john_holcomb Posted February 11, 2003 Share Posted February 11, 2003 Hi all, I want a rig to take to the horse races to shoot with while I am with friends, and generally following the action. I have an F3 with several prime lenses, but this outfit is way too big and heavy for my purposes. This will be my first AF SLR. My inclination is to go with a N80 and Nikon 75-300 zoom. Is this a good choice or do I need to look at getting an N90 or F100? Any other compact zooms I should consider? Thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
david_kelly1 Posted February 11, 2003 Share Posted February 11, 2003 Are you going to be on the rail?............ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
todd peach seattle, washi Posted February 11, 2003 Share Posted February 11, 2003 If you avoid the 80 and go with the 90s or 100 you'll get better 'play' out of your existing prime lenses. The 80 can't meter with them. You may not currently intend to mix the two systems (MF and AF) but with a little care it's one of Nikon's greatest features. The 70-300 AF-D ED is a pretty good performer, particularly for the application you describe. It's a little soft at 300mm wide open, but will still turn out pretty good 4x6 prints. Avoid the 'G' lens as it won't work on your F3. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john_holcomb Posted February 11, 2003 Author Share Posted February 11, 2003 I will be on or near the rail (rather than in the grandstand). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rjnoth Posted February 11, 2003 Share Posted February 11, 2003 Even when shooting at the rail, I've had better results using a long lens and shooting before the horses get too close. I used an 80-200 and a 400. The 400 was better I think. I've found it harder to wait until they're closer, because they're coming past at maybe 40-45 mph. Of course that might just be my lack of technique! I don't usually shoot stuff that is moving that fast.If you want the best autofocus performance (and you'll need it to track those horses) the F100 will be superior to an N80 or N90. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john_holcomb Posted February 11, 2003 Author Share Posted February 11, 2003 Yes, 200 is too short. 300 is enough (just). I'm sure 400 would be great, but one pays a big penalty in weight for xx-400 zooms, except, possibly, the Tokina 80-400, which might be a valid alternative, if anyone knows anything about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
klix Posted February 11, 2003 Share Posted February 11, 2003 Rather than shoot from afar with a VERY LONG lens, I myself would prefer to wait until they get closer and shoot with a VERY FAST AF. Having said that, there is obviously NONE FASTER ON THE PLANET than the F5 (or the D1X if you shoot digital) -- for a lens, you guessed it -- 80-200mm AF-D (4th version with the tripod collar) or the 80-200mm AF-S. I grant you that this won't be a lightweight rig, but a monopod might help. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
todd peach seattle, washi Posted February 11, 2003 Share Posted February 11, 2003 <i> . . . I don't usually shoot stuff that is moving that fast. If you want the best autofocus performance (and you'll need it to track those horses) the F100 will be superior to an N80 or N90. . .</i> <p> FWIW, I have much experience with the N90s and the F100, and I've handled the N80 though not shot much with it. IMO, the N90s is no slouch in the AF department, and is 'pretty close' to the F100 in focus speed. The N80 is a noticable step back. All three benefit from lens speed; an 80-200 f/2.8 is pretty snappy, the 70-300 f/4-5.6 is less so. <p> I don't have a lot of experience with horse racing, but I think your biggest AF challenge will be picking a target that you have a clear view of that has some contrast. Racing silks? No problem. If you try to AF on a mass of dark-colored horse, you might not get a lock. (I sometimes shoot my greyhounds running; the AF 'loves' the blond one, has a hell of a time with the black one.) Also, if the horse you want is alternately obscured by 'traffic', you'll have a problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
david_kelly1 Posted February 12, 2003 Share Posted February 12, 2003 The f100 for sure, especially now that 70-200AFS-VR-G zooms that won't work on the n90s are becoming available. But while waiting for those to show up in the stores, rent a 300AFS and have some fun concentrating on the action at the top of the stretch......... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alex_lofquist Posted February 12, 2003 Share Posted February 12, 2003 "They shoot horses, don't they?" Alex Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chad_h Posted February 13, 2003 Share Posted February 13, 2003 I'ld choose the F100 if you want to keep up with the focusing and I'ld also expect to shoot while the horses are further away. The closer to infinity they are on the focus ring the easier it is for the camera to track them. The 80-400 ED VR might be an ok alternative. The focusing is slower than a 80-200 f2.8 but reaches out further and has VR. A fixed 300 or 400mm f4 or 5.6 might also be alright. You just need to find a system that works for you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jemini_joseph Posted February 16, 2003 Share Posted February 16, 2003 How about 300/4 AF-S lens?(and n80 or F100) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now