Options
Lens for sports
I've recently been intrested in shooting sports, but I'm wondering what lens I should get. I've been looking at a 300 f/4 or an 80-200 f/2.8. Being a high school student my budget is a limited to say the least. My question would be is the 300 too long for shooting high school baseball (I would have access to the dugout) I'd love to hear your opinions on which lens you would recomend for general sports shooting. Most of my shooting would be done in the afternoon and possibly a few games at early dusk, and I have a nikon D80.
awmphoto.smugmug.com
0
Comments
Oh, and I paid only $179 for this lens, and I have a D80 as well. Good luck!
www.rfcphotography.com
Secondly, you can get a 80-200 at BHPhoto for around $870 new. The 70-200 f2.8 AFS VR will run you about twice that ($1,589) but it is a very sweet lens. You might be able to find something to better fit your budget if you check out Ebay or something used.
Hopes this helps answer your question.
But if I were starting over, my first sports lens would be a 70-200 (or 80-200, depending on budget), or possibly, something like that the sigma 100-300/4.
There is just no getting around the superior versatility of the zoom. As much as I have become addicted to primes, I had to come to terms with the fact that I will miss a lot of shots with them. Since I am only shooting for myself (not the athletes, parents, or publications), that's okay. But just starting out? Zoom will also help your learning curve tremendously.
vmac.smugmug.com
Tough choice. The 70-200 is more versatile, but doesn't give you the reach. The 300 has good reach, but limits you.
For a start, the 70-200 with a 1.4 extender might be the best compromise. That gets you to 280 with decent autofocus.
Expect to crop your shots. And in baseball, be willing to prefocus so your action is sharp.
Catapultam habeo. Nisi pecuniam omnem mihi dabis, ad caput tuum saxum immane mittam
http://www.mcneel.com/users/jb/foghorn/ill_shut_up.au
But to give you more specifics. In HS baseball, you need 300mm to get corner to corner - i.e. if you're shooting from 3rd base you need 300mm to get good shots at third. If you're shooting from the dugout you won't have as long a line to cover, but you have the added problem of missing half the shots. For instance if you're in the 1st base dugout you won't get good shots of a right handed pitcher or left handed hitters. You won't get good shots of plays at first base (you'll get the runner's backside). If the home dugout is third base line you lose left handed pitcher shots and right handed hitters. from either side you can get plays at 2nd or third but it depends on whether your subject is the runner/hitter. I realize this is not what you asked. But I wanted to say that if you want to get more shots you'll need to get out of the dugout and IF you do that, then you run into the problem of 200mm not being long enough.
Also - even with 300mm it's a crap shoot on outfield shots. You really need 400mm to get shots of the fielders.
Now for soccer / football. In my experience, the working range of a 200mm lens for action is about 25 yards - sometimes up to 30 yards. Beyond that the quality of the shots really goes down the tubes. When you think about it, 25-30 yards is not that far - it doesn' even reach from sideline to sideline. It's more an issue with soccer than football. In football you can at least follow the line of scrimmage.
BUT - if your school is like all the high schools around me then soccer is played at night too - which means you absolutely need 2.8 lens.
So, given the budget constraints I think you'll get the most out of an 80-200 plus 1.4x TC solution.
Theres no such thing as the "best" lens for sports.
There is no doubt that I use the 80-200 f/2.8 more than any lens I own for sports.
On a budget, heres my .02 cents worth....
*70-200 or 80-200 f/2.8 is the most versatile most used lens in a sports shooters bag!! It will work outdoors in daylight to control depth of field and keep the backgrounds blurred out. Indoors it will allow you the shutter speed and variable zoom to shoot without flash and stay clear and sharp for basketball,volleyball etc.
** 300 f/4 is a good start if $ is tight. The 300 f/4 is a light, compact lens that will shoot clean and sharp as long as you have good light.
I would recommend just like everyone else, go with the 70-200 f/2.8 or 80-200 f/2.8 and a TC for now. Later when money is a little easier to come by get you a 300 f/2.8 and you will be set for most sports even if you need to use the 1.4 TC on the 300 f/2.8.
http://www.sportsshooter.com/members.html?id=2850
If you dont need low light capability or manual focus override, I would recommend the 55-200 as the best bang for your buck :P.
Then again, if you need full af-s, including manual focus override, and a bit longer range, go for the 70-300 vr.
If... you have to have low light capability, and you cant afford the 70-200, or a few primes (85mm 1.8 or the 50mm 1.4), then I'd go for the 80-200 f/2.8 AF-D lens. (Note: You might also be able to find a used 80-200 AF-S for about the same price, or less than a new AF-D version).
Just my 2 cents. :P
- Ansel Adams.
Just a thought, and it may end up costing less, but you still have the same reach and fast f-stop, just that you will have to manually pre-focus for your shots.
This way you can always get good at manual focusing for these events, and if it happens that you need to manual focus, you will be good at it. Didn't see this mentioned earlier here unless I missed some of the lens nomenclature that referred to a MF lens, that I'm not familiar with, but a Sportsshooter had given me this tip. just thought I'd share.
Good luck!
Sony A700&VG; KM 7D&VG; KM 5D; Min 28-75/2.8; 50/1.7; Tammie 17-50/2.8; Tammie 90/2.8 Macro; Min 80-200/2.8; and Min 300/2.8, two flashes, and a couple of other accessories.
Yeah that is exactly what I have. By having a lens that goes down to 2.8 you have the ability to shoot some great shots indoors for hoops and hockey, but its a little short for football and baseball, and not as much for lax and soccer (softball a 200 is fine but you can use the TC to get the outfield)
But since with the natural sunlight, suddenly light is no longer an issue so slapping a TC on there (and well compared to hockey the other sports just dont move as fast :-P so the "slower" autofocusing because of the TC isnt generally an issue) gets you the coverage you need.
I say a 70-200 f2.8 and a TC will be able to cover about 98% of what you need and will give you the flexbility to shoot many sports indoors and out. Personnaly I hate using a monopod because I feel it limits my range of shooting ( I move around alot, I am up and down, I sneak into places people with monopods cant) so for me anything too big that I cant hand hold would take serious consideration.
If I were to buy a 2nd lens it proably would be a fixed 300, to get the long pass in football, outfields in baseball, and to give me more shooting range with soccer and lax. But I would only do this if I had a 2nd body and really I have been doing well without a 300 so far, but there is a small percentage of "shots we could use" that I just cant get.
I know long answer.
Short get a 70-200, spend the money on the 2.8 and save the money on the IS ( i got it and kind of wished I had saved the money on it, becuase chances are shooting sports you have the shutter going fast enough that really IS is a moot point)
- Ansel Adams.