New D500 - Lenses for Soccer/Basketball/Portraits

[noah_eisner]

<p>Took advantage of the black friday deal and purchased a d500 body to replace a canon 70d that was stolen. Now I'm trying to figure out the right lens combinations. Of course want to keep costs down, but good glass is a must. <br>

My amateur needs:</p>

<ol>

<li>Soccer Outdoor - sideline, sometimes from the stands. </li>

<li>Basketball Indoor - pretty close</li>

<li>Pictures of people, mostly portrait </li>

<li>Video of soccer/basketball - I'm going to try it but I've heard that the d500 isn't the best</li>

</ol>

<p>Love to get 2, maybe 3, lenses to start. </p>

[ShunCheung]

<blockquote>

<p>Of course want to keep costs down, but good glass is a must.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Noah, welcome to photo.net</p>

<p>That comment can mean totally different things to different people. It would be great if you can specify a dollar amount for two lenses, or perhaps a different amount for three lenses. That would really help everybody to provide appropriate suggestions. Typically, "good glass" is not going to be cheap, especially if you need to shoot indoor sports. You apparently just spend $1800 on a D500. Hopefully you have a decent budget (at least close to the price for the DSLR) for lenses to match such an excellent camera body.</p>

<p>Incidentally, which lenses did/do you before for your Canon 70D? Were you happy with those lenses?</p>

[noah_eisner]

Thank you! Yes my budget will be around $2k. On

the canon, my focus at that time was soccer video

from a wide angle. Had a 24mm 2.8. Used 50/1.4

for normal photos. I didn't get the quality portraits

from it like a similar 50/1.4 from an old Pentax that

I loved. Didn't shoot sports action because I didn't

focus on it and didn't love the camera.

[bgelfand]

<p>I was very impressed with the Tamron SP 70-200mm f/2.8 Di VC USD Zoom on my F100 film camera; I am about to try it on my brand new D750 (DX0 Mark rates it as the best zoom in its range for the D750). The 70-200 zoom range should cover your sports shooting especially on a DX size sensor. With the $300 rebate, good through the end of the year, the lens sells for just under $1200; then it goes back up to $1500.<br>

<br>

The 70mm end on a DX sensor would give the equivalent of a 105mm lens, which was Nikon's classic portrait length. If you find it a bit long, you could try the Nikon 50mm f/1.4D which would give an equivalent of 75mm on your D500. I have and have used the 50mm f/1.4 for the past 15-years. I find it a great lens - sharp with good contrast gives me everything I need in a prime. <br /><br>

<br>

If you can stretch your budget, you could get the Tamron SP 24-70mm f/2.8 DI VC USD Lens. With rebate it is just under $1100. I have not tried this lens, but have read nothing but good reports. The two Tamron lenses should cover everything you want to do and more.</p>

[Two23]

<p>Sigma 50-100mm f1.8, used Tamron 70-200mm f2.8 VC.</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>

[Dieter Schaefer]

<p>For 1: 200-500 f/5.6. Or, but certainly out of your budget of $2K: 200-400/4.<br>

For 2 and 3: Sigma 50-100 f/1.8 (as already mentioned by Kent above).<br>

4: no clue.</p>

 

[ellis_vener_photography]

The new Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8E VR II

[mag_miksch]

<blockquote>

<p>my focus at that time was soccer video from a wide angle. Had a 24mm 2.8</p>

</blockquote>

<p>An interesting point, you intend to shoot soccer fotos that way or how its done? For second you need at least 300mm if you want to track the action.</p>

[ilkka_nissila]

<p>A 70-200/2.8 or similar lens should do most of those things. Nikon has made three: VR 70-200/2.8G, VR 70-200/2.8G II, and VR 70-200/2.8 E (the E version is the latest). I would choose one of these starting from the second hand market if you cannot afford a new lens. Autofocus has been getting faster with the newer incarnations but all three should be good. There has also been improvement in wide open sharpness and resistance to flare and ghosting in the newer lenses. However, any of these three lenses is capable of producing very high quality images. (Before 70-200's, Nikon made 80-200/2.8 lenses but most of these do not have the focus motor in the lens, rather they use the camera's motor to focus. This is a bit slower and less precise system in general. There is in fact an AF-S 80-200/2.8D which has the motor in the lens but it is not so common.)</p>

<p>You probably also need something shorter to cover general photography, portraits and some indoor sports situations. I think a second hand 17-55/2.8 DX Nikkor can be purchased for a reasonable price on the second hand market and produces very pleasing portraits. There are also 3rd party options which you may consider. And then the primes; Nikon has an affordable and high quality set of AF-S f/1.8 primes (20, 24, 28, 35, 50, and 85). </p>

<p>For close-up photos of large field sports such as soccer, you may need a longer lens than the 70-200 but I would still start with the 70-200 and see what kind of images you get and if you really want to invest in a longer lens. The 70-200/2.8 type lenses can do a lot and are easy handle and carry about. Even at events where accredited shooters use big lenses (such as 600/4, 300/2.8), the 70-200/2.8's are still very common. </p>

[bob_flood1]

<p>Another opinion - for what it's worth.<br>

No one lens is going to be everything you need for shooting basketball up close and soccer from the stands. So 2 lenses are a foregone conclusion.<br /><br />Soccer - an f4 lens would be fine for day games, but you'll want 2.8 for night games. Within your budget, that limits you to a 70-200 f2.8 lens (anything longer than 200 with f2.8 busts the budget in a big way), and the Tamron that's already been suggested is an excellent choice with VC at $1500 new.<br /><br />Basketball - here you'll want wide angle to mild telephoto along with f2.8 or faster. I suggest the Tamron 17-50 f2.8. In this case I think sacrificing VC would be practical with the shorter focal lengths, and the non-VC version of the lens runs about $500. The combination of the 2 Tamron lenses just hits your budget. If VC would be important to you for the shorter lens, too, it would add $150 to the cost.<br /><br />People - both the 17-50 and 70-200 ranges will be useful for people pictures, and the 2.8 will offer the shallow depth of field usually desired for portraits.<br /><br />Video - the 17-50 will have a range from wide to tele that (I am told) is very useful for video, and even the 70-200 could allow you to follow the action in a game if you want to try that.</p>

[mostly sports]

<p>I shoot a lot of soccer, and the only time I use a 70-200/2.8 is if it's a night game. Otherwise, you just need more reach. A 100-400 on FX sensor is adequate.<br>

On the other hand, a 50mm (effective 75mm) works very well for basketball, if you can get close, and is a decent portrait lens as well on FX.<br>

So I would spend on a great field sports lens, pick up a 50, and leave it at that for the present.</p>

[noah_eisner]

<p>Question: I've heard that vibration control is less important in shooting sports. So can I get away with <br />Tamron 70-200mm f/2.8 Di LD vs. Tamron SP 70-200mm f/2.8 Di VC? Is the auto-focus too slow in the non-VC lens?</p>

[noah_eisner]

<p>Question: I've heard that vibration control is less important in shooting sports. So can I get away with <br />Tamron 70-200mm f/2.8 Di LD vs. Tamron SP 70-200mm f/2.8 Di VC? Is the auto-focus too slow with the non VC?</p>

[mag_miksch]

<p>To shoot sports its wise to use a monopod,<br>

for soccer 200mm is to short,<br>

but if you want to stay in that range look for a 180/2.8 Nikkor, IQ is at least on par with best Zooms, its not that heavy and very cheap second hand.</p>

[ilkka_nissila]

<p>VR isn't critically important in sports photography, but by stabilizing the image, it can help hold the active AF sensor more precisely on the subject, which can lead to an improved autofocus keeper rate. Some lenses now have a "Sport" VR mode which is especially designed to help stabilize the image with minimal interference of the photographer's framing as the subject moves in different directions. I find this feature very useful but it is only found in the latest Nikon telephotos so it may be cost prohibitative for the time being. You can certainly shoot sports without VR in the lens. Fast and precise autofocus is more important, which is why I recommend the Nikon 70-200/2.8 family of lenses (they do also have VR but the autofocusing is particularly suited for sports).</p>

<p>I understand that for covering the soccer field, 200mm is too short a lot of the time, but you can wait for the action to come at your end of the field and shoot when it is close enough. A 300/4 can also be reasonably compact (or very compact in the case of the PF) and should be easy to handle and work with. It is best to start with what you can afford now and gradually add more specialized equipment if you find yourself needing it in practice and can afford it. I believe the 70-200/2.8 can also be used for basketball, if you're seated a bit further away, and many other indoor sports.</p>