Economical Nikon Sports Lens

kdog

A Nikon shooting customer of mine wants to pick up a telephoto zoom lens to shoot her kid playing daytime soccer games. Budget is $500-$600. She's using a Nikon 3100 body, and doesn't really get the "it's all about the glass" concept.

The request is out of my comfort zone as I'm a Canon shooter, plus I wouldn't even consider a lens in that price range to shoot sports. So I thought I'd throw this out there for opinions.

Looking on Amazon, I see the following lenses that might fit.

http://www.amazon.com/Nikon-18-200mm-3-5-5-6G-Telephoto-DX-Format/dp/B002JCSV8A/ref=sr_1_8?ie=UTF8&qid=1399747527&sr=8-8&keywords=nikon+telephoto+zoom+lens

http://www.amazon.com/Nikon-55-300mm-4-5-5-6G-Nikkor-Digital/dp/B003ZSHNCC/ref=sr_1_9?ie=UTF8&qid=1399747527&sr=8-9&keywords=nikon+telephoto+zoom+lens

http://www.amazon.com/Nikon-70-300mm-4-5-5-6G-Digital-Cameras/dp/B000HJPK2C/ref=sr_1_14?ie=UTF8&qid=1399747527&sr=8-14&keywords=nikon+telephoto+zoom+lens

Any thoughts? Other suggestions? Maybe a 3rd party lens might fit the bill?

Thanks for any input.

-joel

lensmole

What about used or simply tell her that she didn't allow enough for her budget and that she may have to adjust it.

kdog

lensmole wrote: »

What about used or simply tell her that she didn't allow enough for her budget and that she may have to adjust it.

Thanks. I've made her aware of the tradeoffs. Not sure if you've looked at used lens prices, but it might save you 20% at most and that isn't enough to bump you to a f/2.8 lens.

Ferguson

kdog wrote: »

Thanks. I've made her aware of the tradeoffs. Not sure if you've looked at used lens prices, but it might save you 20% at most and that isn't enough to bump you to a f/2.8 lens.

I'm not sure that's true, the 80-200 is a dynamite sports lens (if your camera can drive it, but unfortunately the 3100 cannot).

With that low end body, and any of the mentioned lenses, it will really be daytime sports only. If you accept that limitation, the 18-200's zoom range makes it a great "never take it off" lens.

But soccer fields are big. 300mm vs. 200mm will help a lot. But both 55 and 70 are not very wide angle, so they are not as flexible when the kids are in near the parents, anything indoors (parties after), etc. I haven't used either the 55-300 or current 70-300; from what i hear the latter is probably a bit better optically but my guess is all three of these are good enough for your friends expectations.

I'd say it comes down to whether she would like more flexibility for the wide/close shots, or a bit more reach on the field. If it were me and I would probably take the 18-200 and just never take it off the camera. I had one for many years, and it lived there. Then get some exercise following the players up and down the sidelines!

TonyCooper

I shoot a Nikon D300 with a Tamron 18-270 lens that is currently available
for about $400. At the baseball game today, I shot using the full range
of that zoom for various situations.

The sports shooters here have criticized - and rightly so - my sharp backgrounds
(especially when shooting batters and the catcher next to the fence and the spectators),
but that's the difference between a $400 lens and a $1,000-plus lens in daylight photography.
No one has gone on record critical of my composition, or the sharpness of the images.

The lady has to decide if pro level photographs with nicely blurred backgrounds
are worth double or triple the cost. The other consideration is what she'll be
photographing the rest of the year when soccer season is over.

Personally, I'd tell her to go with the $400 lens and pay you or some other pro
sports shooter for $100 worth of on-the-field mentoring on how to position herself
on the field and how to anticipate the action for better photographs.

Parents pay for private coaching sessions for the kid, but never think that private
coaching for photographic skills are probably going to be more useful over time.
The kid will be into something else in a few years, but the photographs remain.

Icebear

IMO, she'd be happier in the long run with an up-to-date bridge camera like the Fujifilm HS50 EXR. Couple that with a fast card and she'd get all she wants. Less than $400 too, including the card.

brianb

Assuming the focal length would work, look into a used Sigma 50-150 f/2.8. I see them on ebay for $450-550 pretty often, and I believe it has a built in motor so it should work with the Nikon bodies without a screw drive motor. Note that there are 3 versions, the first or second should be fine (second is reported to be slightly better), but the 3rd version has image stabization built in and is a huge increase in both size and cost.

NikonsandVstroms

brianb wrote: »

Assuming the focal length would work, look into a used Sigma 50-150 f/2.8. I see them on ebay for $450-550 pretty often, and I believe it has a built in motor so it should work with the Nikon bodies without a screw drive motor. Note that there are 3 versions, the first or second should be fine (second is reported to be slightly better), but the 3rd version has image stabization built in and is a huge increase in both size and cost.

+1 it's my current telephoto lens and I got it from KEH well within her budget and I have a great keeper rate even at low light.

kdog

Ferguson wrote: »

I'm not sure that's true, the 80-200 is a dynamite sports lens (if your camera can drive it, but unfortunately the 3100 cannot).

With that low end body, and any of the mentioned lenses, it will really be daytime sports only. If you accept that limitation, the 18-200's zoom range makes it a great "never take it off" lens.

But soccer fields are big. 300mm vs. 200mm will help a lot. But both 55 and 70 are not very wide angle, so they are not as flexible when the kids are in near the parents, anything indoors (parties after), etc. I haven't used either the 55-300 or current 70-300; from what i hear the latter is probably a bit better optically but my guess is all three of these are good enough for your friends expectations.

I'd say it comes down to whether she would like more flexibility for the wide/close shots, or a bit more reach on the field. If it were me and I would probably take the 18-200 and just never take it off the camera. I had one for many years, and it lived there. Then get some exercise following the players up and down the sidelines!

Thanks for the input!!

kdog

TonyCooper wrote: »

I shoot a Nikon D300 with a Tamron 18-270 lens that is currently available
for about $400. At the baseball game today, I shot using the full range
of that zoom for various situations.

The sports shooters here have criticized - and rightly so - my sharp backgrounds
(especially when shooting batters and the catcher next to the fence and the spectators),
but that's the difference between a $400 lens and a $1,000-plus lens in daylight photography.
No one has gone on record critical of my composition, or the sharpness of the images.

The lady has to decide if pro level photographs with nicely blurred backgrounds
are worth double or triple the cost. The other consideration is what she'll be
photographing the rest of the year when soccer season is over.

Personally, I'd tell her to go with the $400 lens and pay you or some other pro
sports shooter for $100 worth of on-the-field mentoring on how to position herself
on the field and how to anticipate the action for better photographs.

Parents pay for private coaching sessions for the kid, but never think that private
coaching for photographic skills are probably going to be more useful over time.
The kid will be into something else in a few years, but the photographs remain.

Thanks, Tony. I've seen your sports shots with that lens and they look fine. I don't think DOF is an issue at her level. We'll definitely have a look at this lens.

Edit: I thought about coaching her too, and I might do it for free. She's a Realtor and gives me business.

kdog

Icebear wrote: »

IMO, she'd be happier in the long run with an up-to-date bridge camera like the Fujifilm HS50 EXR. Couple that with a fast card and she'd get all she wants. Less than $400 too, including the card.

Maybe so, 'bear. But she's dipped her toe in the DSLR waters, so no point pulling out now. I do appreciate the suggestion.

kdog

brianb wrote: »

Assuming the focal length would work, look into a used Sigma 50-150 f/2.8. I see them on ebay for $450-550 pretty often, and I believe it has a built in motor so it should work with the Nikon bodies without a screw drive motor. Note that there are 3 versions, the first or second should be fine (second is reported to be slightly better), but the 3rd version has image stabization built in and is a huge increase in both size and cost.

NikonsandVstroms wrote: »

+1 it's my current telephoto lens and I got it from KEH well within her budget and I have a great keeper rate even at low light.

Thanks, guys. I *love* fast glass, and I'm sure it's a super lens. But I think the focal length is too limited for her purpose.

babowc

I feel like the 70-300 VR would be a good option for daytime sports.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk 2

T. Bombadil

kdog wrote: »

A Nikon shooting customer of mine wants to pick up a telephoto zoom lens to shoot her kid playing daytime soccer games. Budget is $500-$600. She's using a Nikon 3100 body, and doesn't really get the "it's all about the glass" concept.

-joel

My vote is for the 70-300. I have one that I used for several years for daylight sports events (before getting a 70-200 2.8). The 70-300 is quite sharp up to 250mm. I think it is the best compromise when budget is a priority.

TonyCooper

I borrowed a 70-300mm once when I was shooting barrel racing. We were positioned
fairly close to one of the barrels. The problem that I had was that I had to keep moving
back for certain shots. It was fine when we were away from the action, though.

With my 18-270, I though I had more freedom to position myself.

Matthew Saville

If she's shooting in broad daylight, the whole "it's all about the glass" thing starts to include just about any lens that reaches the right focal range, really. Aside from bokeh, which most moms and dads just don't care about unless they're REALLY bit by the photo bug, ...pretty much ever lens released in the past few years has great AF speed and incredible sharpness.

Therefore, my recommendation is definitely the 55-300 DX VR or 70-300 VR. Get whichever is cheaper, or whichever they can find in mint condition on Ebay or somewhere like here, if the original buyer is able to supply the purchase receipt and help with warranty support.

Either way, I see no problem in recommending a "kit" style zoom lens. The two lenses spoken of are great lenses, and in decent light with just a little attention to your background, you can get fantastic images...

=Matt=

kdog

Thanks for all the solid suggestions, guys. I really appreciate all the help.

Mav

Matthew Saville wrote: »

If she's shooting in broad daylight, the whole "it's all about the glass" thing starts to include just about any lens that reaches the right focal range, really. Aside from bokeh, which most moms and dads just don't care about unless they're REALLY bit by the photo bug, ...pretty much ever lens released in the past few years has great AF speed and incredible sharpness.

Therefore, my recommendation is definitely the 55-300 DX VR or 70-300 VR. Get whichever is cheaper, or whichever they can find in mint condition on Ebay or somewhere like here, if the original buyer is able to supply the purchase receipt and help with warranty support.

Either way, I see no problem in recommending a "kit" style zoom lens. The two lenses spoken of are great lenses, and in decent light with just a little attention to your background, you can get fantastic images...

=Matt=

Interested to hear you say this... I started off with Nikon's 18-200mm and had been pretty happy with it, particularly with the versatility. But then I picked up a Nikon 17-55 (f2.8) I have to say the images seem way sharper, with or without the aperture wide open, with this lens. And so I now find myself not really wanting to use the 18-200, despite losing the extra reach.

That being said - the 18-200 has seen a lot of use: 40k shots, and been bounced around the world on motorcycles and in the back of my Landy... so maybe it's just gotten a little worn? There's certainly seems to be a bunch more play in the body of the lens...

So I had a similar questions to the OP - what is a good lens with a longer reach? It doesn't seem like there is much of choice other than the 55-300 or 70-300 - I think the 70-200 really isn't an option for the most serious or professional photog, due to the cost and size...

jmphotocraft

Assuming the street price of this lens is $995 or less, this will be the best value for APS-C sports:

http://www.dpreview.com/news/2014/05/16/tokina-officially-announces-image-stabilised-70-200mm-f4-telezoom?utm_campaign=internal-link&utm_source=news-list&utm_medium=text&ref=title_0_2

To do any better, you'd need to get the $1400 Nikon version, or get crazy with f/2.8 lenses.

kdog

Thanks again, guys! Lots of good ideas here.

Matthew Saville

Mav wrote: »

Interested to hear you say this... I started off with Nikon's 18-200mm and had been pretty happy with it, particularly with the versatility. But then I picked up a Nikon 17-55 (f2.8) I have to say the images seem way sharper, with or without the aperture wide open, with this lens. And so I now find myself not really wanting to use the 18-200, despite losing the extra reach.

That being said - the 18-200 has seen a lot of use: 40k shots, and been bounced around the world on motorcycles and in the back of my Landy... so maybe it's just gotten a little worn? There's certainly seems to be a bunch more play in the body of the lens...

So I had a similar questions to the OP - what is a good lens with a longer reach? It doesn't seem like there is much of choice other than the 55-300 or 70-300 - I think the 70-200 really isn't an option for the most serious or professional photog, due to the cost and size...

There is indeed still going to be a bit of a compromise when you use a "superzoom", as opposed to simply a variable aperture zoom. A 70-300 and 18-200 may seem roughly on par because of price and aperture, however there is indeed no free lunch.

The 70-300, for the most part, is a very sharp lens even wide open. I don't know if the same goes for the 55-300 DX, but I'm willing to bet it does to some extent...

=Matt=

bobcool

I had the original version of the Nikon 70-300 variable aperture way back in 2007 - it was a great lens that produced many good shots:

1


2


3


I heartily recommend the newer version of this lens, as I've heard it's sharper. It's a great lens for the "parent crowd."

Qarik

soccer mom will be happiest with 18-200mm. she is going to complain when the kids is too close and her 55-XXX or 70-XXX fails her.

Matthew Saville

Qarik wrote: »

soccer mom will be happiest with 18-200mm. she is going to complain when the kids is too close and her 55-XXX or 70-XXX fails her.

Maybe most / some of the time, but once they get more into photography they'll start to notice the difference in performance and sharpness, and a two-lens kit like a 16-85 plus 55-300 or 70-300 will be a much better investment.

This is why I usually ask people up front some sort of question like "well, how serious do you imagine yourself getting into this? The thought of mastering camera shutter speeds and apertures and all the deeper things, does this interest you at all? Or do you simply want to take better pictures yet keep it simple?"

Their answer to this question usually determines whether I recommend a lens like the 18-200, or a two-lens kit etc...

=Matt=