motion would generally be high enough using them. If you want to keep moving the bar pretty soon we will be bemoaning the fact that Nikon doesn't make a 24-300 F1.4.</p>

<p>The OP also opined that Nikon did not make any glass that could do this in DX format. Not Tamron, Not Sigma. His point was that Nikon was leaving DX shooters out in the cold. I disagree. Of course there could be a lens that is more convenient but Nikon has all of the ranges covered. I mentioned the 28-300 to point out that for the vast majority of sporting events, given the high ISO performance of the D7100, even that lens could get one by. </p>

<p>About a few dozen times I said that I use the 70-200 F2.8 VRII. I use it on crop and full frame cameras. Since I also have a 24-70 F2.8 and feet I can pretty much get any shot at any sporting event using them. Now I admit that to my horror I sometimes have to change lenses or swing up the other body but that is just the hard life of a working PJ. I have no problem with the Sigma lens. I don't need it. As I have feet and two bodies I have that 75-275 which it covers adequately covered with the superior 70-200 F2.8 VR at 105-300. The difference between 75 and 105 for outdoor sports is not terribly significant. For daylight (even dim days) the 24-120 F4 at 36-180 gets one close as does the 28-300. <br>

My belief is that if Nikon did come out with 50-150 F2.8 the market would be very small. It would have to be a less expensive and DX format lens because on FX those ranges are covered more than adequately. I know few professionals these days who would buy a DX F2.8 lens at all so Nikon would mostly be marketing to advanced (or affluent) amateurs. Of course this is completely in line with their marketing plan which has eliminated crop sensor professional cameras along the lines of the D2X. Or has it? The D4 has the ability to shoot in 1.2 and 1.5 crop mode and still present quite useable size files. Then there is the D800 which, though not as fast as the 7100 (by 1 FPS) (too slow for what I want for some of the sports I shoot) it will still return large DX files at 5 FPS.<br>

So my opinion is that Nikon is all over what professional sports shooters want. There are no real gaps. The fact that they do not build a complete line of 'professional' lenses for a $1200.00 consumer built camera should be no surprise to anyone. Nikon is not telling the professional shooter who has to work in the conditions that you and I do that they won't the right lens for us. They are telling us to buy the right body.</p>

 

[eric_arnold]

<blockquote>

<p>The usage would be action/sports". Very few of them are shot in dim clubs and during street festivals.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>most street festivals are during the day, granted. but let's say you shoot night festivals where you might run into a capoeira troupe or turf dancers. which happens in Oakland on a monthly basis.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>I mentioned the 28-300 to point out that for the vast majority of sporting events, given the high ISO performance of the D7100, even that lens could get one by.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>we're going to have to agree to disagree here. not only are you assuming that the OP, or anyone else, will never shoot indoor sports, for which 5.6 or f/4 are too slow, but you're making a recommendation of an FX superzoom for a DX body for an application outside of its strength. i see plenty of posts here from amateur shooters who shoot night football or basketball in underlit gyms. so, making a broad generalization about the "vast majority" of sporting events just means you are vastly incorrect.</p><div></div>

[michael_bradtke]

<p>I guess some of us just work in different worlds. For me a dim day is f/2.8 at an ISO of 6400. And when I have to shoot in a dim arena 12800 is usually where the ISO is set.</p>

<p>This was shot with a rented D700 because I knew the D300 was not going to cut it in the high ISO department. The D700 didn't really do that much better in this particular environment. <br>

ISO 12800 1/320 @ f/2.8 120mm<br>

An f/4 lens is not going to cut it. For two reasons first off to get maximum image quality I am going to be at f/5.6 or f/8. Second even at f/4 there is going to be more depth of field then I want.</p>

<p>As a PJ the biggest image you shoot for would be double truck. Trying to pull a big print from a shot made under poor lighting conditions means using the lowest ISO possible as well as a high shutter speed and optimum aperture.<br>

Like I said before shooting in different worlds</p>

 

[mike_halliwell]

<p>I think what most people don't often get to experience is not just dim light photography <em>per se, </em>but the need to keep the shutter speed up enough to arrest motion of a fast moving object at the same time as trying to use an aperture NOT wide open.....and, most importantly, get a print out of it that someone wants to buy, so keeping the ISO as low as possible is nice too!</p>

<p>It might be a odd 'horsey' quirk, but one of the things I've often noticed is that riders are usually far more keen on a nice sharp picture of their horse than either, what they look like themselves, or, for arty flowing lines caused by motion-blur or panning. It may be the same for indoor basketball players or boxers etc, but I've never shot them, so don't want to speculate.</p>

[rick_m.]

<blockquote>

<p>not only are you assuming that the OP, or anyone else, will never shoot indoor sports, for which 5.6 or f/4 are too slow,</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Please share with us where I posted that? I am done with this thread. I am being trolled. Missquoting me seems to be fun to you guys. I don't like being trolled.</p>

<p> </p>

[eric_arnold]

<blockquote>

<p>Missquoting me seems to be fun to you guys.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>first of all Rick, not trying to 'troll' you. it's just that your comments seemed out of sync with reality. you never mentioned night shots or indoor sports in your posts, so i dont see where it's a misquote to say you are making an assumption, e.g., <em>"Even on the rainiest and foggiest of San Francisco <strong>days</strong> one can easly shoot any <strong>outdoor</strong> sport at 3200 ISO and F4 or F5.6." </em>you did write that, correct?<br>

<em> </em><br>

second of all, and this gets to the real crux of the issue, DX is a low-light-challenged format compared to FX. i know this because i have a d300s. i also have a 70-300 VC, which is 5.6 on the long end, just like the 28-300, but i dont generally use this for anything but casual shooting and landscapes. it's not just a question of slow aperture, although that plays a big role, it's also a question of a dim viewfinder, which makes composition more difficult, and worse overall ergonomics. that lens actually has fairly fast AF, but its not in the same class as the 50-150 and 70-200 when it comes to build and ergonomics. so, for all those reasons, plus some that others have mentioned, an f/4 or variable-aperture lens isnt ideal for sports, action, or things which move fast -- unless you're shooting under optimal, daylight conditions. so, once again we return to the 50-150 for these applications (a tokina 50-135 would be the other 'fast' DX telephoto zoom).</p>

<p>whether nikon makes the 50-150 or not is irrelevant, since it's still possible to get the sigma (and tokina) lenses used, if that's what you need. if you can afford it, a 70-200 would also work, although sometimes those can be a little cramped, especially indoors, on DX.</p>