Lens focus hunting, lens or camera or both?

[Gary Naka]

Situation, I am shooting night sports under lights with a D7200 + 70-210 f/4 AF (screwdriver) lens.

The lens will periodically go into hunt mode. As Murphy would have it, usually at the worst times, like shooting the scoring ball going into the soccer net. Or the head butt on a kick return (sorry don't know the correct term for it). grrrr

I have not been able to figure out any trigger/reason why it goes into hunt mode, as the AF is on the subject/player, so there is something to focus on, I think. But of course since it is a fast moving game, it is hard to diagnose the problem during the game.

Interestingly, I cannot recall my 18-140 AF-S going into hunt mode.

 

I use the 70-210 f/4 because it is 1 stop faster on the long end than my 18-140. And I am shooting at night under lights, so the faster lens lets me shoot at a lower ISO.

 

So my question is, how much of the hunting is due to the lens, or the camera, or both in combo?

And what might I do/look out for?

I am switching to my 18-140 because of this hunting issue.

I can't keep loosing the scoring goal shots.

 

thanks

[ShunCheung]

Your D7200 is a fairly recent DSLR using the Multi-CAM 3500 AF module, originally introduced in 2007 with the D3 and D300. While it is no longer state of the art, it should still be quite good. However, your lens (the 70-210mm/f4 AF, not to be confused with the recent 70-200mm/f4 AF-S VR) has ancient AF.

 

Sports photography at night (or indoors) is one of the areas that is most challenging for AF equipment. On one hand there is the lack of light for the AF system; meanwhile you still need fast AF and a higher shutter speed to track and stop motion. For indoor sports, if possible, I would use a 70-200mm/f2.8 AF-S VR. There are three generations of that lens. If budget is a concern, the early version should be a lot cheaper. There are also some third-party options.

Edited February 7, 2018 by ShunCheung

[peterbcarter]

Another option would be to focus manually. Don't panic, it should be easier than you think. Assuming you are farther awat than 10ft, focus should be fairly consistent. You biggest concern would be motion anyway.

 

It's a skill worth building on.

[rodeo_joe1]

The 70-210mm f/4 is a first generation AF lens. It's neither optically nor electronically brilliant.

 

Mine was OK-ish on film and a D700, but things have moved on considerably since.

 

I don't think you have any choice but to update the lens if getting these shots is that important. What price do you put on them?

[Gary Naka]

Another option would be to focus manually. Don't panic, it should be easier than you think. Assuming you are farther awat than 10ft, focus should be fairly consistent. You biggest concern would be motion anyway.

 

It's a skill worth building on.

 

I grew up on manual focus lenses.

But a dslr does not have anywhere near as good a screen for manual focusing, as my old F2 with the P screen.

My best MF zoom is the Nikon 80-200 f/4.5, really easy smooth 1-ring, focusing and zoom.

[Gary Naka]

Shot a night soccer game, under lights tonight.

 

First half of the game, I used the 18-140 tonight, and it did not hunt, at all.

So maybe it is time to retire the 70-210.

 

2nd half I used the school's 80-200 f/2.8

The 70-200 f/2.8 is heavy for me (senior citizen with a bad back). I would have to use it on a monopod. The f/4 lens I can hand hold.

I tried an older Sigma 80-200 f/2.8, on the schools Canon, on a monopod.

The monopod handled the weight of the lens just fine. I need to get the height just right, or my back gets sore.

It was difficult for me to pivot around the monopod to track the players. A whole new set of movements to learn.

 

So new lens, but f/2.8 or f/4. Besides cost, weight is the major issue here.

f/2.8 and I have to use the monopod, which will impact mobility and flexibility.

It would be nice to be 20 years younger, with a good back.

[mike_halliwell]

I'd guess in the bang per buck catagory, the first 70-200mm 2.8, would be OK. The iffy corner sharpness on FX isn't a problem and the price point is good. But you're right, it's a bit heavy though.

If you can find one, you could try the Sigma 50-150mm 2.8 HSM, non OS version. It's small, light and pretty fast.... and plenty sharp enough on my D7200.

For paid work, i use a Sigma 50-100mm 1.8 on a D500, but it's very heavy and of limited zoom range for your sport. It's fine for horse trials where the range is pretty close and the target zone, not very deep.

[ShunCheung]

Nikon also has a 70-200mm/f4 AF-S VR. It is much lighter than any 2.8, but the f2.8 versions have superior AF under dim light.

 

If it were me, I would use the f2.8 and if necessary, a monopod.

 

Life involves a lot of compromises; you don’t get everything you want.

[ben_hutcherson]

How important is a zoom to you in this situation?

 

A couple of primes at either end would probably serve you if you can live without zooming. The AF-D 80mm 1.8 is(relatively) small and light, optically good(especially on DX). Consider the 180mm 2.8 AF on the long end. The former runs about $200, and the later $300-400 depending on whether you want the original AF or AF-D. The 180mm is the same optically as the old AI-S lens, which if I'm not mistaken was one of the first if not the first ED lenses Nikon made.

 

Also, there were 5 versions of 80-200 2.8. The second AF-D push-pull lacks a tripod collar, but the later two-touch AF-D has one. That makes it easy to use with a monopod, which I generally find to be great solution to handling heavier lenses in this sort of situation. I'd be wary of the first gen 70-200 AF-S. I've seen three come into my local shop with dead AF motors, and parts are NLA to fix them.

[robert_bouknight1]

F/4? It just depends on how much light is available. I use both a 70-200/2.8 VRI and F4 AFS. at a well lit Div1 college BBall venue. Just checked a couple of frames where I used the f4, setting the camera at 1/1000 and f4 resulted in an auto ISO of around 3200. I usually run the 2.8 lens at f/3.2 and sometimes bump the shutter speed up a notch.

 

Comparing results from two games where I used a different lenses at each, AF keeper rate and sharpness are similar. I think I prefer general image look of the f/4 version, maybe it deals a little lower contrast to the somewhat harsh lighting. I like having the option of the light, portable f/4 for almost everything, and the 2.8 for when you need it. Maybe the VRII is a little better than the VRI, but I bought the f/4 instead of upgrading the VRI and am still happy with that decision. l might borrow the VRII I have access to for one game just to see what it is like.

[Andrew Garrard]

The AF-D 80mm f/1.8 is, I believe, extremely sharp, but has pretty ugly bokeh (not from personal experience, just from the last time I investigated it). The AF-S version is still reasonably small and has better bokeh, although it also has quite spectacular LoCA (in the "take a photo of someone in front of a bookshelf and all the text on the book titles behind them will be green" sense). The LoCA is why I'm considering switching to the Sigma Art, but that's a fair bit more expensive and (especially) heavier. I've not been that impressed by modern reviews of the 180mm f/2.8, but it's certainly smaller than some zooms. I suspect you'll want zoomability for sports, though. I assume conditions are too dark to consider one of the new 70-300mm lenses?

 

I was under the impression that it was the 80-200 f/2.8 AF-S that was known to have a lack of spare parts? That lens is, by all accounts, pretty good, but the only one I've seen was broken at the point I was considering buying it. That's been the story for a while though, and I guess the situation with the 70-200 VR mk1 may have regressed by now. There's not much wrong with the 70-200 mk1 on DX - it just has awful corners at 200mm on FX (it was released before the D3 appeared, and I suspect Nikon had a DX mindset at the time). The mk2, which I have, is decent - and visibly sharper (at least at shorter range) and less troublesome than the 80-200 AF-D I owned before. The latest version is by all accounts epic (other than having the zoom and focus rings the wrong way round; I err towards stopping my mk2 down a bit, but the mk3 is allegedly good wide open), but it's very much not cheap - it's still on my wish list. Sadly it's about the same weight as the other versions (~1.5kg), despite the fluorite; the f/4 version is just over half that. I would say that the appearance of the mk3 has led to quite a few used mk2 f/2.8 lenses hitting the market - you may find one for less than the f/4 would cost new.

[Dieter Schaefer]

The 180mm is the same optically as the old AI-S lens

Most definitely not; the 180mm f/2.8 Ai-S has 5 elements in 5 groups and the two AF and one AF-D versions have 8 elements in 6 groups. Haven't used any of the AF versions myself but from what I've read would expect them to have rather slow AF speed.

 

AF-D 80mm f/1.8

AF-D 80mm 1.8

Before Gary goes hunting for a non-existing lens - it's an 85mm, not an 80mm

[mike_halliwell]

Just weighed the Sigma 50-150mm 2.8 HSM (non OS) it's 860gm. About the same as the 70-200mm f4 AFS.

 

There does seem to be a lot of sample variation, but guess i got a good one. From the days of poor quality control i guess!

 

You should find a nice used one for $450. I guess the Nikon is ~ 2 to 3 times more.

 

It doesn't have a tripod foot, it's too small!

Edited February 8, 2018 by mike_halliwell

[Dieter Schaefer]

Maybe the solution for the OP is to switch systems - Fuji offers a 50-140/2.8 that is just shy of 1kg and has VR (which I believe the OP mentioned as desirable in another thread where the issue of lens selection for his venue came up).

[ben_hutcherson]

Most definitely not; the 180mm f/2.8 Ai-S has 5 elements in 5 groups and the two AF and one AF-D versions have 8 elements in 6 groups. Haven't used any of the AF versions myself but from what I've read would expect them to have rather slow AF speed.

 

That's what I get for talking out my rear end and saying things I hadn't checked on recently.

 

Thanks for the correction.

 

I hold the AI-S version in rather high esteem, although as with many old lenses the D8xx series is merciless.

[robert_bouknight1]

I have a 180/2.8 AFD and the older 70-210/4 AF that the OP used. I still enjoy using the 180, it renders people very nicely at head shot range. AF with that lens is a little slow but OK, it's quiet and works fine.

 

I would be concerned the the OP might find the same AF hunting issue with an older 180/2.8AF, those probably have the same AF technology as the lens that the OP has issues with. Somehow, I wound up with both a pre-D and AF-D 180s once. I thought the AF-D focused a little better, more positive. This was a long time ago and maybe it was my imagination.

 

I have tried to like using the 70-210, but I find that the AF system in the one I have is just unpleasantly noisy. Otherwise the lens is sharp enough and is a good bit smaller/lighter than the 2.8's. The current 70-200/f4 AF-S is much more refined, it sure ought to be for the price difference.

 

I had the 1 ring 80-200 AF-D, and then the AF-S 80-200/2.8 before getting the 70-200 VRI. I think I was using DX format cameras when I compared the VRI to the 80-200/2.8 AFS, but still would rate the VRI as best overall of those 3 even on FX. I don't still have the earlier 2.8 lenses to compare, but am sure I would prefer a 70-200/4 AF-S to them, and just crank the ISO up.

 

Looking on Ebay over time, it seems that there are a lot of the 70-200/2.8 VRI lenses that are "well used" like the one I have but still with functioning AF motors, but I guess time will tell.

[Gary Naka]

Nikon also has a 70-200mm/f4 AF-S VR. It is much lighter than any 2.8, but the f2.8 versions have superior AF under dim light.

 

If it were me, I would use the f2.8 and if necessary, a monopod.

 

Life involves a lot of compromises; you don’t get everything you want.

 

You mean I don't get my cake and eat it too? :)

Yeah getting old forces the compromises.

 

Ben,

For football and soccer, the zoom is quite important.

Or it would be back to high school days, of trying to decide on which prime to buy/use. And the prime was good only for one distance, othewise it was too short or too long. I had a 300, and that really restricted what I could shoot. I relied on the others, for the closer shots.

[ben_hutcherson]

I would be concerned the the OP might find the same AF hunting issue with an older 180/2.8AF, those probably have the same AF technology as the lens that the OP has issues with. Somehow, I wound up with both a pre-D and AF-D 180s once. I thought the AF-D focused a little better, more positive. This was a long time ago and maybe it was my imagination.

 

I can't compare those two lenses directly as I have zero experience with them, but Nikon was known to tweak the AF gear ratios between AF and AF-D lenses. There's one 70-210 push-pull that I think is 3.5-4.5. The AF version takes about 6 turns lock-to-lock, and the AF-D version cuts it down to about 3 1/2. On a good body with good light, the AF-D version is lighting fast.

 

Screwdriver lenses honestly are a lot more dependent on the body-both the AF system and the torque from the AF motor. My only AF 50mm 1.4 is the very earliest version with the thin focusing ring, and it's essentially instantaneous on my F5, D1/H/X, D2H/X and pretty much all other recent decent digitals like a D300s and D800. It only starts to get a bit pokey and start hunting on lower end film bodies like the N70. It focuses fast but can still hunt on the F4. Once again, my 80-200 2.8 and 300 f/4 are pretty darn fast on pro level bodies. They can lock pretty solidly on recent lower end bodies, but are a bit slower getting there.

[ben_hutcherson]

Gary, out of curiosity do you single point or multi point/tracking?

 

Often the center points are the most sensitive, although check the manual and see which are. Confining yourself to the most sensitive points can help in questionable lighting.

 

Also, when it's hunting do you ever see the two arrows in the viewfinder flash together? You probably know this, but that indicates that-for whatever reason(low light, not enough contrast) the AF is telling you that it can't focus.

[Gary Naka]

Ben,

Single point AF, center + D9.

 

I found when shooting sports, it is less confusing for me to just concentrate on putting the center AF point on the subject. It is already hard enough to track the moving players/subjects. I don't want be changing AF points at the same time.

I'm not like the kids today, that can to 4 things at the same time.

 

I don't recall the arrows. I just see the screen go badly out of focus. Then it's, "AW $HIT, lost the shot."

 

I recall how FAST my F4 focuses the AF lenses.

MUCH faster than my D70.

[Gary Naka]

I was thinking that a 24-120 f/4 FX lens would be a good lens for field sports.

The f/4 is a stop faster than my 18-140, but a stop slower than the f/2.8 lenses.

I would not loose much on the wide end on a DX body, and even gain coverage on a FX body.

And the 120 end is only a bit shorter than my 18-140.

It is 50% heavier than the 18-140, and slightly lighter than the 70-200 f/4.

 

Too bad I did not go thru this excercise before Christmas when the D750 + 24-120 + grip was less than $2k.

I have to wait till Christmas 2018, to see if they have that package deal again.

[jorish]

I do not have a lot of wisdom to offer regarding the different lenses. However, for manual focusing, I sometimes use a trick when I shoot theatre/dance performances; During a moment just before 'the action' (and I assume you have a second or two here when the game moves toward a goal for instance) you let the camera AF on something/someone close to where you expect the action, then switch to manual and you don't have to worry about being able to see the correct focus in the 'bad' viewfinder.

 

With f/4 together with the distance, you will very often have enough of the action in focus.

 

I admit it's more of a workaround than a proper solution, but it worked for me until I had the budget for a better lens.

[Gary Naka]

jorish

Actually very little to no time.

The tricky and important shot is: shooting the player kicking the ball to the goal, then following the kicked ball to the goal, to shoot it entering the goal net, and hopefully catching the goalie missing the block.

I have not/don't shoot soccer often, so I'm still trying to get used to the game. I'm slowly getting the hang of it, and the season ends next week. I told the yearbook advisor, compared to shooting football, soccer is HARD. And I tell the kids that I keep shooting soccer for the same reason their sport coaches make them practice. You practice to get better.

 

Then follows is a sport that I have never seen or shot before, lacross. From what little that I have been able to figure out, it will be even harder than soccer, to shoot. I'm going to have to hang out at practice, to get familiar with the game.

 

I've come to realize that there is no "perfect" lens for field sports. Each lens is a compromise, in some way. Fast and heavy or slow and flexible. So it is finding the best compromise.

Also this is just a hobby for me, so I cannot write off the equipment against a non-existent business.

[ShunCheung]

The tricky and important shot is: shooting the player kicking the ball to the goal, then following the kicked ball to the goal, to shoot it entering the goal net, and hopefully catching the goalie missing the block.

For that kind of photography, manual focusing is not realistic, and you want to pay your full attention to the motion of ball and your composition, not worrying about focusing at the same time.

 

I would experiment getting more AF points involved; as the D7200 has 51 of them. If you use only 1 AF point, once the subject moves and your AF point doesn't cover it, your focus will likely be off. I would try using 21 AF points.

 

Again, if possible, I would use an f2.8 (or faster) lens.

[Dieter Schaefer]

Since weight seems to be of some importance, I repeat my suggestion from above of trying out another system: Fuji has a 40-150/2.8 zoom that weighs about 1 kg; combined with a XT-2 shooting soccer should be well within the capabilities of that rig.