Good sport lens?

LRussoPhotoLRussoPhoto Registered Users Posts: 458 Major grins
edited July 6, 2012 in Accessories
Looking for a new lens for action sports, I currently have a sigma 70-200 f2.8 that i am very happy but looking for something that shoots a little wider. was think about a 24-70 f2.8. any suggestions?
D300s D90
Nikon 18-105mm,Nikon 18-200mm,Sigma 24-70mm f2.8, Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8

http://LouRusso.SmugMug.com

Comments

  • NeilLNeilL Registered Users Posts: 4,201 Major grins
    edited June 21, 2012
    Take my comments with a grain of salt - I have next-to-no experience shooting sport. However, I recently put myself through a short sharp learning curve to prepare to shoot an indoor taekwondo tournament.

    What I learned was: relevant factors for shooting sport -

    * indoor/night vs outdoor (day)

    * speed of action

    * your closeness to the action

    * tripod or handheld

    * your gear, including body, lens and lights, if allowed and practical

    * technique of photog

    So, obviously, what is good is complex and very situation specific.:D

    Seems to me most sport togs shoot centre frame and crop a fair bit, so resolution is relevant, and edges not.

    The faster the lens the better, applies generally, but critical for fast action indoor/night sports.

    For long distance sport there's no way round a tele being necessary. Resolution, CA, IS/VR/stability, AF are key.

    For up close sport, a 35mm on FF is close to ideal. As you know, wider lenses are more accommodating of DOF and camera shake.

    In short, I don't think you could go far wrong to complement with the Nikon 24-70mm f2.8. Plus it's a rave lens, apparently. Personally I would prefer a faster lens, say f1.4 traded against zoom, and with IS/VR, if I were mainly shooting indoor/night, hand held, at a small area such as a taekwondo mat.

    Neil
    "Snow. Ice. Slow!" "Half-winter. Half-moon. Half-asleep!"

    http://www.behance.net/brosepix
  • LRussoPhotoLRussoPhoto Registered Users Posts: 458 Major grins
    edited June 24, 2012
    Wow, thanks for all that info!
    D300s D90
    Nikon 18-105mm,Nikon 18-200mm,Sigma 24-70mm f2.8, Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8

    http://LouRusso.SmugMug.com
  • NeilLNeilL Registered Users Posts: 4,201 Major grins
    edited June 25, 2012
    QuadRacer041 wrote: »
    Wow, thanks for all that info!

    You're welcome. Did you post your question in the Sports forum? You'd probably get some more specific advice about the 24-70mm there.

    Neil
    "Snow. Ice. Slow!" "Half-winter. Half-moon. Half-asleep!"

    http://www.behance.net/brosepix
  • lifeinfocuslifeinfocus Registered Users Posts: 1,461 Major grins
    edited June 25, 2012
    I rented the 24-70mm for a week just recently. It is a heavy lens and no VR. So, IMO if you use it for sports you need to hold it very still and use it for planned shots, which I think would be difficult to do. I have done outdoor sports - baseball and football - and I like a much longer lens
    http://www.PhilsImaging.com
    "You don't take a photograph, you make it." ~Ansel Adams
    Phil
  • studio7studio7 Registered Users Posts: 11 Big grins
    edited June 27, 2012
    I think it depends a lot on what kind of sport and what kind of shot. I have shot a lot of little league baseball and softball, soccer and horse shows. I use my 70-200 most of the time and on occasion will use the 70-300 for the extra reach. I have never used the 24-70 at a sporting event. That being said, I shoot for the action on the field most of the time with the occasional shot to the dugout or crowd near me. For those, usually 70mm works ok. There have been a few times I wish that I could have gone wider, but not enough to warrant using the 24-70 as my main lens. As far as vr is concerned, I have my shutter speed set to stop action so vr will gain me nothing other than to slow down the reaction time of the camera as it's waiting for the vr to activate before releasing the shutter. With ss high to stop action, camera shake becomes a non issue hence vr not being a benefit. I leave it off.
    V, Just V.
    Nikon D700, 24-70 f2.8, 70-200 f2.8, 70-300 VR, SB800, SB600
    Alienbee B800x2, B400x2, Silver PLMx2
  • mercphotomercphoto Registered Users Posts: 4,550 Major grins
    edited June 27, 2012
    What kind of sport? What kind of lighting? And just how close do you intend to get such that you need a standard zoom?

    And with regards to image stabilization, sports almost NEVER requires image stabilization. In fact its almost never helpful under sporting conditions. In sports your subject is moving, and image stabilization does nothing to cure the problems of a moving subject. ONLY shutter speed can do that.
    Bill Jurasz - Mercury Photography - Cedar Park, TX
    A former sports shooter
    Follow me at: https://www.flickr.com/photos/bjurasz/
    My Etsy store: https://www.etsy.com/shop/mercphoto?ref=hdr_shop_menu
  • jonh68jonh68 Registered Users Posts: 2,711 Major grins
    edited June 29, 2012
    I would get a 50 1.8 over a 24-70 for sports.
    www.jonimages.com
  • LRussoPhotoLRussoPhoto Registered Users Posts: 458 Major grins
    edited July 6, 2012
    I do mostly motocross and Tough Mudder type running events. I already have a 70-200, looking for some thing to get wider angles. With what I shot I am able to to get pretty close to the action so sometimes the 70-200 is too big. With the 24-70 I will also be able to use it for much more then just sports, landscapes, portraits, etc. I guess I'm pretty much answering my own question, lol. Am I totally off in my thinking or does it make sense. Are there big negatives to be using the 24-70 for sports?
    D300s D90
    Nikon 18-105mm,Nikon 18-200mm,Sigma 24-70mm f2.8, Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8

    http://LouRusso.SmugMug.com
  • NeilLNeilL Registered Users Posts: 4,201 Major grins
    edited July 6, 2012
    These are daylight events, right? The interesting action can happen close to you or some distance away, and might not be particularly fast? So big aperture is not critical, but zoom is handy.

    You have a crop body, so your 70-200mm is really 100-300mm FOV. Not very surprising that you are not feeling it is giving you what you are looking for. 24-70mm is 35-100mm FOV. Still not so wide as you would like, I'd say is likely.

    I'd go wider.

    See here:

    http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=144105

    Neil
    "Snow. Ice. Slow!" "Half-winter. Half-moon. Half-asleep!"

    http://www.behance.net/brosepix
  • jonh68jonh68 Registered Users Posts: 2,711 Major grins
    edited July 6, 2012
    NeilL wrote: »
    These are daylight events, right? The interesting action can happen close to you or some distance away, and might not be particularly fast? So big aperture is not critical, but zoom is handy.

    You have a crop body, so your 70-200mm is really 100-300mm FOV. Not very surprising that you are not feeling it is giving you what you are looking for. 24-70mm is 35-100mm FOV. Still not so wide as you would like, I'd say is likely.

    I'd go wider.

    See here:

    http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=144105

    Neil

    I tend to agree, With the 70-200, you already have that covered. A 16-35 or a a wide angle zoom for DX in the 10-24 mm range will get you more interesting shots than a 24-70mm
    www.jonimages.com
Sign In or Register to comment.