Recommendations for Nikon D90 telephoto lens

[amy_p5]

<p>I am a yearbook teacher, and we have two Nikon D90 cameras. One of them has a pretty solid Tamron lens (DiII, 1:3.5-6.3). It's a sturdy little workhorse for us, and for the price, I'm not sure we could do better in terms of quality and durability.<br>

We shoot a lot of athletics and other events in low light conditions, and as much as I like the Tamron, we need something that works ... better. I am not a techie photography person, and I'm not sure I even understand most of the specifications I see regarding lenses. <br>

Can any of you fine people recommend a telephoto lens for the D90 that will enable us to shoot football and basketball games, theatrical productions and orchestra concerts, and not result in 80% of the photos being blurry and unusable?</p>

<p>Thank you for your help.<br>

Amy<br>

<!-- acparsons@ncmcs.net -->

</p>

[owen_omeara]

<p>Amy:</p>

<p>If I were you I might take a look at the Nikkor 16-85 G VR. I have I have used it for the same situations you are talking about and have been very happy with the results. The VR works very well and will give you at least one stop more functional speed. I have used it with my d7100 which is vert good in low light. I have not shot with d90 so I cannot speak to that. This lens will not break the bank either.</p>

<p>-Cheers</p>

[robert_bouknight1]

<p>I used a D90 for one season of HS basketball under terrible gym lighting. The newer 50/1.8 AFS-G would be a great choice for this application. It is worth the extra $ over the AFD version for low light work. The 50/1.4 AF-D is a good choice, also. The two 50/1.8D lenses I tried were pretty soft when used open in low lighting.</p>

<p>For night football or soccer the choice is more difficult. Careful shopping for an older 80-200/2.8 (except for the very slow focusing version 1) is probably the best bet. Another option is an early 180/f2.8, though those are on the slow side for autofocus. Some of the Tamron, Sigma, and Tokina 80-200/2.8's are supposed to be good, also, but I have not tried them. The older 85/1.8D performs well, but is short for field sports use.</p>

<p>The VR series of lenses work well in low light for static subjects, but won't help you freeze sports action. Lenses 2.8 or faster help a lot.</p>

[Peter_in_PA]

<p>telephoto? the 70-300 VR is a good match for that camera. hard to shoot indoor sports with that, though.</p>

[ShunCheung]

<blockquote>

<p>shoot football and basketball games, theatrical productions and orchestra concerts</p>

</blockquote>

<p>For indoor events such as basketball and orchestra, you can try the 50mm/f1.8 as Robert suggests above. I would get the AF-S version if possible: http://www.photo.net/equipment/nikon/lenses/50mm-f1.8-af-s-fx/review/<br /> That is a $220 lens. If your budget is really limited, you can consider the 50mm/f1.8 AF-D, which has no auto focus motor inside the lens but can still use the AF motor inside the D90. I prefer the AF-S since it is compatible with more modern Nikon cameras.</p>

<p>For something wider, there is the 35mm/f1.8 DX AF-S, which is about $200: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/606792-USA/Nikon_2183_AF_S_Nikkor_35mm_f_1_8G.html<br /> not to be confused with the more recent 35mm/f1.8 AF-S for FX bodies that is about $500.</p>

<p>Indoor and night sports photography is very demanding on equipment. Basketball is a bit easier since you don't have to have very long lenses. For night football, any lens I would recommend in order to get good results is going to cost a lot of money. It would help if we know what your budget is.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>One of them has a pretty solid Tamron lens (DiII, 1:3.5-6.3).</p>

</blockquote>

<p>BTW, what exactly is the Tamron lens you already have? Is it some 18-200mm or 18-270mm/f3.5-6.3?</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>Fast in aperture and long in focal length are tough, unless you spend a lot of money.<br>

A lot depends on what focal length you now have, and, from that, what you might be happy with.<br>

If modest range zoom, you might be happy with a short, fast tele like the 85 or 105mm lenses, depending on what you want in AF mechanism. <br>

Fast and zoom telephoto are even more contradictory, even when you have money.</p>

<p>There is an 80-400mm f/4.5-5.6 VR for a list price around US$2700. I'd personally not buy any longer telephoto without the VR feature. There is a 80-200mm <em>non</em>-VR lens at f/2.8 for only a grand.</p>

<p>Of course some of the third-party makers provide some similar choices with stabilization for a little less.</p>

[rick_m.]

<p>I would get the 50 mm f/1.8 for the basketball provided that you allow your photographer to be courtside. The AFS focuses faster but if money is a major consideration the 50 f/1.8D for $100.00 will work swimmingly.</p>

<p>For the football night games and particularly your theatrical photography you absolutely need an F/2.8 lens. Your D90 does not have the low light capability to work with less. The Nikon 80-200 F/2.8D is a great choice. New it will cost about $1000.00 and used just over half of that. It is the ideal lens for you.</p>

<p>A word about VR (stabilization). It is never bad to have but stabilized lenses cost more. For football and other sports it will make little if any difference in your shots. When shooting action you need to keep the shutter speed up to stop the action. VR helps with camera shake and can't hurt but at the 1/500th second where you ought to be shooting and perhaps the 1/250 you may have to resort to the VR offers little. </p>

<p>One thing that will help in the theater is a monopod. There is no substitute for a thoughtful photographer with good camera technique. Tell your students to pay attention to the action on stage. Look for the natural pauses in the action. Have them shoot dancers at the 'top' of the moves when they are momentarily paused. Actors when they are standing and not walking. Shooting during these organic pauses allows your photographer to shoot with a slower shutter speed. That is where the monopod or even tripod comes in. As I am sure you know, shooting with a shutter speed set to less than the reciprocal of the focal length of the lens is problematic. Lower than that you will experience motion blur from hand-holding the camera alone. The monopod or tripod helps with this. But remember not with freezing action. </p>

<p>For what you describe, I believe that there are no lenses with less than F/2.8 which will offer you any significant improvement at all. You can ignore VR as it does not address your issues in any substantive way. </p>

<p> </p>

[owen_omeara]

<p>Amy:</p>

<p>When you don't need a lot of reach, you cannot do better than the 50mm. AFD 1.4. It has a great price tag and is razor sharp. I use it more than any lens in my bag.</p>

<p>-Cheers</p>

[eric_arnold]

<blockquote>

<p>If I were you I might take a look at the Nikkor 16-85 G VR. I have I have used it for the same situations you are talking about and have been very happy with the results.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>this is a terrible recommendation for "low light conditions" as the aperture is very slow and no better than a kit lens. i'm guessing the OP has the tamron 18-270, which has a max aperture of 6.3 at the long end.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>There is an 80-400mm f/4.5-5.6 VR for a list price around US$2700.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>also not a great recommendation for low light. for $2700 you get a one-stop improvement in max aperture on the long end over the current lens.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>80% of the photos being blurry and unusable?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>the blurs are caused by too low of a shutter speed. in these situations, you need to take control of the camera and tell it what you want it to do. you also have to find the sweet spot between aperture, shutter speed, and ISO. on the d90, you will have grainy shots above ISO 1600. using that as your theoretical limit, you need a shutter which allows you to freeze motion. the quicker the motion, the faster the shutter speed needed. for theater, you might be able to get away with 1/100 but 1/200 would be better. for sports, 1/200 is bare minimum; 1/500 is better. if you can't get clean shots at ISO 1600 and the shutter speeds i mentioned, you need a lens with a faster aperture.</p>

<p>you could bite the bullet and get an 80-200/2.8 or a more expensive 70-200/2.8. that would give you more versatility than a prime. a 50/1.8 might work for hoops, but you may not be able to get close enough for theater. a new 80-200 is about $1000; used ones are a coupe hundred less. good luck. </p>

[dave_redmann]

<p>IMO, the obvious answers when you don't need a terribly long lens are the AF-S 50mm f/1.8 G ($217) and the AF-S 85mm f/1.8 G ($497). For a longer lens, albeit one that is not nearly as capable in low light, try the Tamron SP 70-300mm f/4-5.6 Di VC USD ($349 after the $100 mail-rebate). Anything significantly better is likely to be considerably more expensive. For example, the Nikon fairly comparable to the aforementioned Tamron, the AF-S 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 G VR, is $587.</p>

<p>Last but not least, I suspect that the problems you're been having could be substantially reduced with camera settings and a few tricks, as some have suggested.</p>

 

[kohanmike]

<p>Sigma 50-150 f/2.8 OS. I use it for concerts, events, sports, probably the best lens I've ever handled.</p>

[rick_m.]

<p>I want to join Eric and reiterate what he and I said earlier. There is no point in using lenses slower than about F/2.8 and in a real pinch 'maybe' F/4 with the D90 under many of the conditions the OP described. Unless you have a television light stadium the recommendations that include F4.5-5.6 lenses simply won't work. Recommending VR lenses for sports is also problematic.</p>

<p>I would like to hear from those who are recommending slower lenses as to why they are doing it. She has a slower lens and it does not work. Unsurprisingly. </p>

[ShunCheung]

<blockquote>

<p>I would like to hear from those who are recommending slower lenses as to why they are doing it.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Most likely due to budget limitations.</p>

<p>Unfortunately, the OP has not specified what kind of budget she has for a lens for indoor/night sports, but the context of the discussion gives me the impression that the budget isn't anything close to infinite. Otherwise, a 300mm/f2.8 or 400mm/f2.8 would have been great for night football, with an upgrade to the D90 bodies as well.</p>

<p>That was exactly why I asked the OP to give us some idea about the budget.</p>

<p>A 70-200mm/f2.8 AF-S or 80-200mm/f2.8 AF-S would be a great choice too, at least for basketball, if they are within budget.</p>

[prendy]

We've probably all been in this situation - need a couple more stops and a longer telephoto and usually, when you get that, you still find

siyuations whe that still applies. What do we do? We do whatever is needed to get the shot, boost up the ISO, pan, use whatever is

available to keep the camera steady, take several shots and then with the magic of Lightroom, or whatever we use, we carefully

manipulate the best shot to get as close to the rendition that we want. Usually we find this has atmosphere and life. Another alternative, if

it can be afforded is to get a more modern camera with high ISO capability and loadsa pixels. We can then 'telephoto' it in Lightroom and

Bob's your uncle, another way to get good shots.

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>Frankly, all the advices so far, one could ask for explanations. How can anyone be "sure" that f/2.8 will be fast enough? Or that 50mm will be long or short enough for the auditoriums and gyms Amy has to work in? Whether a 70-300 won't be too long? And so on....</p>

<p>As far as slow lenses go, I've had a Tamron 18-200 f/3.5-6.3 ages ago, and believe me, there is a difference between slower lenses and slower lenses. The tamron has serious problems with AF in low light, in similar conditions a 18-70 f/3.5-4.5 (which had pretty similar aperture in the same range) had no issues whatsoever. Not all slow lenses are alike, and if it's this particular Tamron: it's not very good at the long, so combined with camera shake, I can see how it fails to work for sports and theatre performances. And yet a decent 70-300 (those already recommended) might actually do a lot better job, as would the 16-85. Point is, we have too little info to say whether either would actually cut it, nor whether they fit Amy's wallet.</p>

<p>Amy, is it possible to check the photos made so far for the sports and performances to see which focal length is used most (or which range), and give an indication of the available budget? Without such info, it is really difficult to give you a useful recommendation.</p>

[robert_bouknight1]

<p>Having shot hundreds of bball games and a lot of night field sports over the last couple of years, I agree with Eric, Rick, and Wouter.</p>

<p>A 35, 50, or 85mm f/1.8 AF lens is essential for most night/indoor HS venues if the camera is to be a D90.</p>

<p>Over half of the gyms I shoot in don't have enough light to generate quality results with an f/2.8 zoom, even with the high ISO capabilities of the FF FX cameras I have.</p>

<p>The night field lighting in many of stadiums I have been to require an exposure of about 1/500 at f/2.8 at about ISO 6400-8000. Since the D90 really can't operate at that high ISO, the shutter speed would have to be lower which will increase the probability motion blur. So, an f/2.8 or faster lens is essential. I would love to have a 200/f2!</p>

<p>Venues with broadcast quality lighting are much less demanding of cameras and lenses, but few HS facilities around here here even close to that quality of light.</p>

<p> </p>

[rick_m.]

<p>So since Amy has not gotten back to us with a budget, here is a thought. If she can only get one lens... If we suppose her budget is:</p>

<p>$100.00 = 50 mm F/1.8</p>

<p>$350.00 = 85mm F/1.8D</p>

<p>Based solely on what she said and offered only one new lens on the D90 I would opt for the Nikon 85mm F/1.8.</p>

<p>If she could add a good autofocus teleconverter to that it would be a bang-up low light football and performance lens for only about $150.00 more.<br>

Remembering that she already has (most likely) and 18 to ? <br>

</p>

<p>Group?</p>

<p> </p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>Recently, I took pictures of a children sports event. The kids were around 10 to 12 years old but the venue was a high school. Unfortunately, I thought it was entirely an outdoor event in the morning so that I left the fast lenses home. It turned out that while it was mostly outdoors, there was also some basketball activities inside the high school gym.</p>

<p>So I ended up using the 80-400mm/f4.5-5.6 AF-S VR for indoor basketball. Fortunately, one camera I had with me was the D4S, which goes up to ISO 25600, while the OP's D90 tops at ISO 3200. I captured this image at 1/1000 sec, wide open at f4.8 @ 125mm, ISO 25600 on the D4S. I was quite close just behind the basket.</p>

<p>For basketball, as a number of people have pointed out you can get a fast 50mm or 85mm f1.8 and they are not that expensive, and you get the 1.5x crop with the D90. Night football would be very challenging in a budget. If you use a slow tele zoom such as the 80-400 I used, and that lens isn't exactly inexpensive, you'll end up with some crazily high ISO and/or some slow shutter speed that has a hard time freezing action.</p>

<p>That is why pro sports shooters use very expensive equipment, but we are talking about a school yearbook here. While the budget is likely to be very different, hopefully so is the demand on quality.</p><div></div>

[dave_redmann]

<p><em>I would like to hear from those who are recommending slower lenses as to why they are doing it.</em></p>

<p>Because you can achieve results good enough for a high school yearbook, shooting in a high school gym, with an APS-C DSLR and a lens like the Tamron SP 70-300mm f/4-5.6 Di VC USD. Back in the day, people shot high school football and basketball, and those pictures made it into the yearbook, when all they had was Tri-X or T-Max 400 pushed to 1600, and lenses no faster than what we have relatively inexpensively available today. And the color pictures were shot with ISO 400 film! So to dismiss it out of hand ignores what has been done.</p>

<p>Would the 'keeper' rates be higher with, say, a pair of D7100's, one sporting a 200mm f/2 and the other sporting an 85mm f/1.4? Sure! Will you send the OP the nearly $10,000 need to buy them? But if you're patient and are willing to shoot enough, the proposed equipment can capture a few shots worth having. Although I prefer to shoot sports at 1/1000 s or at least 1/500 s, there are keepers to be captured at 1/125 s. Although I prefer to keep the camera at ISO 400 or lower, for relatively smallish images like in a yearbook many cameras produce usable results at ISO 3200, 6400, or higher. I have not used a D90, but comparing its DxO noise data to cameras I have used, I'm absolutely convinced that for yearbook-size pictures, its ISO 3200 is fine and its ISO 6400 is okay.</p>

<p>Really, I suspect I could get some okay results with the existing gear--I'm definitely of the view that settings and technique are a big part of the problem described--but I do think the gear I recommended could substantially improve the results.</p>

<p>Here is an example shoot in a high school gym, with the Tamron SP 70-300 (at 200mm), ISO 6400, f/5.6, 1/160 s. Not great, but IMO (as a father, photographer, and long-ago high-school yearbook staffer) good enough. First a 100% crop from the image sized for 4x5 inches at 300 ppi:</p>

<p> </p><div></div>

[dave_redmann]

<p>Here's the full picture, downsized to display in the thread.</p><div></div>

[dave_redmann]

<p>Do I wish I had a faster lens? Sure. But I shot some games with faster, shorter lenses, and often 50mm or even 85mm is not long enough to get interesting (IMO) shots. And anything longer than 85mm and fast is at least relatively expensive.</p>

<p>So where does that leave us? IMOPO:<br /> (1) the OP's students could get a fair number of usable shots with the existing D90's and Tamron lenses, and the biggest problem is their settings and/or technique--they need to use aperture-priority mode, shoot wide open, and manually select ISO 6400 or at least ISO 3200;<br /> (2) for basketball, the 85mm f/1.8 G and even the 50mm f/1.8 G could provide substantial improvements, but aren't long enough for certain types of shots;<br /> (3) for football, the 50mm and 85mm lenses are just too short;<br /> (4) there are all sorts of ways to get lenses and/or camera bodies that would provide major improvements, but we're talking $1,000 or more, in many cases <em>much</em> more (the suggested Sigma 50-150mm f/2.8 is $989, and the Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8 us $2,397); and<br /> (5) so for football and to some extent for basketball, IMO a lens like a Tamron SP 70-300mm Di VC USD ($350) would be a good addition.</p>

[rick_m.]

<p>I am well aware of what people used to do. I used to do it. I no longer do it because I can do far better with more modern equipment. </p>

<p>There is no doubt that with proper instruction her students could do better with what they have. That said, they could do even better still with faster lenses. </p>

<p>Football. <br>

I think the 85mm lens is fine and even more useful with the inexpensive teleconverter. The yearbook photographer is shooting from the sidelines and their assignment is to get a few great shots. They need not reach across the field to get them. If they are not shooting from the sidelines the teacher should get them this access. The yearbook photographer's assignment is not the same as the PJ who is charged with getting the important plays. So the teaching point for her students here is that they should keep in mind that they are usually out to get either drama or maybe sometimes a particular player. Patience and focus on their task carries the day. They can then work within the constraints of the lenses that give them the best quality shot; not the best compromise. </p>

<p>Even as a photojournalist far better equipped than these kids will likely ever be, when I see what of my work is published and what hits the cutting room floor I find that the tight in action, usually coming toward me, faces and all, is what is used. They tend to be the most dramatic shots. The key here is yearbook. Not paper. They have ample opportunity to get just the right shot. </p>

<p>Giving advice to the teacher....</p>

<p>Before your students hit the courts or fields they should have discussed with you the mission they are on. They should understand that they do not have the luxury of spray-and-pray photography. They should bring you, or you show them, some examples of the kind of shots they are to try to get and discuss how to get them. How fast should their shutter speed be? How can that be achieved. How to judge the action and position themselves to get the right shot. Then they should bring you the results two ways. They should first give you the shots that satisfy the assignment. Then they should go through the entire disk(s) with you so you can see what they missed. If they should develop a desire to work in the industry this is how they will work. When I am sent to a PAC 10 football game, for example, it is not just to get "some good shots". Often there are particular players I need, particular plays I need to illustrate, sideline shots of coaches, cheerleaders for color, and then, of course, hopefully snag the pivotal plays. </p>

<p>Because I usually work alone for football and not with a team of photographers I carry two bodies. Both full frame. One with the 70-200 F/2.8 and the other with the 24-70 F/2.8. The 70-200 is the range I use most and more toward the shorter than the longer end. This opposite is true for baseball where I use the longer end of my zoom most often. </p>

<p>I know that you did not ask for this but I hope it is useful in making your decision. If you have about 1K to work with I vote for the 50 f/1.8D and the 80-200 F/2.8.</p>

<p> </p>

[dave_redmann]

<p><em>They should understand that they do not have the luxury of spray-and-pray photography.</em></p>

<p>That, in a nutshell, is where your approach / opinions and mine diverge. For school yearbook purposes, if during a game the photographer shoots 500 shots with a DSLR and 3 are worthy of the yearbook, then the critical mission has been accomplished. IMO, <em>in places</em> you appear to have confused the yearbook mission with your needs "as a photojournalist": "When I am sent to a PAC 10 football game, for example, it is not just to get 'some good shots'. Often there are particular players I need, particular plays I need to illustrate, sideline shots of coaches, cheerleaders for color, and then, of course, hopefully snag the pivotal plays." Oddly, in another part, you do recognize this: "The yearbook photographer's assignment is not the same as the PJ who is charged with getting the important plays." But then you strongly advocate for both the faculty approach and instrctions, and the level of equipment, more geared toward a PJ-in-training.</p>

<p>Sure, the students ought to receive at least some instruction on how best to get the shots, or get the best chance of doing so. But these are <em>primarily</em> high school students trying to capture memories, not photojournalists in training who need to learn to get specific critical shots. It's great to give them deeper instruction and critique, if the OP has the knowledge and time to do so, and the students are interested in receiving it. But that's a bonus, not the core mission.</p>

<p>So my approach is to suggest the cheapest <em>new</em> equipment that gives the students a reasonable chance of getting some 'keepers' in a good range of pictures. I even agree that something like an old (used) 80-200mm f/2.8 might be a good choice (focus speed maybe being an issue). I just tend to suspect that most school administrators will nearly insist on buying something new with a good warranty (I think Tamron's is six years!).</p>

<p>Last but not least, if the OP had given us a budget, this could be a more helpful discussion.</p>

 

[ShunCheung]

<blockquote>

<p>Can any of you fine people recommend a telephoto lens for the D90 that will enable us to shoot football and basketball games, theatrical productions and orchestra concerts, and not result in 80% of the photos being blurry and unusable?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Unfortunately, Amy has not provided us more information, and I would rather not parse every word in her opening post to generate a lot of unnecessary debate among the rest of us.</p>

<p>However, her problem is likely the result of using a very slow, f6.3 lens under low-light and for sports. Maximum f6.3 forces you to use a slow shutter speed, and Nikon AF works rather poorly when the lens is so slow. Not to mention that the D90 does not exactly have Nikon's best AF system. Those factors are the most likely contributors to a lot of blurry, unusable images.</p>

<p>My impression is that Amy wants to do a lot better than just picking a few keepers out of hundreds shot in a sports game while a majority of the images are totally unusable; otherwise she wouldn't need to post here. If your shutter speed is as slow as 1/160 sec @ ISO 6400, which exceeds the D90's top ISO 3200 setting, you are pretty much restricted to images when action is slow, not at the peak of the action. If one has a serious budget restriction, perhaps that is a compromise you just have to make.</p>

<p>Concerning some 70-200mm/f2.8 zoom, one can get the latest AF-S VR II version at $2400. A used version 1 is probably in the low $1000 range, so is a new one by Sigma. A few years ago, I sold my old Nikon 80-200mm/f2.8 AF-S, without VR, for around $900. In other words, there is a range of choices for different budgets. If one's budget is significantly below $900, it would be difficult. For sports, I probably wouldn't get the AF or AF-D version due to their slower AF speed, especially on a D90.</p>

<p>But unless the OP provides some feedback, I am afraid that there is only so much information we can offer.</p>

[amy_p5]

<p>Thank you all so much! I'm going to see what my budget permits, but it looks like you gave me some excellent options. I can't thank you enough for taking the time to help me out.</p>