snubbr.com

Sports lens for D40/D40X
I'm about to pull the trigger and order a D40 or D40X. Most of the usage will be photos of the kids, nature stills, ....

I would like to have the option to take pictures of my local minor league hockey team. Any suggestions on a lens that would get nice pics of fast sports action such as hockey? I believe any suggestions are going to be out of my price range, but it's good to know what it would take..

Many thanks!..

Comments (9)

Assuming the light is OK (i.e. outdoors during daytime)....

Nikon 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6G AF-S VR IF (330, UK) orNikon 55-200mm f4-5.6 AF-S VR DX (180, UK).

If you are not too far from the action, 55-200 might be enough..

If the light is poor (indoors / evenings etc.) then you are taking serious money for a wide-aperture tele zoom. It needs to be called 'AF-S' to autofocus on the D40/D40x, and I don't think there are so many of these, e.g. Nikon's 70-200 f/2.8 won't autofocus on your camera, nor will the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8....

Best wishesMike..

Comment #1

Mike703 wrote:.

If the light is poor (indoors / evenings etc.) then you are takingserious money for a wide-aperture tele zoom. It needs to be called'AF-S' to autofocus on the D40/D40x, and I don't think there are somany of these, e.g. Nikon's 70-200 f/2.8 won't autofocus on yourcamera, nor will the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8....

Correction. The Nikon 70-200 f/2.8 is an AF-S lens and the Sigma 70-200mm is an HSM lens. So both of them will focus on the D40/40x..

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

Tasik Biru - 'Blue Lake'..

Comment #2

The Nikon 70-200VR* AF-S f:2.8 sells in camera stores for $1799.99.

The Sigma 70-200 HSM (current version) sells in camera stores for $889.99 (new version coming out soon at $999.99).

You will need either of these lenses in a hockey rink, and at 1600 ISO, still might not open up enough for fast hockey action indoors..

You may want to consider a D80 instead of the D40/D40x as it will open up a wider range of AF lenses that don't cost as much as the two we've discussed..

The price difference between the more expensive body and the less expensive lens options might just end up being the same purchase price in the ling run, and you'll have a much more capable camera to boot!.

* Please note: VR (Nikon's image stabilization) will not stop action.

J. D.Colorful Colorado.

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

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

Comment #3

MusicDoctorDJ wrote:.

The Nikon 70-200VR* AF-S f:2.8 sells in camera stores for $1799.99.

The Sigma 70-200 HSM (current version) sells in camera stores for$889.99 (new version coming out soon at $999.99).

You will need either of these lenses in a hockey rink, and at 1600ISO, still might not open up enough for fast hockey action indoors..

You may want to consider a D80 instead of the D40/D40x as it willopen up a wider range of AF lenses that don't cost as much as the twowe've discussed..

The price difference between the more expensive body and the lessexpensive lens options might just end up being the same purchaseprice in the ling run, and you'll have a much more capable camera toboot!.

I agree about the D80. Two of the best moderately priced lenses with the potential for indoor sports are the 85mm f/1.8 ($389) and the 80-200mm f/2.8 ($915). Neither are AF-S...

Comment #4

I'm sold on a D40, happy with only 6M despite cropp etc. but considering 18-200 as a one lens solution for "mainly" sports / kids at middle distance. Anyone used an 18-200 on the D40? Thoughts?.

Kristian..

Comment #5

The 18-200mm VR. Look around and you will see a lot of negatives on this lens. But I do not recommend it because of that (I believe that the photographer, not the lens takes pictures and in the proper hands, the 18-200 is a wonderful tool)..

I do not recommend it because of it's price. You pay a lot of money for a focal range and slow aperture that can be had cheaper. If you really need the VR and the 18 - 200 mm focal range my advice is this: get the 18-55 (non VR for less than $80 USD and the VR for less than $200) and the 55-200mm VR (around $200 used) plus an SB-600/400 ($190/100) and you save a bit of change for a happy meal as compared to when you buy an 18-200mmVR(around $650+ last I checked).

Just my opinion..

Hope this helps!.

Respects,.

Doni.

...in matters of grave importance, style not sincerity is the vital thing - Oscar Wilde..

Comment #6

Jksmurf wrote:.

I'm sold on a D40, happy with only 6M despite cropp etc. butconsidering 18-200 as a one lens solution for "mainly" sports / kidsat middle distance. Anyone used an 18-200 on the D40? Thoughts?.

Kristian.

I simply love the little D40. It's a great camera. IMO, you'd have to move all the way to the D300 before I'd consider moving from the D40. I own a D80 and D300, and last Christmas purchased a D40 for my gal so she could go with me on my birding treks into the Everglades and such. She uses it like a point and shoot, but produces wonderful images..

We considered the 18-200 with the D40 and actually borrowed one from one of my brothers for a week. It is a good lens and for most is all they'll ever need. It's small, light weight and sharp enough for most. We didn't buy it, however..

She had been using my 18-135 on my brother's D40 and we both noticed that the images had a certain POP with more color, more contrast and better sharpness than the 18-200. It didn't have the VR, but it costs considerably less money..

We ended up purchasing her the D40 with the 18-135 as a kit for around $700 and havein't looked back. We now own two of those lenses and love both of them..

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

Comment #7

Thanks Doni & Guidenet. Price-wise it's clear the combo wins. Something I'll need to ponder!.

18-200 VR vs. 18-55(non-VR)+55-200VROR18-200 VR vs. 18-55VR+55-200VR.

Cheers.

Kristian..

Comment #8

If it makes your decision any easier, I have the non-VR 18-55 and I can't recall an occasion that made me wish for a VR. Especially @ 18mm, the lens is relatively wide too (is it f/3.5 or something I think?), so it's a piece of cake to take pics in low light..

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

Http://www.flickr.com/photos/96953368@N00/..

Comment #9

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.