snubbr.com

A new lens
Hi All,.

Brand new to this, only joined today. I just purchased my first ever DSLR last week, a Nikon D40 with the hopes of slowly getting into some sports photography..

The camera came with the Kit 18-55mm lens, and am looking to purchase a lens with a little more reach in the next couple of months. This is what I am considering:.

Either: - Nikkor 100-300mm VRII.

Or: - Soon to be released 18-250mm Tamron that I read about on this site last week..

I am leaning towards the Tamron as it seems very much an all purpose lens. What are your thoughts? The sports I am looking at shooting will be club level stuff, nothing professional, and mainly Soccer and AFL..

Thanks..

Comments (35)

Great purchase, I own a D40 as well. Depending on the price of the 18-250, which will be very interesting to know...the nikon 18-200 is a good all around lens too. I currently have the 55-200mm non vr, but it's a great sharp lens, the vr would help in low light tho, but the 70-300vr is what i'm after. I see very sharp photo's coming from it, all great lens tho from what I hear (in my price range anyway).

Good luck and look forward to seeing some of your photo's!.

Rob..

Comment #1

Try posting on the Nikon SLR Lens Forum - you will get more replies.Chris R..

Comment #2

For sports (depending on the sport), you will need a long lens 300mm, you will need to use high shutter speeds to stop action that will require high ISO settings (1000). You should rent a long lens before you make an investment...

Comment #3

Roblowe83 wrote:.

Hi All,.

Brand new to this, only joined today. I just purchased my first everDSLR last week, a Nikon D40 with the hopes of slowly getting intosome sports photography..

The camera came with the Kit 18-55mm lens, and am looking to purchasea lens with a little more reach in the next couple of months. This iswhat I am considering:.

Either: - Nikkor 100-300mm VRII.

Or: - Soon to be released 18-250mm Tamron that I read about on thissite last week..

I am leaning towards the Tamron as it seems very much an all purposelens. What are your thoughts? The sports I am looking at shootingwill be club level stuff, nothing professional, and mainly Soccer andAFL..

What's the point of going with DSLR if you only use one lens? The amount of "all purpose" in a lens is inversely proportional to it's quality. Sure you won't have to change lenses, but at what price? Image quality, speed/low light ability, etc. And for sports, you don't want to go with a cheap lens. You're not going to need the 18-100mm range to shoot sports. You will need 300mm...

Comment #4

If you are seriously considering sports photography, then the D40/D40x is a good starter camera, but you will soon realize the limitations of the D40/D40x for sports shooting..

You'll need to get the D200 or D300.more frames per second!.

And both of the lenses you mentioned are not good sports lenses for indoor or night sporting events!.

You'll need the $1800 70-200 AF-S VR f:2.8 lens as a minimum..

By the way.VR will not help you for sports to stop action..

J. D.Colorful Colorado.

Image control:Zoom outZoom 100%Zoom inExpand AllOpen in new window.

Remember.always keep the box and everything that came in it!..

Comment #5

I cant see how spending $1800 on a lens as a beginner to photography is the best way to go. That's like buying an Austin Martin for a first car..

I am well aware that there are cameras and lenses better suited to, and built for sports photography. I figured that posting in the forum "Beginners Questions", that id actually receive some vaild advice. I very much doubt that this is the only option. But thanks...

Comment #6

Actually, the best advice given here was to visit the Nikon lens forum, this subject is well covered there. For D40 users, a common longer lenses for beginners are the 55-200 lenses. A review on Thom Hogans sitehttp://www.bythom.com/55200lens.htm..

Comment #7

Roblowe83 wrote:.

I cant see how spending $1800 on a lens as a beginner to photographyis the best way to go. That's like buying an Austin Martin for afirst car..

I am well aware that there are cameras and lenses better suited to,and built for sports photography. I figured that posting in the forum"Beginners Questions", that id actually receive some vaild advice. Ivery much doubt that this is the only option. But thanks..

His advice is valid. It may not be the only option, but it is much more sound than recommending the Tamron 18-250..

That said, if go Canon, you can get a 70-200 F2.8 for $1100 without Image Stabilization and you can get a Sigma version for either Canon or Nikon for even less..

But the bottom line is this: Good Sports Photography = $$$.

The question is, how good do you want?..

Comment #8

Roblowe83 wrote:.

I cant see how spending $1800 on a lens as a beginner to photographyis the best way to go. That's like buying an Austin Martin for afirst car..

I am well aware that there are cameras and lenses better suited to,and built for sports photography. I figured that posting in the forum"Beginners Questions", that id actually receive some vaild advice. Ivery much doubt that this is the only option. But thanks..

You asked for advice.and you got it!.

Sorry you don't feel that it is adaquate..

Beginners forum or not.that is what you'll need if you want to shoot indoor sports..

Those all-in-one zooms just won't cut it for low light action indoors, even at 1600 ISO, but will be OK for outdoor, daytime sports..

How about the Sigma 70-200 HSM f:2.8.$900!.

That's a little easier on the pocketbook..

There are a lot of other options, but you won't have autofocus with most of them..

J. D.Colorful Colorado.

Image control:Zoom outZoom 100%Zoom inExpand AllOpen in new window.

Remember.always keep the box and everything that came in it!..

Comment #9

Sports Photography with a D40X and 70-200mm f/2.8 VR.

Http://forums.dpreview.com/...forums/read.asp?forum=1034&message=25975976.

Note how he used f/2.8 and 1600 ISO to get the shots. He was in the 4th row, btw..

I don't think you would get near those kind of shots with a consumer speed lens. You'd lose 2 stops of shutter speed on an f/5.6 lens. You'd go from 1/500s to 1/125s...blur city for most sports movement. And I bet that NBA court is better lit than most non-pro venues..

Stu - Camera User (see profile for gear)http://www.DigitalPhotoPeople.comhttp://www.flickr.com/photos/stujoe/.

...

Comment #10

Stujoe wrote:.

And I bet that NBA court is better lit than most non-pro venues..

You are correct on that..

In my newspaper days I shot in a lot of high school gyms and football fields..

I was lucky to get f:2.8 and 1/250th at 3200 ISO.and most of the time ended up pushing to 6400 ISO or higher!.

I don't have too many of my old photos scanned.maybe I'll dig out some sports photos at high ISO soon!.

Here is one from an indoor horse show.this place ws really dark:.

Image control:Zoom outZoom 100%Zoom inExpand AllOpen in new window.

Tri-X 400 pushed to 6400 ISO, f:2.8 at 1/30th second, Canon A1 with motordrive, Canon 200mm f:2.8 FD lens..

Image control:Zoom outZoom 100%Zoom inExpand AllOpen in new window.

Tri-X 400 pushed to 3200 ISO, f:2.8 at 1/60th second, Canon F1n with 200mm f:2.8 FD lens..

How about a look inside of the largest (at the time) walled prison in the world:(State Prison Of Southern Michigan).

Image control:Zoom outZoom 100%Zoom inExpand AllOpen in new window.

Tri-X 400 pushed to 3200 ISO, f:1.8 at 1/125th second, Canon F1n with Canon 85mm f:1.8 FD lens..

Image control:Zoom outZoom 100%Zoom inExpand AllOpen in new window.

Image control:Zoom outZoom 100%Zoom inExpand AllOpen in new window.

Don't remember the settings on these last two.except Tri-X 400 pushed to 3200 ISO, Canon F1n with Canon 28mm FD lens..

J. D.Colorful Colorado.

Remember.always keep the box and everything that came in it!..

Comment #11

Nice shots! And that is some tough lighting..

I have never tried to take photos in a pro-venue - although I have been in them enough to know how bright they are compared to my kid's gymnasiums where I often struggle with my equipment to get decent concert shots let alone sports action shots. I don't have any fast glass (other than the poor man's 50 f/1.8 which is never long enough) and there is only so much I can do with the consumer stuff..

One thing that I became attuned to as soon as I started to get into photography enough to learn about shutter speeds, apertures, ISO, etc was how poor indoor lighting really is. I remember, shortly after getting my first bridge camera, walking into a church basement that I had been in a dozen times prior for Boy Scout stuff, and saying "Man, this lighting sucks." It was like I had acquired a new sensory organ to detect the quality of lighting. lol.

Stu - Camera User (see profile for gear)http://www.DigitalPhotoPeople.comhttp://www.flickr.com/photos/stujoe/.

...

Comment #12

Rep AFL and Soccer are played in full sun on an outdoor pitch, no fears of poor lighting. Cheers..

Comment #13

Roblowe83 wrote:.

Hi All,.

Brand new to this, only joined today. I just purchased my first everDSLR last week, a Nikon D40 with the hopes of slowly getting intosome sports photography..

The camera came with the Kit 18-55mm lens, and am looking to purchasea lens with a little more reach in the next couple of months. This iswhat I am considering:.

Either: - Nikkor 100-300mm VRII.

Or: - Soon to be released 18-250mm Tamron that I read about on thissite last week..

I am leaning towards the Tamron as it seems very much an all purposelens. What are your thoughts? The sports I am looking at shootingwill be club level stuff, nothing professional, and mainly Soccer andAFL..

Consider:.

Nikkor 70-200 f2.8...$1500 new to $1300 usedTokina 50-135 f2.8...$650 newSigma 50-150 f2.8...$680 newSigma 70-200 f2.8...$800 to $900 new.

Get a compatible 1.4X teleconverter with the lens you choose..

Forget the BIG zoom lenses as they are all quite s l o w..

Charlie DavisNikon 5700 & Sony R1HomePage: http://www.1derful.infoBridge Blog: http://www.here-ugo.com/BridgeBlog/..

Comment #14

Thanks for the info Charlie, having the prices available really helps. Much appreciated...

Comment #15

One thing in Charlie's post is not completely correct, and that is his statement that the big zooms are slow..

He's probably forgetting that you have a D40, which means that you can only use Nikkor AF-S lenses or third party lenses with a built in focus motor. That will limit you in your possible choice of lenses, but these AF-S lenses are much faster than the older lenses where the autofocus is driven from the camera body..

Have a look at the Nikkor 300mm. f/4 D ED-IF AF-S, great IQ and fast enough for sports work..

Good luck,PeterThere's no problem so big that you can't run away from it!..

Comment #16

Charlie was not wrong..

Ringwraith69 wrote:.

One thing in Charlie's post is not completely correct, and that ishis statement that the big zooms are slow..

He's probably forgetting that you have a D40, which means that youcan only use Nikkor AF-S lenses or third party lenses with a built infocus motor. That will limit you in your possible choice of lenses,but these AF-S lenses are much faster than the older lenses where theautofocus is driven from the camera body..

Note that ALL the lenses I recommended he look at were f2.8..

Have a look at the Nikkor 300mm. f/4 D ED-IF AF-S, great IQ and fastenough for sports work..

The one lens YOU recommended is not even a ZOOM lens!!! And it's only f4.0. Duh....

I was saying that the 11X to 14X zooms (those are BIG zooms) are all slow, like f3.5 to f5.6. Show me an 18-200 lens that isn't slow. I dare you! .

Charlie DavisNikon 5700, Sony R1, Nikon D300HomePage: http://www.1derful.infoBridge Blog: http://www.here-ugo.com/BridgeBlog/..

Comment #17

OK, little miscommunication here, I thougt that with 'slow' you meant slow in focussing, not slow as in apertures above f/2.8..

You won't find any 11x zoom lenses that offer you an f/2.8 aperture, you're right about that. But: lenses like the Nikkor 18-200 VR don't (theoretically) need such fast apertures because the built in stabilizer will win you 2-4 stops, at least that's what the marketing guys want you to believe. The true reason is of course that it's hardly possible to build an 11x zoom lens that is both very fast nd sharp enough at max. aperture..

Personally, if you want real quality I'd never go for these multi-range megazooms. Looking at the OP's purpose for the lens he's looking for, wich is sports photography, I think a good 300mm. prime (like the Nikkor I mentioned) and perhaps a good AF-s 2.8/80-200mm. zoom would be much better than some megazoom thing which will surely disappoint him..

And I dare you to contradict that point There's no problem so big that you can't run away from it!..

Comment #18

Stujoe wrote:.

It was like I had acquired a new sensory organto detect the quality of lighting. lol.

And that, Grasshopper, was when you began to be one with the camera..

:~DRob.

Everyone, everywhere, has to do everything for a first time. There is no shame in failure, only in failure to try...

Comment #19

Ringwraith69 wrote:.

Lenses like the Nikkor 18-200 VR don't(theoretically) need such fast apertures because the built instabilizer will win you 2-4 stops, at least that's what the marketingguys want you to believe..

Actually, the VR makes no difference to your ability to take sharp pictures of sports action, which is the topic under discussion here - the VR eliminates camera shake by steadying the shot at low shutter speeds, which is NOT what is required to freeze fast-moving targets (Thom Hogan explains it thus [paraphrased] - you'll get perfect grass with blurry players). High shutter speeds are the only thing (thus far) that can accomplish that task, and for that, lots of light is required - either through shooting only brightly lit subjects or by having a lens that transmits more light. Hence the oft-repeated requirement for 'fast' lenses - ie a max aperture of f/2.8 or greater. f/4 is quite often not fast enough for sports action, especially in the late afternoon when shadows are starting to grow across the grounds.Rob.

Everyone, everywhere, has to do everything for a first time. There is no shame in failure, only in failure to try...

Comment #20

Ringwraith69 wrote:.

OK, little miscommunication here, I thougt that with 'slow' you meantslow in focussing, not slow as in apertures above f/2.8..

You won't find any 11x zoom lenses that offer you an f/2.8 aperture,you're right about that. But: lenses like the Nikkor 18-200 VR don't(theoretically) need such fast apertures because the built instabilizer will win you 2-4 stops, at least that's what the marketingguys want you to believe. The true reason is of course that it'shardly possible to build an 11x zoom lens that is both very fast ndsharp enough at max. aperture..

Personally, if you want real quality I'd never go for thesemulti-range megazooms. Looking at the OP's purpose for the lens he'slooking for, wich is sports photography, I think a good 300mm. prime(like the Nikkor I mentioned) and perhaps a good AF-s 2.8/80-200mm.zoom would be much better than some megazoom thing which will surelydisappoint him..

And I dare you to contradict that point .

Hey, after you understood what "slow" means, we are in complete agreement. Well, except for the part about "...it's hardly possible to build an 11x zoom lens that is both very fast nd sharp enough at max. aperture..." You get to pick two... 1) fast, 2) sharp, and 3) cheap. Fast and sharp is quite possible. But you could not afford it.



Charlie DavisNikon 5700, Sony R1, Nikon D300HomePage: http://www.1derful.infoBridge Blog: http://www.here-ugo.com/BridgeBlog/..

Comment #21

Actually, what you would get is this:.

Image control:Zoom outZoom 100%Zoom inExpand AllOpen in new window.

I see your point...There's no problem so big that you can't run away from it!..

Comment #22

BraveUlysses wrote:.

Ringwraith69 wrote:.

Lenses like the Nikkor 18-200 VR don't(theoretically) need such fast apertures because the built instabilizer will win you 2-4 stops, at least that's what the marketingguys want you to believe..

Actually, the VR makes no difference to your ability to take sharppictures of sports action, which is the topic under discussion here -the VR eliminates camera shake by steadying the shot at low shutterspeeds, which is NOT what is required to freeze fast-moving targets(Thom Hogan explains it thus [paraphrased] - you'll get perfect grasswith blurry players). High shutter speeds are the only thing (thusfar) that can accomplish that task, and for that, lots of light isrequired - either through shooting only brightly lit subjects or byhaving a lens that transmits more light. Hence the oft-repeatedrequirement for 'fast' lenses - ie a max aperture of f/2.8 orgreater. f/4 is quite often not fast enough for sports action,especially in the late afternoon when shadows are starting to growacross the grounds.Rob.

Everyone, everywhere, has to do everything for a first time. There isno shame in failure, only in failure to try..

That's just what I meant by stating that 'theoretically' stabilised lenses don't need fast apertures...There's no problem so big that you can't run away from it!..

Comment #23

Actually, we're in complete agreement...again. Except that cannon is not even a zoom lens. .

Charlie DavisNikon 5700, Sony R1, Nikon D300HomePage: http://www.1derful.infoBridge Blog: http://www.here-ugo.com/BridgeBlog/..

Comment #24

Chuxter wrote:.

Consider:.

Nikkor 70-200 f2.8...$1500 new to $1300 usedTokina 50-135 f2.8...$650 new.

The Tokina does not have an in lens motor and will not AF on the D40. It is also too short a focal lengthy for outdoor sports..

Sigma 50-150 f2.8...$680 newSigma 70-200 f2.8...$800 to $900 new.

.....

Get a compatible 1.4X teleconverter with the lens you choose..

That will reduce your maximum aperture to F/4 and halve your shutter speed..

Forget the BIG zoom lenses as they are all quite s l o w..

I think you mean big consumer zooms. They tend to be f/4 - f/5.6. Others are more commonly f/4 than f/2.8 which is precisely what you are recommending with the addition of a 1.4x T.C..

Chris Elliott.

*Nikon* D Eighty + Fifty - Other equipment in Profile.

Http://PlacidoD.Zenfolio.com/..

Comment #25

Chris Elliott wrote:.

It (50-135) is also too short a focal lengthy for outdoor sports..

Not necessarilly true..

If you are sitting in the stands trying to get your kids.maybe..

But, if you are a seasoned pro shooting from the sidelines.200mm equivalent is all you'll ever need!.

J. D.Colorful Colorado.

Remember.always keep the box and everything that came in it!..

Comment #26

MusicDoctorDJ wrote:.

Not necessarilly true..

If you are sitting in the stands trying to get your kids.maybe..

But, if you are a seasoned pro shooting from the sidelines.200mm equivalent is all you'll ever need!.

And which do you suppose the OP is? Now let me see what did he say?:.

"Brand new to this, only joined today. I just purchased my first ever DSLR last week, a Nikon D40 with the hopes of slowly getting into some sports photography.".

Chris Elliott.

*Nikon* D Eighty + Fifty - Other equipment in Profile.

Http://PlacidoD.Zenfolio.com/..

Comment #27

Chris Elliott wrote:.

Chuxter wrote:.

Consider:.

Tokina 50-135 f2.8...$650 new.

The Tokina does not have an in lens motor and will not AF on the D40..

Oops. You're right. I forgot..

It is also too short a focal lengthy for outdoor sports..

Depends on the sport. And with the 1.4 TC I recommended, it would work fine..

Charlie DavisNikon 5700, Sony R1, Nikon D300HomePage: http://www.1derful.infoBridge Blog: http://www.here-ugo.com/BridgeBlog/..

Comment #28

Chuxter wrote:.

Actually, we're in complete agreement...again. Except that cannon isnot even a zoom lens. .

Charlie DavisNikon 5700, Sony R1, Nikon D300HomePage: http://www.1derful.infoBridge Blog: http://www.here-ugo.com/BridgeBlog/.

Well, I'm sorry but you're actually wrong there: it's Sigma's 2.8/200-500mm. monsterZOOM (LOL)!There's no problem so big that you can't run away from it!..

Comment #29

Ringwraith69 wrote:.

Chuxter wrote:.

Actually, we're in complete agreement...again. Except that cannon isnot even a zoom lens. .

Well, I'm sorry but you're actually wrong there: it's Sigma's2.8/200-500mm. monsterZOOM (LOL)!.

Gosh, it doesn't look like a zoom. Must have [IF]?.

Actually, I forgot what it was..

Charlie DavisNikon 5700, Sony R1, Nikon D300HomePage: http://www.1derful.infoBridge Blog: http://www.here-ugo.com/BridgeBlog/..

Comment #30

Chris Elliott wrote:.

MusicDoctorDJ wrote:.

Not necessarilly true..

If you are sitting in the stands trying to get your kids.maybe..

But, if you are a seasoned pro shooting from the sidelines.200mm equivalent is all you'll ever need!.

And which do you suppose the OP is? Now let me see what did he say?:.

"Brand new to this, only joined today. I just purchased my first everDSLR last week, a Nikon D40 with the hopes of slowly getting intosome sports photography.".

All the more reason he should stick with a shorter telephoto and get out of the stands and on the sidelines..

Most non-photographers who purchase a DSLR do so to get their kids sports action as their little P&S cameras don't cut it..

However, when they do get a DSLR, their photos tend to not be any better because they think that slapping a big zoom on a DSLR is going to magically make their sports action shots perfect!.

But soon find out that they are no better than their P&S shots as they still need some photographic knowledge to get good action shots!.

Fully auto mode or sports mode on a DSLR just doesn't cut the mustard (or the cheese)..

J. D.Colorful Colorado.

Remember.always keep the box and everything that came in it!..

Comment #31

To everyone who has posted, I thank you kindly. However I fear that now I am further confused than before. I think just about every recommendation shy of me spending $1800 got shot down by someone else..

I am not looking for professional quality shots, I am doing this for fun more than anything. Im passionate about my sports, most of which are outdoor played by daylight. I would like to spend at a maximum around $1000 on a lens package. I just want something that will enable me to experiment and grow my skills a little, it doesnt have to be perfect and able to shoot a subject at 200m in complete darkness..

If I can buy a lens that will give me a taste for this sort of photography at entry level, then no doubt in the months to come I will be more comfortable spending the money to upgrade my entire rig..

Thanks again for the posts, You all have a wealth of information to share and I do appreciate it..

Further to this, at it seems the most feasable option at this point in time, will the Sigma 70-200 f2.8 HSM with a x1.4 Teleconverter suit my current requirements?..

Comment #32

I think you'll find that this lens + converter combination might suit your needs very well.There's no problem so big that you can't run away from it!..

Comment #33

Ringwraith69 wrote:.

I think you'll find that this lens + converter combination might suityour needs very well..

I agree. That's what I've personally decided to get. Already have the TC and am looking for a good "deal" on the lens..

Charlie DavisNikon 5700, Sony R1, Nikon D300HomePage: http://www.1derful.infoBridge Blog: http://www.here-ugo.com/BridgeBlog/..

Comment #34

That Sigma with teleconverter will work for outdoor games well, plus the lens by itself will work for indoor sports as long as you up the ISO to 1600 or 3200..

And, for outdoor sports in bright light, the old standard 70-300 zoom would do it!.

J. D.Colorful Colorado.

Remember.always keep the box and everything that came in it!..

Comment #35

Click Here to View All...

Sponsored Amazon Deals:

1. Get big savings on Amazon warehouse deals.
2. Save up to 70% on Amazon Products.


This question was taken from a support group/message board and re-posted here so others can learn from it.

 

Categories: Home | Diet & Weight Management | Vitamins & Supplements | Herbs & Cleansing |

Sexual Health | Medifast Support | Nutrisystem Support | Medifast Questions |

Web Hosting | Web Hosts | Website Hosting | Hosting |

Web Hosting | GoDaddy | Digital Cameras | Best WebHosts |

Web Hosting FAQ | Web Hosts FAQ | Hosting FAQ | Hosting Group |

Hosting Questions | Camera Tips | Best Cameras To Buy | Best Cameras This Year |

Camera Q-A | Digital Cameras Q-A | Camera Forum | Nov 2010 - Cameras |

Oct 2010 - Cameras | Oct 2010 - DSLRs | Oct 2010 - Camera Tips | Sep 2010 - Cameras |

Sep 2010 - DSLRS | Sep 2010 - Camera Tips | Aug 2010 - Cameras | Aug 2010 - DSLR Tips |

Aug 2010 - Camera Tips | July 2010 - Cameras | July 2010 - Nikon Cameras | July 2010 - Canon Cameras |

July 2010 - Pentax Cameras | Medifast Recipes | Medifast Recipes Tips | Medifast Recipes Strategies |

Medifast Recipes Experiences | Medifast Recipes Group | Medifast Recipes Forum | Medifast Support Strategies |

Medifast Support Experiences |

 

(C) Copyright 2010 All rights reserved.