Lens suggestions

LRussoPhoto

I shoot actions sports, and im looking for a zoom somewhere between 18-100mm and under $1000. Any suggestions? I have a D300s.

time2smile

to many answers in this range.....

what sports
distance
lighting
?
?
?

LRussoPhoto

time2smile wrote: »

to many answers in this range.....

what sports
distance
lighting
?
?
?

.

The distance would be between 18-100mm, seems 24-70mm is very popular. Looking for an f2.8. I would primarily be shooting atv dirtbike racing, Outside during the day but I would think something with an f2.8 would work indoor In so so lighting say for shooting basketball. As I said the 24-70mm f2.8 seems to be a popular choice for sports photog's.

ziggy53

For basketball the Nikkor AF-S 24-70mm, f2.8G ED AF-S is fairly popular. A fast prime in the longer end of that range is also popular as are even longer fast primes.

The 24-70mm range would be awfully short, potentially dangerously short, for any sort of motorcycle racing. You're just too close to the action if you are intimate with the subject. A 70-200mm is a pretty good choice for motor sports as that gets you a more comfortable distance with some tight scenes of the action. A 300mm might be even better, like the Nikkor AF-S 300mm, f4D ED-IF.

Consider renting for the more important races if you can't afford to purchase immediately.

LRussoPhoto

ziggy53 wrote: »

For basketball the Nikkor AF-S 24-70mm, f2.8G ED AF-S is fairly popular. A fast prime in the longer end of that range is also popular as are even longer fast primes.

The 24-70mm range would be awfully short, potentially dangerously short, for any sort of motorcycle racing. You're just too close to the action if you are intimate with the subject. A 70-200mm is a pretty good choice for motor sports as that gets you a more comfortable distance with some tight scenes of the action. A 300mm might be even better, like the Nikkor AF-S 300mm, f4D ED-IF.

Consider renting for the more important races if you can't afford to purchase immediately.

Thanks, I already have a 70-200 f2.8, I was looking for something smaller to get some nice wide angle shots on the starting line and off the start. What is considered a prime lens and how do I know which ones are and aren't?

ziggy53

QuadRacer041 wrote: »

Thanks, I already have a 70-200 f2.8, I was looking for something smaller to get some nice wide angle shots on the starting line and off the start. What is considered a prime lens and how do I know which ones are and aren't?

A "prime" lens has a fixed focal length. Nikon examples that I would recommend include:

Nikkor AF-S 85mm f/1.4G (Pricey but worth it)
Nikkor 85mm f/1.8D (Screw drive AF and maybe a little slower to focus than above. Much more affordable.)
The Nikkor AF-S 300mm, f4D ED-IF that I mentioned before.

It's too bad that Nikon doesn't have a sports lens offering in the 135mm, f2 category as that can be very useful on a crop camera like your D300.

ThatCanonGuy

Prime is the opposite of zoom. I think you thought that "prime" referred to "excellent," in which case the 24-70 is "prime"

LRussoPhoto

ThatCanonGuy wrote: »

Prime is the opposite of zoom. I think you thought that "prime" referred to "excellent," in which case the 24-70 is "prime"

lol lol


Is there a particular model i should look at?

ThatCanonGuy

Ziggy's suggestions are good. Sounds like you need the Nikon 24-70 (see post Ziggy's above).

LRussoPhoto

Whats the advatage to a prime over a zoom? Wouldn't the range of a zoom be better as opposed to only one focal length?

ziggy53

QuadRacer041 wrote: »

Whats the advatage to a prime over a zoom? Wouldn't the range of a zoom be better as opposed to only one focal length?

Prime lenses tend to produce better image quality than do zooms at the same aperture and focal length. Primes also tend to be larger/faster apertures, especially those designed for sports/action. Larger apertures directly impact AF acquisition speeds and accuracy.

Modern large and constant aperture zooms are often a good compromise between image quality and zoom range versatility, but they do not replace good prime lenses in difficult situations. The best zooms are the constant aperture f2.8 zooms by the respective manufacturers.

LRussoPhoto

Well, given the choice of a 24-70 f2.8 or an 85 f1.8 what would you choose? What would be a more useful lens for me now. Again i'll be using it for shooting mostly sports action, not to say i wouldnt use it for portrait stuff as well if it works with my current situation at the time. Also what is your opnion on buying something other then Nikkor? I have a Sigma 70-200 f2.8 and i am very happy with it. The Sigma's as well as other aftermarket brands are much cheaper then the Nikkor's.

Matthew Saville

ziggy53 wrote: »

Prime lenses tend to produce better image quality than do zooms at the same aperture and focal length. Primes also tend to be larger/faster apertures, especially those designed for sports/action. Larger apertures directly impact AF acquisition speeds and accuracy.

Modern large and constant aperture zooms are often a good compromise between image quality and zoom range versatility, but they do not replace good prime lenses in difficult situations. The best zooms are the constant aperture f2.8 zooms by the respective manufacturers.

Nowadays, if you buy the newest f/2.8 zooms (at least from Nikon, not sure about Canon) ...the f/2.8 zooms are actually as good, or better, than most primes are at f/2.8.

The older, out-dated f/2.8 primes for example are actually a joke compared to the sharpness of newer f/2.8 zooms. (Compare Nikon's 14mm, 18, 20, 24, and 28mm f/2.8 primes to a zoom like the 14-24 or 24-70 2.8...)

Generally, you gotta get an f/1.4 or better prime before the lens is as good at f/2.8 as a 2.8 zoom wide open. Or an f/2 prime like the Canon 135 f/2...

Don't get me wrong, I LOVE primes, I'm definitely "a prime guy" when it comes to portraiture and weddings. (My job) SO, as you also mentioned in addition to the sharpness, the MAIN reasons I pick up a prime instead of a zoom are, in order of importance:

1.) Extra aperture for low light. You just can't substitute for shutter speed. Stabilization is nice, some of the time it helps, but many times you need to stop motion. Bottom line- when it comes time to shoot in pitch-black darkness, you don't mess around with deciding between f/3.5-5.6 or f/2.8. You go straight to f/1.4 or better.

2.) Size and weight. Shocking, I know, I didn't put sharpness or shallow depth as #2... But seriously, I'd MUCH rather shoot with an 85mm f/1.8 or f/1.4 than a 70-200, any day of the week that I don't need to hit 200mm. And even then if I gotta go very telephoto, there's the 135 f/2 and also the new Sigma 150 2.8 OS, if you need a macro...

3.) Shallow depth. For portraiture and photojournalism, on a full-frame camera, again f/2.8 is nice but you can't substitute f/1.4.



Of course, this doesn't really matter. Because eventually, you're gonna buy EVERY lens. Just wait and see! :-P

=Matt=

Matthew Saville

QuadRacer041 wrote: »

Well, given the choice of a 24-70 f2.8 or an 85 f1.8 what would you choose? What would be a more useful lens for me now. Again i'll be using it for shooting mostly sports action, not to say i wouldnt use it for portrait stuff as well if it works with my current situation at the time. Also what is your opnion on buying something other then Nikkor? I have a Sigma 70-200 f2.8 and i am very happy with it. The Sigma's as well as other aftermarket brands are much cheaper then the Nikkor's.

For shooting motor sports, a zoom is probably the better choice. Unless you plan on shooting a LOT in low light, you'll prefer to be able to zoom when things are moving REALLY fast. :-)

(I shoot BMX and stuff, it's not exactly the same but the same concepts...)

Honestly, I prefer to have an ultra-wide for action sports like that. Get a Tokina 11-16 f/2.8 and you'll LOVE the angles you can get, if you can get close to the action. If you're not able to get close though, maybe you're always gonna be in a stand or behind a fence, ...then a 24-70 is probably better. And it would be more useful for general photography and portraits, while a 11-16 ultra-wide is really only good for one "look"...

Here's an image I found on google, made with the 11-16. I dunno if this is the look you're going for, though...

http://static.flickr.com/3222/2688679946_a44d46fa78.jpg

LRussoPhoto

Matthew Saville wrote: »

For shooting motor sports, a zoom is probably the better choice. Unless you plan on shooting a LOT in low light, you'll prefer to be able to zoom when things are moving REALLY fast. :-)

(I shoot BMX and stuff, it's not exactly the same but the same concepts...)

Honestly, I prefer to have an ultra-wide for action sports like that. Get a Tokina 11-16 f/2.8 and you'll LOVE the angles you can get, if you can get close to the action. If you're not able to get close though, maybe you're always gonna be in a stand or behind a fence, ...then a 24-70 is probably better. And it would be more useful for general photography and portraits, while a 11-16 ultra-wide is really only good for one "look"...

Here's an image I found on google, made with the 11-16. I dunno if this is the look you're going for, though...

http://static.flickr.com/3222/2688679946_a44d46fa78.jpg

Also great info, keep the input coming.