Beyond 200mm

[jenniferk]

Looking for lens options that go beyond 200mm.

 

I find that I'm already pretty limited at the reach of 200mm for certain sports and this is with a dx body. Bit concerned if I make the leap

over to a fx body that the 80-200 won't be nearly enough.

 

Looking for feedback on lenses that go to 400mm and being used on current fx bodies.

 

Probably not looking at the 80-400 because of the slow autofocus. Couldn't even use that for peewee soccer so I know the autofocus

won't be able to keep up with other/faster paced sports. Unless the performance is that much improved on a newer body?

 

The 200-400 would not be in the proper price range to be considered at this time.

 

I have found a couple reviews on some sigma lenses but they are several years old at this point so it is hard to tell how they might

perform on a current fx body?

 

What is everybody currently using successfully?

[wade_roth]

<p>I'd love to hear about this too, Jennifer. I keep finding the same unfortunate underlying message in my research... shooting sports well requires expensive gear and a lot of practice. However, I have seen some people talk about staging shoots with athletes and that these can be done with more modest equipment because you can predict the action. <br>

--Wade</p>

[ellis_vener_photography]

I've used the 80-400mm Nikkor for kids (10-11 years old soccer, but with a D7000, D4 or D4s body. No problems with

focus tracking.

[jenniferk]

That is helpful Ellis, I was wondering if the 80-400 was improved with a new body. It was difficult to say the least on a

d300 body.

[ilkka_nissila]

<p>I would heartily recommend the 300/4 AF-S; it is excellent and it is so sharp that you can crop if you need to get tighter framing.</p>

<p>I wonder if you tried the current, AF-S 80-400mm G, which should have ok autofocus for daylight use, or the older AF 80-400D? If you tried the latter, try the new version.</p>

<p> </p>

[jenniferk]

Thank you ilkka, I actually have the 300mm lens and absolutely love it! Perfect when I'm shooting softball and getting the

outfield shots. It is nearly impossible though because of the range to get infield shots unless i (majorly)change my location

which isn't always an option. For lacrosse i definitely find a zoom much more useful.

 

I wasn't aware that the 80-400 had been updated, with that being said I'm not sure what version I was using.

[ilkka_nissila]

<p>The 80-400 got updated with AF-S and much improved optics in 2013. Most people regard the focusing now quite fast, at least in daylight. It's not as fast as f/2.8 superteles, of course.</p>

[ShunCheung]

<blockquote>

<p>Probably not looking at the 80-400 because of the slow autofocus.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Which 80-400mm do you have in mind? Nikon's first version of 80-400mm VR, introduced in year 2000, is an AF-D lens, and its AF is pathetic such that I never own it.</p>

<p>However, the new 80-400mm AF-S VR, which is a G lens (without aperture ring) has very good AF outdoors with plenty of light. I wouldn't use it indoors. I reviewed that lens for photo.net last year: http://www.photo.net/reviews/nikon-80-400G/</p>

<p>That is still a very expensive lens at $2700. If that price tag doesn't bother you, I think it is a very good choice for outdoor, and I emphasis outdoor, sports during day time. f5.6 is clearly insufficient under dim light and AF is going to hunt.</p>

<p>We also had a few threads on that lens on this forum, e.g.:</p>

<ul>

<li>http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00bnh5</li>

</ul>

[jenniferk]

Thank you Shun, it must have been the older version that I used because it has been awhile back now. I actually bought

the 300mm because of the poor performance of the 80-400 so maybe it was a disguised gift!

 

The lens seems to be holding value well, which most likely speaks volumes for the lens itself. Little surprised with the

aperture limits that it has such a price tag. Maybe with a better body than the d300 one can press the ISO a bit more for

lower light and be successful with this lens? Still reading through the link above!

 

Anyone have personal experience with maybe the 120-400 on maybe a d800?

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>Jennifer, not sure if I read you well, but you seem under the impression the D300 is a limiting factor? The newer bodies have improvements to the CAM3500 AF that sits in the D300, but not such that it's heaps faster in good light (according to all reviews, my experience is very limited with the newer bodies). If anything, I found with my D300 that configuring the AF could make very significant differences in AF speed, and especially the AF tracking - not sure which settings you use, but possibly there is a gain there.<br>

I'm not saying there is no gain with other bodies, but it's not a night and day difference. It's not where I would start to look if I want/need massively more AF speed. I'm quite OK with the AF speed of my AF-S 300 f/4, but my needs are modest. After trying a 300 f/2.8VR and 200-400 f/4VR on a fair (on a D300s if I recall well), however, I do know that basically, it's not a fast lens to focus; so, those big bucks to buy something beyond optical performance: really near-instant AF.</p>

<p>Pushing the ISO up and still using a f/5.6 lens isn't going to do nothing for the AF speed either; the AF module will be a tad slower due to the f/5.6 aperture, period. No setting is going to change that. The improved sensitivity of the newer models (D7100, D8x0, D4/D4s) could make things a bit better, but f/5.6 in low light means the AF module has little light to work with, so it'll never work as fast as it can with a f/2.8 lens.</p>

<p>When I was in the market for a lens longer than 300mm, I did check the Sigma 120-400 and the message I got from nearly all reviews was that it's like a 70-300 consumer zoom, just 100mm longer. Optically, it doesnt compare to the likes of a 300 f/4 or the f/2.8 zooms. A D800 (not exactly a sports-oriented body btw) will only show the shortcomings more relentless than the bodies that were available at the time of those reviews (D3/D300).</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>Obviously I have no experience with the D750 yet, but if you want to shoot sports, I think the D750 is a better choice than the D800/D810. AF is supposed to be slightly better, the frame rate is 6.5 fps, a bit faster, and the image files are not as huge. Of course there are used D3S and D4 available at a higher price.</p>

<p>I have used the 80-400 AF-S VR with the D800E. While that combo works fine, I prefer to use that lens with the D7100.</p>

<p>While the AF module is still the Multi-CAM 3500, those bodies introduced after 2012 such as the D800 and D7100 have improved AF and can AF with f8 lenses. Supposedly the D750 is the best among them.</p>

[michael_bradtke]

<p>Jennifer<br>

If 300 will almost work for you but a fixed lens lacks flexibility you might want to look at the Sigma 120-300 f/2.8 I have the older version that is pre VR and it is a work horse. This is not an inexpensive lens but you get what you pay for.</p>

[ShunCheung]

<blockquote>

<p>Sigma 120-300 f/2.8</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Michael, what type of price range and weight are we talking about?</p>

<p>I only have a fixed 300mm/f2.8 AF-S. I think it would be great for night sports, but that is not something I would hand hold; you need at least a monopod to support the weight over time.</p>

[jenniferk]

Yes, the d750 is the camera I am reading about and considering now. Just didn't think anyone would have any actual use

reviews yet? Just trying to be an idea of which lenses I might expect to work well and ones that have already proven not

so good on other fx bodies.

 

I have been completely happy with my d300, recently it has been having trouble focusing and tracking, regardless of

which lens is used. It needs to be sent off to be cleaned, calibrated, tuned or something along those lines. I would like to

replace my camera before I send it off, if I send it off to be repaired. I do find it a bit limiting in terms of ISO limits.

Especially when shooting indoor sports. I must be missing the ISO and AF connection?

 

Thank you Michael, I'll look at the 120-300!

[Wouter Willemse]

<blockquote>

<p>I must be missing the ISO and AF connection?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I got confused there, when you asked about the 80-400G: "<em>Maybe with a better body than the d300 one can press the ISO a bit more for lower light and be successful with this lens?</em>". I misread that and thought you thought pushing the ISO would make the lens work better, but that's poor reading skills on my behalf :-) Which doesn't change my idea that a f/2.8 lens will make more of a difference than a D750-versus-D300 would, but indeed, the D750 test reports aren't in yet.</p>

[michael_bradtke]

<p>Shun with VR hand holding for short times should not be a problem. But at just over 7 pounds a monopod makes life a lot better. I have shot all day using my 120-300 with out the monopod and honestly it is not an experience I want to repeat</p>

[eric_arnold]

<p>i would definitely look into the 120-300/2.8 as possibly the best option in your situation, since a) you already have a 300/4; b) you need the DX 1.5x crop for reach; and c) you shoot indoor sports for which 80-400 is too slow. </p>

[bgelfand]

<p>A few months ago I went to the Tamron Tail Gate Party when it was in my area and had a chance to try the Tamron SP 150-600mm f/5-6.3 Di VC USD on my F100 <strong>film </strong>camera (I do not have a DSLR, yet). I was able to us it only on stationary targets, they did not let me wander off with it, but it seemed to focus quickly, was sharp enough as far as I was concerned, and the image stabilization worked. I shot just a few frames with it since that was not the lens I was interested in.<br>

<br>

At under $1,100 it should fit your budget. You may wish to consider it.<br /></p>

[jenniferk]

Thank you Brooks for the consideration, that is one heck of a range!

 

Curious of those who have used used 120-300, how are the results on the long end? I'm not finding much as far as

results from users with this lens.

 

Not sure ill be using this lens much indoors, I have a hard time with the 80-200 indoors and usually use my 50 or 85 to

stop down even a bit lower.

[Two23]

<p>I have the new Nikon 80-400mm AFS lens. On my D7100 the focus is pretty much instantaneous. It will easily focus even in dim light. No way I'd go to an FX camera for shooting kids' sports. That would be silly, considering the expense and the superb performance from something like the D7100 with either the 70-300mm AFS VR or 80-400mm AFS. Another option would be D7100 with 70-200mm f2.8 VR-1 plus TC-14e. I have used that combo to photo softball games played at night and it too gives virtually instant focus. I've even managed to focus it on balls in flight. No way I'd get into the expense of an FX camera for this sort of thing--that's not what it's good at.</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>

[Two23]

<p><<That is still a very expensive lens at $2700. If that price tag doesn't bother you, I think it is a very good choice for outdoor, and I emphasis outdoor, sports during day time. f5.6 is clearly insufficient under dim light and AF is going to hunt.>></p>

<p>No, it's not. I have that lens and on a D7100 it still quickly focusses on softball games played at night under lights. Yes, I have done it. D7100 will focus even with f8. The 70-200mm f2.8 VR-1 with TC14e would be a better choice though, for night games. I've used it too at night, and saw no difference in performance between day games and night games.</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>

[jenniferk]

Wasn't too much considering the d7000/d7100 series. I've only used the d7000 twice and it was paired with a 24-70. The

results were phenomenal but it was just awkward for me the entire time. Not sure exactly why I wasn't comfortable with

the body. I was shooting a wedding each time, so had plenty if opportunity to become comfortable but just never did. I

obvisiously could adjust if there were no other options. Can I ask your opininon (kent) as to the main factors to consider

staying with a dx system.

[Two23]

<p>Main factors:<br /> 1) Money tied up in camera gear. Camera bodies lose BIG money very quickly. I select the cheapest camera that will do what I want (weddings.) Consider that just a year ago a D800 was selling used for $2,500. I can now get one for $1,400. That's an $1,100 loss in one year! In just two years it lost about two thirds of its value! Even if you earn money from it, it's still money out of your pocket.<br /> 2) Not one of my customers can tell what camera I use, not one will pay me more $$ if I have a more expensive camera, I will get no more business if I switch to an FX camera. Fact. <br /> 3) There just isn't enough difference in image quality between D800 and D7100 to justify the multi-thousand dollar investment I would need for lenses. DxO ranks them very close. I gain about stop & half more ISO, but I rarely need more than ISO 2000 anyway. I rarely make 20x30 enlargements.<br /> 4) Rather put the money into best lenses, pro level tripod, very powerful lighting system (10,000ws), pro software (CS6, Portrait Pro), and a quality graphics monitor plus quad core high RAM computer. Lenses determine what you can photo more than a camera does, and they hold their value much better. I have a great system that I simply plug a moderate priced camera into every few years. It's a good balance of cost vs. performance.<br /> 5) I like the extra stop of DoF per f-stop I get with DX.<br /> 6) I like the more concentrated pixels, which equates to more reach.<br /> 7) Don't like heavier & bulkier cameras. They are tiring to use all day long.</p>

<p>For me it really comes down to two basic philosophies. First, the value for the money. For me to buy an FX camera I have to buy TWO of them. Back up is ESSENTIAL for any paid work. Way too much money tied up in a rapidly depreciating asset that really will make very little (if any) difference at all in the quality or amount of my work. Second factor is I have been slimming down on camera gear, getting rid of bulk & weight. Current idea is to keep x2 D7100 and three lenses for weddings etc. (Nikons 17-55mm f2.8, 70-200mm f2.8 VR, 80-400mm VR) and use a small system such as Olympus OM-D with three or four of the best available lenses (Zeiss?) for everything else. As for the D7100, I came to it from the D300 and had zero trouble adapting. With practice any camera becomes second nature.</p>

<p>Throw into this a wild card: Canon just announced a replacement for their 7D, with stunning specs. Sounds perfect for sports & wildlife! I do think it's within the realm of possibility that Nikon could respond to this.</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>

[ShunCheung]

<blockquote>

<p>1) Money tied up in camera gear. Camera bodies lose BIG money very quickly. I select the cheapest camera that will do what I want (weddings.) Consider that just a year ago a D800 was selling used for $2,500. I can now get one for $1,400. That's an $1,100 loss in one year! In just two years it lost about two thirds of its value!</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I am not sure how realistic that $1400 price tag is for a used D800; what type of used condition are we talking about? But it cuts both ways, if you are buying used, any rapid price drop is a major plus.</p>

<p>Personally, photo opportunities are priceless. I am willing to pay for a good tool available to me to capture those moments.</p>

[robert_bouknight1]

<p>Jennifer,</p>

<p>I shot college athletics seriously in around 1980, "retiered" then started again when my son was about 8, ten years ago. I have been through a lot of equipment since then, so I think I know where you are. You will have a lot of fun in the next years.</p>

<p>The D300 is still a good photographic tool for daylight outdoor athletics, I have one. It will not produce great results in most middle/high school indoor facilities. I have used a D3s, D600, and D800, and D700 and earlier cameras indoors for sports. The new D750 is likely to be the best bet for indoor sports if the budget does not allow for a D4.</p>

<p>Agree, most high school facilities that I shot do not have enough light for good use of a 70-200/2.8 zoom. I shot primes mostly when indoors at around f/2. </p>

<p>Outdoor sports lenses: Well, I would probably try to carry two cameras. Maybe an 80-200 on an FX body, and your 300 with a 1.4 TC on your D300.</p>

<p>I did shoot with the older 80-400 on a D1H a while back, for soccer. It "worked", but the old version 80-400 just was not great to use. The Sigma 120-300 on a monopod might be a good choice, but I have not used one.</p>

<p>When I am serious about shooting outdoors, I use a Nikon 300/2.8 AFS (a truly outstanding lens) on monopod, and a shorter zoom on a 2nd camera. The Nikon 300/2.8 on a high MP camera combo will allow for significant cropping. A used 300/2.8 AFS Nikkor is pretty reasonably priced used for the quality of the lens. I can shoot night field sports with it, or pop a 1.4 or 1.7 TC on it. I sold my 300/4 AFS after getting the 300/2.8, no regrets except that the 300/2.8 is big and heavy.</p>

<p>I have read good things about the Tamron superzoom, but it is still a slow aperture lens. I am in the minority, but I do not think highly of my friends 70-300/AFS VR Nikon. Too much veiling flare at 300mm/open.</p>