Lens Question?

Oldaker

Just wondering what you all thought

would this be a good lens to do sports with on a Nikon D90, like,, baseball, indoor sports, football
Sigma AF 70-200 2.8 EX DGII APO HSM

right now i use a 55-200 4.5, and cant get fast enough shutter speeds

Thanks
Mike

cmkultradome

I shoot Canon, but use a 70-200mm 2.8 for indoor sports such as ice hockey, wrestling, and gymnastics which works very well. I'm using it also for baseball but find it too short. Other members on this forum have suggested I use a 1.4x teleconverter with it for baseball. In reading other posts in the past, it was suggested that you need a longer lens for both baseball and football.

Stephanie

budman101

Don't know if the D90 is a FF or cropped sensor. But anyway, I use my Tamron 70-200/2.8 the time on my A700 with excellent results. The bokeh on outdoor shots is fantastic. For indoor shots if you push the ISO to about 400-800 you can get some decent action shots if the lighting is good. If the Nikon is a 1.5x crop its like getting a 300mm at the long end. The only bad thing is the 70mm end becomes a 105mm which is a bit long for some instances.

sgs8r

I use the Canon 70-200 2.8, occasionally with the 1.4 Extender. I think this is the sweet spot, cost-benefit-wise, for me as an amateur, and runs about $2k (lens + extender). For soccer, I can cover about half the field, assuming I can get close to the sideline. The next step up is really the 300 2.8 or 400 2.8 that you see the pro sportshooters using, and that puts you in the $5k-$7k range. If you are stuck in the stands (e.g. at ML Baseball games), even 200 * 1.4*1.6 (crop body) isn't enough. I've lately been thinking about adding the Canon 100-400 4.5-5.6 to get more reach in bright light, but...

You need the 2.8 both for motion-stopping as well as background isolation from the clutter that is often hard to control. And for scholastic night games or typical gyms, even 2.8 barely gets you enough light at the necessary shutter speeds. But I used the Canon 30D, which tops out at a barely-usable 3200 ISO. The newer bodies reportedly give you an extra stop or two in ISO.

-Steve

KellyC

I do not have this lens, but I do have the Nikkor 70-200VR and it shoots very well with the D90. The main complaint that I have with mine is that indoors if it is not well lit, it is slow focusing and the pictures come out grainy above 800 ISO which I needed for a deck hockey shoot. I have not had the opportunity to shoot in a well lit gym yet.

I have heard that sometimes the Sigma is slow on auto-focusing and will hunt, but that everything else seem pretty good. The D90 has a 1.5x crop, so it works well for outdoor sports (I use mine for motor cross) and the performance is excellent , (as long as I don't play too much with features that I do not totally understand) the pictures are super sharp and crisp.

I would recommend you give it a try if you can't justify the Nikkor lens at this time.

Best of luck,
Kelly

wadesworld

I can't speak to that lens, but a 200 may be a bit short for baseball and football, depending on your freedom of movement.

Getting very tight shots when the action is on the far side of the field or in the outfield may not be possible. I have a 70-300, and I can't reach the outfield as well as I would like from home plate. However, I can get in pretty tight on the infielders/base runners.

With that said, some of the world's most popular sports lenses are the 70-200's/2.8, so maybe it's just my technique.

As someone said above, using a teleconverter for field sports is probably the answer for us mere mortals, since the fast 300's and 400's are out of reach.

johng

Oldaker wrote:

Just wondering what you all thought

would this be a good lens to do sports with on a Nikon D90, like,, baseball, indoor sports, football
Sigma AF 70-200 2.8 EX DGII APO HSM

right now i use a 55-200 4.5, and cant get fast enough shutter speeds

Thanks
Mike

Mike, the Sigma 70-200 2.8 is a very nice lens. But you have to understand some of the limitations involved:
Indoor sports - in many HS gyms you'll find that at f2.8 and ISO 3200 you'll get 1/320 - 1/400 shutter speeds (assuming proper exposure of faces and NOT uniforms). So, you'll be operating in the 3200-6400 range quite a bit. Just make sure you're OK with teh 3200-6400 performance of your camera.

For wrestling - external flash is, IMO, a necessity for print work - too many shadows (a benefit of non reflective mats and downward pointing faces). Shutter speeds aren't as much of a problem but those shadows are.

For baseball - on a full size diamond 200mm is too short. If you're on the field it's too short for corner-to-corner work. The working range of a 200mm lens is around 75' give or take. Beyond that and your focus accuracy will drop quickly. For soccer it's definitely too short. Softball, 200mm can be OK but not ideal. Football it can work as long as you stay within it's limitations - 25 yards isn't a long way - you can't shoot sideline to sideline with good quality. So you have to follow the line of srimmage tightly and you're limited to basically middle of field toward your sideline. But it's certainly a better fit than for soccer or baseball.

tjk60

Oldaker wrote:

Just wondering what you all thought

would this be a good lens to do sports with on a Nikon D90, like,, baseball, indoor sports, football
Sigma AF 70-200 2.8 EX DGII APO HSM

right now i use a 55-200 4.5, and cant get fast enough shutter speeds

Thanks
Mike

I think you might be better off getting a used 300 f/4 for outdoors and a 50mm or shorter for indoors (unless its soccer or hockey)

I agree with johng except that the 70-200 on a dx body like the D90 is probably a bit more than passable, although you'll have to crop deeper outfield shots....

Oldaker

thanks for all the advice guys, been trying to figure out what to do, this gives me some things to think about