Question about lenses

Howitzer

So when I first started shooting my friends childrens sports I bought a Tamron 70-300mm 4-5.6 zoom. it was cheap I know but it was good to learn on, and I have gotten some really good shots with it. But I think I am outgrowing it now though, its lacking the clarity I want, the auto focus seems slower for fast sports and it doesn't shoot well under lighted night events.

So after alot of reading and looking at what other people are shooting, I think my next step should be a 2.8 zoom. This seems to be the defacto answer for shooting under stadium lights.

the big question is how do the lower brands like Tamron and Sigma compare to a Nikon?

like this Nikon for about 1k:(2k for the VR version)
Nikon Zoom Telephoto Zoom-Nikkor 80-200mm f/2.8 ED AF-D Autofocus


Compared to the Sigma for 800:
Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 II EX DG APO Macro HSM AF Lens

I also would like to know if you use a teleconverter with these lenses do you loose the auto focus ability of the lense?

thanks in advance.

cletus

Howitzer wrote:

So when I first started shooting my friends childrens sports I bought a Tamron 70-300mm 4-5.6 zoom. it was cheap I know but it was good to learn on, and I have gotten some really good shots with it. But I think I am outgrowing it now though, its lacking the clarity I want, the auto focus seems slower for fast sports and it doesn't shoot well under lighted night events.

So after alot of reading and looking at what other people are shooting, I think my next step should be a 2.8 zoom. This seems to be the defacto answer for shooting under stadium lights.

the big question is how do the lower brands like Tamron and Sigma compare to a Nikon?

like this Nikon for about 1k:(2k for the VR version)
Nikon Zoom Telephoto Zoom-Nikkor 80-200mm f/2.8 ED AF-D Autofocus


Compared to the Sigma for 800:
Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 II EX DG APO Macro HSM AF Lens

Howitzer wrote:

I also would like to know if you use a teleconverter with these lenses do you loose the auto focus ability of the lense?

thanks in advance.

Someone else may correct me but it looks like the Nikon 1.4 converter will only auto focus with AF-S (auto focus motor in the lens) glass.

I've got one of the old 80-200 2.8 "push-pull" Nikkors and I love it. It's not too bad auto focus speed wise on my D70 and should be better on your D300 (I believe the D300 has a beefier, faster AF motor). It's razor sharp even at f/2.8. Can't really comment on the Sigma as I've never used it or heard anything about it.

The 70 (or 80) - 200 f/2.8 is a very versatile lens. Obviously it's great for sports, it's also great for portrait work and many other things.

GriggJa

my experience is that the focus speeds tend to be much faster on the Nikon version.

johng

Everything is a trade-off. 2.8 is necessary for under lights but it's also a short focal length. So, if you shot a lot of daytime full-field soccer or baseball, a 70-200 2.8 would not be a great choice IMO. But a 70-200 2.8 lens is still the best priced option for nighttime football/soccer.

With the latest DSLRs and their ISO 3200-6400 performance that also opens up indoor sports which previously were best done with f2.0 or better lenses because of mediocre ISO 3200+ performance.

So you really do have to look at what you're going to shoot in order to determine how to spend your money.

You won't lose AF with a 1.4 or 2x TC on the f2.8 lenses but I'm not a fan of 2x TCs on a 70-200 for sports. AF isnt quick enough and IQ just isn't there. And of course you're not going to use a TC for those night games because you lose the 1 or 2 stops of aperture.

Howitzer

well let me illustrate the problems I am having.. maybe I am doing something wrong.. The 1st pic is a cropped shot to highlight the problems.

ISO 1000
Shutter: 1/1000
F/5.6 (lowest my lens will shoot at at 300mm)
this was probably shot around 5:30PM about 2 weeks ago so the sun is going down, but still to me its very noisy even at 1000 ISO.. would hate to see it at 3200.

I was using point auto focus and I had it directly on her face, she is throwing the ball in so she is some what stationary.



this is the picture after processing.. using noiseware and adjusting the white and dark points.. i think it looks better but it still lacks the tack sharpness I am looking for.



I dont shoot from a monopod either, I know that can help the sharpness some.

Wil Davis

Have you thought about renting a 2.8 zoom and seeing if it works out? Personally I've always steered away from teleconverters, never having been happy with the results…

- Wil

kini62

The 70-200 lens is one area where Nikon is really limited. Canon offers 4 choices. Anyway, you could try and find an 80-200AF-S. The lens just prior to the 70-200VR. They seem to go for $1000-$1100 IF you can find one.

I hate Sigma lenses but they do seem to work better on Nikon than Canon. The 70-200/2.8 focuses fast and if you get a good one the IQ is pretty good.

The Tamron 70-200/2.8 is probably the sharpest of all the 70-200s wide open, but is saddled with pretty slow AF.

You could try and find a Sigma 100-300/4 as well. Probably Sigma's best lens if there is such a thing.

The 70-200/2.8 lenses take a 1.4TC really well (IMO) so you get a 280/4 lens for daytime.

Or you could just bite the bullet, mortgage your house and get a 200-400VR.

Gene

Howitzer

Wil Davis wrote:

Have you thought about renting a 2.8 zoom and seeing if it works out? Personally I've always steered away from teleconverters, never having been happy with the results…

- Wil

the TC was just an after thought, not really important just curious if they worked. I would rather just get good shots from a lens alone.

Howitzer

Wil Davis wrote:

Have you thought about renting a 2.8 zoom and seeing if it works out? Personally I've always steered away from teleconverters, never having been happy with the results…

- Wil

thats a really good idea Will.

torags

Well my take...

Do you need 2.8 in daylight ... Yes, if you want subject separation (w/o panning) Shoot a daylight rodeo & see what I mean

Additionally, shooting with lower aperture numbers allows you to increase SS to stop your subjects (& mitigate need for support devices)

Does a 1.4X work on a 70/200 2.8, yup but I tried 2.0 and sold it, the IQ was unacceptable. There is no discernible difference with the 1.4X on the Nik 70/200

I have the older 70/200 VR that has a vignetting issue (bad for landscapes) but OK for cropped sports shots

Do you need VR for rapid sport shooting, probably not, it slows down your fps (some like it for panning)

I think it's a must for sports shooting, but I would also keep an 85 1.8 with me, especially for these shorter days when darkness comes earlier

just my .02